Bob Chapek's response to Florida's 'Don't Say Gay' bill

[DisneyHead123]

Putting aside the reliance on a Daily Wire poll, a completely untrustworthy organization, this is an odd piece. Sullivan opposes the bill because of its vague language, but seems not to fully comprehend that that vagueness is the point of the bill. The vagueness exists to get precisely these kinds of poll results while hiding the true, intended impact of the bill. Opponents of the bill tried to expand its language to include all discussion of sexual activities in K-3, but oddly, the very concerned legislators pushing this bill shot those down - why would they do that? Because the bill is not targeting "critical gender or queer theory," as Sullivan disingenuously suggests, trying to invoke the fears surrounding CRT. It's targeting very specific groups in ways the majority might not like if the legislators were honest - which Sullivan acknowledges in his last paragraph, but fails to make the connection to the vagueness of the bill.

Sullivan points out how disgustingly odious the slurs coming from the bill's supporters have been - and one of the main folks slinging those slurs is the Governor's own spokesperson. He then engages in "both-side-ism," trying to equate a vaguely defined left to a very specific bunch of legislators (in multiple states) using the power of the state to define certain people as abnormal and exclude them from society, and makes a lot of claims about what children are being taught. So I ask - we've had the example of the high school teacher in Washington, but what are some other SPECIFIC examples of the problem this bill is meant to address?

Would you mind linking me the discussion you referenced, to save me a Google search with awkward search terms, ha ha? Regarding opponents of the bill shooting down alternative language?

Regarding specific examples of teaching - I am chasing a screaming toddler right now, but Googling "gender theory kindergarten" will give you an idea of what Sullivan is speaking about here.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Would you mind linking me the discussion you referenced, to save me a Google search with awkward search terms, ha ha? Regarding opponents of the bill shooting down alternative language?

Regarding specific examples of teaching - I am chasing a screaming toddler right now, but Googling "gender theory kindergarten" will give you an idea of what Sullivan is speaking about here.

https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article258886088.html

The important parts, copied directly from the article:

Instead of restricting schools from teaching young kids about sexual orientation and gender identity, Brandes’ amendment would have stopped schools from conducting lessons on “human sexuality or sexual activity.” “If the intent is not to marginalize anyone. Let’s make sure we aren’t,” Brandes said. “Let’s be clear and clearly define and say that conversations about human sexuality or sexual activity that fall outside of state guidelines should not occur. We can do this.”

Sen. Dennis Baxley, R-Ocala, the bill’s sponsor, argued the amendment would “gut” the bill, but he did not elaborate. It was voted down mostly along party lines.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Using the same logic, it could also be called "don't say straight"...

So why did the bills champions shoot down an amendment that would have explicitly included straight sexuality?

Man, a lot of people sure seem to think this bill is intended to do something other then what it’s legislative backers intend. I wonder if THAT was intentional, too.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

So why did the bills champions shoot down an amendment that would have explicitly included straight sexuality?

Man, a lot of people sure seem to think this bill is intended to do something other then what it’s legislative backers intend. I wonder if THAT was intentional, too.

Very likely.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Would you mind linking me the discussion you referenced, to save me a Google search with awkward search terms, ha ha? Regarding opponents of the bill shooting down alternative language?

Regarding specific examples of teaching - I am chasing a screaming toddler right now, but Googling "gender theory kindergarten" will give you an idea of what Sullivan is speaking about here.

You can't use those search terms as a means to verify or disprove that gender theory is being taught in kindergarten, lol. That's not how searching works...all those search terms will show you is anything in which gender theory and kindergarten are included in either the title or the text.

The first result is an opinion piece. The second result is a biased piece from an obviously very conservative outlet. The third result is an article about a parent complaining about books FOURTH GRADERS are seeing.

In order to see what's being taught to kindergarteners, you need to find kindergarten curriculums - you know, the things kindergarteners are actually being taught in schools.

ETA: This kind of thing is why so many people end up in an echo chamber...they use search terms that are too narrow and that will only validate their already held beliefs and opinions.

 

[RunningKoen]

I have no idea how much it's worth: I have a (dutch) bachelor of education, as a primary school teacher. Maybe education in the States is very different, but for me one of the key elements as a teacher, is the social function a school has.

Any school is a (partial) reflection of society itself and social themes, as they are in big part of life but therefore also impossible to ignore. A school is possible the most important place where (young) kids get to meet and interact with other peers, learning social structure, morals and social skills. That includes sex.

Because for as long as sex and reproduction are a part of our everyday life, it will finds it's way into the schools.
Life happens, society happens and kids will notice that, regardless of age. They are very curious and have tons of questions. Small questions and big questions, even the little ones. They see small brothers and sisters being born. Little animals in the spring. How does that work? Keep in mind that you have a class full and all they do it share experiences and stories with each other.

Apart from that, they will notice that girls and boys have different bathrooms (and they don't always understand why), they will notice their bodies aren't the same (because they will compare). They will also experience their own bodies. There are a lot of different examples of very young kids somehow finding about a way to stimulate themselves, like rubbing their lower bodies over a chair, without any sexual intent because they simply have no idea what they are doing, but their body is having a natural response of pleasure. And at that age, pleasure = good = doing that again. They will learn and understand what is and isn't the standard. Not all of this happens at schools, but school is by far their biggest social network and biggest group of peers.

Sex (in the form of reproduction) will always finds it way into a school, you can't ban that. It doesn't even have to happen in or around the school, because a kid can come to school with the questions or just their stories that triggers questions from others.
But this works both ways: kids, even the youngest ones, will have questions about gender and sexual identify, regardless of what a teacher does and can or cannot do.

Prohibiting a school to be a guide in the views and morals of that topic is very dangerous, because it limits the views kids are exposed to and prevents the kids from forming their own view and it limits their respect for views on this topic other then their own.

There are a ton of very difficult social issues. The daily news, like the war in Ukraine. Covid. Death of a classmate. The classmate with no lunch and smelly clothes. The classmates who's parents are having a terrible break-up so he starts crying in the middle of the class. The list is endless and you cannot ignore them as a teacher. Instead of just teaching facts, you have a different role to deal with this.
I see it as the teachers job to provide neutral answers and be guide in the conversations about social themes. It's not my job to form their opinion, but to create the environment in which they can do so themselves. Educate and help these kids understand society and social themes, yet not enforce my own opinion. I was told, and I fully believe in that, that it is the job of teacher to be a neutral host for that. Not influence them, but to ensure there's an open and transparant environment where each one can choose their own opinion while having respect for the opinion of others. This also happens regularly at a very young age, but in the context and way that's relevant for them. In my own experience, this is even a bigger part of teaching younger kids than the older ones. It happens, a lot. For so many big and small themes. Teachers deal with it all the time.

And that's why I find this bill so extremely hurting. It's not only an direct blow to the LGBT+ rights and community but it also shows an statewide and enormous disrespect to schools and teachers in their social functions, a sudden distrust that the teachers of (small) children aren't capable of handling this particular subject with the care and tact needed for younger kids, while they do it for all the other themes all of the time.

For those giving the argument that parent wanting a say in how their kid it raised: where are the bills to limit education about social themes in general? About death and mourning? About politics? About wealth and poverty? About black lives matter? About sex ? About Santa Claus? (Believe me, this can be a big thing for some parents aswell ... I'm not joking)
Parents seem to be okay that the teachers can talk with their kids about all the social themes expect this subject. How is that not bigotry?

I don't believe that parents raise a kid. It's the combination of parents, family, friends, school, jobs and other people involved, each having their own role and own influence. That should be balanced. Even by limiting the schools at one particular theme, it extremely disturbs that balance because it opens the way for a social-themed censured school system.

 

[DisneyHead123]

You can't use those search terms as a means to verify or disprove that gender theory is being taught in kindergarten, lol. That's not how searching works...all those search terms will show you is anything in which gender theory and kindergarten are included in either the title or the text.

The first result is an opinion piece. The second result is a biased piece from an obviously very conservative outlet. The third result is an article about a parent complaining about books FOURTH GRADERS are seeing.

In order to see what's being taught to kindergarteners, you need to find kindergarten curriculums - you know, the things kindergarteners are actually being taught in schools.

ETA: This kind of thing is why so many people end up in an echo chamber...they use search terms that are too narrow and that will only validate their already held beliefs and opinions.

Here are some results I found, and yes, some are from right wing news sources, but as you said you were anti-bubble, I assume that’s OK. Looking at the info and arguments here, not looking at the source.

Speaker: Most Parents Have No Idea Schools Are Pushing Trans Ideology

Rather than teaching tolerance and acceptance of others, Shrier said teachers encourage alienation from families, 'much closer to child endangerment.'

thefederalist.com

Kindergarten Students in Connecticut Learn about Being Transgender in Line with ‘Social Justice Standards’

Elementary school students in West Hartford, Conn. public schools are being forced to undergo “social emotional learning through an equity lens” as district officials have reportedly told parents they may not opt-out of the curriculum, which aims to teach students a set of "social justice...

news.yahoo.com

The Radical Reshaping of K-12 Public Education (Part 1): Gender Redefinition & Self-Selection

Extreme ideologies are quickly taking root in U.S. K-12 public schools through new school policies, practices, and curriculums — with devastating effects on students. Unfortunately…

www.discovery.org

In short, I think it’s similar to CRT - the actual theory isn’t taught because it’s much too complex, it’s more of the logical *consequences* of the theory. I don’t even know that I have a problem with that in some cases (depending on specific content - I’m ok with kids reading books that have transgender characters, for example) I’m just noting that this is in fact happening. Gender theory is coming up in at least some schools, and many parents aren’t happy as they feel children this age are to young to understand these topics appropriately.

 

[RunningKoen]

Gender theory is coming up in at least some schools, and many parents aren’t happy as they feel children this age are to young to understand these topics appropriately.

Young children are very capable of understanding the concept of gender and learning about it. After all, it's something that formed during that period.

A big phase during their play-time is just mimicking adults. Wont go into the detailed theories, but thats why there are mini kitchen's, small dining sets, doctor and other uniforms on the market and an essential to each class room for little kids. Some of them love to dress up to any role, with any kinds of clothes. Most of the boys try the dresses at some point.

After a while, kids will start to understand who should or shouldnt wear the dress, and understanding who can or cannot play the mother of a family is perfectly example of that. Is happens because children pick up the expectations and standard their environment has.

 

[RunningKoen]

And teachers, please stay away from Santa, not your place you old, bitter Grinches!

It weren't the teachers. It was an extreme thing of what a parent though we shouldnt do.

It's sad but true we once had a parent who didn't do the entire Santa Claus (well, the dutch version of it) at home and was quite .... clear about that. Even worse: she found it a waste of school time to do anything about the celebration and almost made her kid go on a Grinche mode with a ' it isn't real, we should do our math stuff' tour/stampede telling all the classmates.

At some point, at a certain grade, schools change their attitude towards their class specific approach of the subject because most of them 'know'. These classes still join the celebrations but on a different way. As the older ones, they are now part of the big complot and have a own kind of special time. They don't draw that much anymore but still enjoy the atmosphere of all the little ones being very happy and excited.

But this kid was 4 grades before that point, with full classes of peers still believing it very dearly.

I also had classes where there was that one kid who still believed, way longer than usual. Quite a challenge to deal with that. You can't reveal it and have to prevent an entire class from doing so. After a while, the team of teachers kinda knew which families were early or late with this subject.

 

[RunningKoen]

Here are some results I found, and yes, some are from right wing news sources, but as you said you were anti-bubble, I assume that’s OK. Looking at the info and arguments here, not looking at the source.

Speaker: Most Parents Have No Idea Schools Are Pushing Trans Ideology

Rather than teaching tolerance and acceptance of others, Shrier said teachers encourage alienation from families, 'much closer to child endangerment.'

thefederalist.com

Kindergarten Students in Connecticut Learn about Being Transgender in Line with ‘Social Justice Standards’

Elementary school students in West Hartford, Conn. public schools are being forced to undergo “social emotional learning through an equity lens” as district officials have reportedly told parents they may not opt-out of the curriculum, which aims to teach students a set of "social justice...

news.yahoo.com

The Radical Reshaping of K-12 Public Education (Part 1): Gender Redefinition & Self-Selection

Extreme ideologies are quickly taking root in U.S. K-12 public schools through new school policies, practices, and curriculums — with devastating effects on students. Unfortunately…

www.discovery.org

In short, I think it’s similar to CRT - the actual theory isn’t taught because it’s much too complex, it’s more of the logical *consequences* of the theory. I don’t even know that I have a problem with that in some cases (depending on specific content - I’m ok with kids reading books that have transgender characters, for example) I’m just noting that this is in fact happening. Gender theory is coming up in at least some schools, and many parents aren’t happy as they feel children this age are to young to understand these topics appropriately.

It seems like the teachers or details of those articles might be too extreme and not in line with the neutrality I expect from teachers. But a few bad teachers shouldnt be the reason for such an bill.

We can also work out a bill for some other subjects to deal with bad teachers. This one isn't even directly fired but on leave ....

Third-Graders Instructed to Re-enact Scenes From Holocaust, Principal Says

A staff librarian was put on leave after students at an elementary school in Washington, D.C., were directed to simulate shootings and the digging of mass graves.

www.nytimes.com

 

[DisneyHead123]

Young children are very capable of understanding the concept of gender and learning about it. After all, it's something that formed during that period.

A big phase during their play-time is just mimicking adults. Wont go into the detailed theories, but thats why there are mini kitchen's, small dining sets, doctor and other uniforms on the market and an essential to each class room for little kids. Some of them love to dress up to any role, with any kinds of clothes. Most of the boys try the dresses at some point.

After a while, kids will start to understand who should or shouldnt wear the dress, and understanding who can or cannot play the mother of a family is perfectly example of that. Is happens because children pick up the expectations and standard their environment has.

I think one of the primary concerns is the recent, huge spike in young people who are born female transitioning to male, and some not insignificant percentage de-transitioning later. Even factoring in the idea that some amount of transgender people were pressured into keeping quiet before, my understanding is that the increase is so large that it's likely not explained by this. Which has led to speculation that social contagion may be at play here. That, in turn, has led to the worry that young children are not old enough to really process what they are being taught about gender - i.e., they may understand it in a childish way, as in "Oh, I can pick whatever I want to be?! Cool!! I'll be a unicorn!! No wait, a boy!! I'm a boy now, yay!" - not fully understanding the consequences of what they are saying, but then later they are locked in to the choice by social pressure and not wanting to act like their choice was 'fake'.

I'm agnostic on whether or not there is an issue there. I have read anecdotes about kindergartens in San Fran where supposedly over half the female-born students identify as male and such, but it's hard to know if that's true or just online gossip - and if it is true, hard to know if that's coming from teachers or from parents. My takeaway is that I get why parents are concerned, and think it should be treated as understandable, not bigoted. And what we need in response to that concern is good information, not sneers or eye rolls or accusations of transphobia.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Raunchy or not I think humor appeals to many . It improves your mood and exercises your lungs and diaphram. George Carlin, Steven Wright, George Lopez, Richard Pryor are some of my favorites.

We’re way off topic but I find humor, like music, essential for our mental well-being.

One thing I’ve found fascinating after years of working in Las Vegas is I feel better after working foreign language comedy shows, even though I can’t understand a single joke I come out feeling better just from hearing the laughing audience. There’s something very therapeutic about laughter.

 

[RunningKoen]

I think one of the primary concerns is the recent, huge spike in young people who are born female transitioning to male, and some not insignificant percentage de-transitioning later. Even factoring in the idea that some amount of transgender people were pressured into keeping quiet before, my understanding is that the increase is so large that it's likely not explained by this. Which has led to speculation that social contagion may be at play here. That, in turn, has led to the worry that young children are not old enough to really process what they are being taught about gender - i.e., they may understand it in a childish way, as in "Oh, I can pick whatever I want to be?! Cool!! I'll be a unicorn!! No wait, a boy!! I'm a boy now, yay!" - not fully understanding the consequences of what they are saying, but then later they are locked in to the choice by social pressure and not wanting to act like their choice was 'fake'.

I'm agnostic on whether or not there is an issue there. I have read anecdotes about kindergartens in San Fran where supposedly over half the female-born students identify as male and such, but it's hard to know if that's true or just online gossip - and if it is true, hard to know if that's coming from teachers or from parents. My takeaway is that I get why parents are concerned, and think it should be treated as understandable, not bigoted. And what we need in response to that concern is good information, not sneers or eye rolls or accusations of transphobia.

Well, I haven't done the research into that, but if the big wave of transitions is really due to role of schools, they haven't been neutral enough imho. But there are way more ways to fix that. If there's such a worry about the way good information, why isn't the bill used to form a frame what's part of that 'good information' and what teachers shouldn't and should do. Define the details for what is and isnt age appropriated and maybe create some general, high quality lessons for this.

The current bill does nothing to fix that problem: it only prevents the school from giving any information. Kids with questions will find their information elsewhere.

This bill is a way bigger limit on more than what you mentioned. And with the bill being so vague (on purpose?), there's a risk of even more censure on this social theme.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Here are some results I found, and yes, summer from right wing news sources, but as you said you were anti-bubble, I assume that’s OK. Looking at the info and arguments here, not looking at the source.

Speaker: Most Parents Have No Idea Schools Are Pushing Trans Ideology

Rather than teaching tolerance and acceptance of others, Shrier said teachers encourage alienation from families, 'much closer to child endangerment.'

thefederalist.com

Kindergarten Students in Connecticut Learn about Being Transgender in Line with ‘Social Justice Standards’

Elementary school students in West Hartford, Conn. public schools are being forced to undergo “social emotional learning through an equity lens” as district officials have reportedly told parents they may not opt-out of the curriculum, which aims to teach students a set of "social justice...

news.yahoo.com

The Radical Reshaping of K-12 Public Education (Part 1): Gender Redefinition & Self-Selection

Extreme ideologies are quickly taking root in U.S. K-12 public schools through new school policies, practices, and curriculums — with devastating effects on students. Unfortunately…

www.discovery.org

Okay, so let's break this down piece by piece. To be clear, my biggest concerns regarding sources are factuality and truthfulness as opposed to bias...BUT, the more extreme the bias (in either direction), the less factuality and truthfulness you'll generally find. mediabiasfactcheck.com is a fantastic resource to use when evaluating sources.

The Federalist article
The author says "Shrier [the speaker mentioned in the title] provided the stunning example of a kindergarten class in California where teachers inform their five and six-year-old students that their sex was randomly decided at birth and tell them it is now their mission to find what their gender is" but gives no citation or source. We're supposed to believe that because this person Shrier says it's happening that it must be so.

The Federalist is a questionable source, at best, known for publishing conspiracy theories and propaganda and is extremely biased. Please see: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-federalist/

The National Review article (linked through Yahoo)
The first red flag in this article is the use of scare quotes around social-emotional learning through an equity lens. Socio-emotional learning has always been part of school curriculums - it's why preschool and early elementary school are so important, as it teaches children about appropriate social behaviors and how to interact with each other and resolve conflicts in constructive ways. The second red flag is the involvement of Parents Defending Education , who aren't who they pretend to be and who attack anything that suggests that there are groups of people who get treated unfairly. They are a group of conservatives who are pushing the very same conspiracies about education that those who are against the "Don't Say Gay" bill are fighting against. This article about Parents Defending Education is commentary, but it includes links to back up it's claims: https://www.wgbh.org/news/commentary/2021/06/04/right-wing-dark-money-targets-wellesley Then there's this: https://www.mediamatters.org/critic...ight-wing-dark-money-and-critical-race-theory

This quote from the article is extremely problematic, too: "One parent raised a red flag about When Aidan Became a Brother, a book being taught to fourth grade students that the parent described as “full on gender theory” which is teaching students that the sex you’re assigned at birth is 'wrong'." If you follow the links in the article deeply enough, you can see documents released by the school in question and that claim is false - no one is telling children that the sex they're assigned at birth is wrong. There are stories in which characters are born one sex, but feel like they're really another to illustrate that SOME people feel that way, and it's okay for them to feel that way and that people who feel that way shouldn't be treated unfairly, which definitely IS NOT "teaching students that the sex you're assigned at birth is wrong".

Further, the document that lists the stories in question includes summaries of the stories, as well as the learning goals of the lessons involved (all conveniently separated by grade) - note that NONE of the learning goals even come close to suggesting anything about children being LGBTQ+. The lesson goals are all about recognizing personal traits, what makes each of us ourselves, and treating people fairly. The two documents released by the school can be found here - they're in the middle of the article as downloadable PDFs: https://defendinged.org/incidents/w...ansgender-content-introduced-in-kindergarten/

The National Review has a better reputation than The Federalist, but definitely targets the far-right (not extreme right) market. Their issues are that they make misleading claims and sometimes use poor sources - they scored the equivalent of a "C" in factuality. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-review/

The Discovery Institute
The Discovery Institute shouldn't be allowed to be associated with education AT ALL. They push pseudo-science and conspiracy theories and think evolution isn't real. (Not to mention the use of "discovery.org" in order to trick people into thinking they're the same as the Discovery channel or Discover Magazine - a common tactic used to misrepresent who they really are. Another important thing to be aware of is that ANYONE can purchase a .org domain.) https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/discovery-institute/

________________________________________________________

So let's look at these sources all together. It's important to note that they ALL are far-right/extreme right biased, and only ONE of them got even a mid-level grade on factuality...while the other two failed miserably. These sources are part of the effort to prevent teaching children that slavery happened, or that there are LGBTQ+ people in the world.

In short, I think it’s similar to CRT - the actual theory isn’t taught because it’s much too complex, it’s more of the logical *consequences* of the theory. I don’t even know that I have a problem with that in some cases (depending on specific content - I’m ok with kids reading books that have transgender characters, for example) I’m just noting that this is in fact happening. Gender theory is coming up in at least some schools, and many parents aren’t happy as they feel children this age are to young to understand these topics appropriately.

It's not really Gender Theory as a subject being taught in elementary schools...that's the false claim. What's being taught is merely that there exist people/children who may feel like they were born in the wrong body or who love people of the same sex, and that it's fine that they feel that way, and that how we treat people matters.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

It seems like the teachers or details of those articles might be too extreme and not in line with the neutrality I expect from teachers. But a few bad teachers shouldnt be the reason for such an bill.

We can also work out a bill for some other subjects to deal with bad teachers. This one isn't even directly fired but on leave ....

Third-Graders Instructed to Re-enact Scenes From Holocaust, Principal Says

A staff librarian was put on leave after students at an elementary school in Washington, D.C., were directed to simulate shootings and the digging of mass graves.

www.nytimes.com

Those articles can't be taken at face value. A little digging revealed that, and I wrote at length about the articles' content as well as the sources.

 

[DisneyHead123]

Okay, so let's break this down piece by piece. To be clear, my biggest concerns regarding sources are factuality and truthfulness as opposed to bias...BUT, the more extreme the bias (in either direction), the less factuality and truthfulness you'll generally find. mediabiasfactcheck.com is a fantastic resource to use when evaluating sources.

The Federalist article
The author says "Shrier [the speaker mentioned in the title] provided the stunning example of a kindergarten class in California where teachers inform their five and six-year-old students that their sex was randomly decided at birth and tell them it is now their mission to find what their gender is" but gives no citation or source. We're supposed to believe that because this person Shrier says it's happening that it must be so.

The Federalist is a questionable source, at best, known for publishing conspiracy theories and propaganda and is extremely biased. Please see: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-federalist/

The National Review article (linked through Yahoo)
The first red flag in this article is the use of scare quotes around social-emotional learning through an equity lens. Socio-emotional learning has always been part of school curriculums - it's why preschool and early elementary school are so important, as it teaches children about appropriate social behaviors and how to interact with each other and resolve conflicts in constructive ways. The second red flag is the involvement of Parents Defending Education , who aren't who they pretend to be and who attack anything that suggests that there are groups of people who get treated unfairly. They are a group of conservatives who are pushing the very same conspiracies about education that those who are against the "Don't Say Gay" bill are fighting against. This article about Parents Defending Education is commentary, but it includes links to back up it's claims: https://www.wgbh.org/news/commentary/2021/06/04/right-wing-dark-money-targets-wellesley Then there's this: https://www.mediamatters.org/critic...ight-wing-dark-money-and-critical-race-theory

This quote from the article is extremely problematic, too: "One parent raised a red flag about When Aidan Became a Brother, a book being taught to fourth grade students that the parent described as “full on gender theory” which is teaching students that the sex you’re assigned at birth is 'wrong'." If you follow the links in the article deeply enough, you can see documents released by the school in question and that claim is false - no one is telling children that the sex they're assigned at birth is wrong. There are stories in which characters are born one sex, but feel like they're really another to illustrate that SOME people feel that way, and it's okay for them to feel that way and that people who feel that way shouldn't be treated unfairly, which definitely IS NOT "teaching students that the sex you're assigned at birth is wrong".

Further, the document that lists the stories in question includes summaries of the stories, as well as the learning goals of the lessons involved (all conveniently separated by grade) - note that NONE of the learning goals even come close to suggesting anything about children being LGBTQ+. The lesson goals are all about recognizing personal traits, what makes each of us ourselves, and treating people fairly. The two documents released by the school can be found here - they're in the middle of the article as downloadable PDFs: https://defendinged.org/incidents/w...ansgender-content-introduced-in-kindergarten/

The National Review has a better reputation than The Federalist, but definitely targets the far-right (not extreme right) market. Their issues are that they make misleading claims and sometimes use poor sources - they scored the equivalent of a "C" in factuality. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/national-review/

The Discovery Institute
The Discovery Institute shouldn't be allowed to be associated with education AT ALL. They push pseudo-science and conspiracy theories and think evolution isn't real. (Not to mention the use of "discovery.org" in order to trick people into thinking they're the same as the Discovery channel or Discover Magazine - a common tactic used to misrepresent who they really are. Another important thing to be aware of is that ANYONE can purchase a .org domain.) https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/discovery-institute/

________________________________________________________

So let's look at these sources all together. It's important to note that they ALL are far-right/extreme right biased, and only ONE of them got even a mid-level grade on factuality...while the other two failed miserably. These sources are part of the effort to prevent teaching children that slavery happened, or that there are LGBTQ+ people in the world.


It's not really Gender Theory as a subject being taught in elementary schools...that's the false claim. What's being taught is merely that there exist people/children who may feel like they were born in the wrong body or who love people of the same sex, and that it's fine that they feel that way, and that how we treat people matters.

In summary - I do agree that it's difficult to draw extremely firm conclusions about what exactly is taught in classrooms, when the media (you would probably say right wing media, I would say media on both sides of the aisle) is rather ideologically driven at the moment. One likes to think they are not simply going to make up facts out of thin air, but certainly the details are subject to interpretation.

My conclusion is that we need better information about what is being taught in classrooms. I recall not long ago that there was a proposal that teachers put their curriculum online for parents to see (can't remember where that was, exactly) and there was a big hullabaloo about how then critics would go over plans with a fine tooth comb looking for issues. I can understand how that would be a stressor for teachers, especially if the critics are acting in bad faith, but ultimately I think the transparency would be worth it. To my mind transparency is the common sense middle ground here, then - don't pass laws saying teachers can be sued if they read a book with two mommies or daddies, but do create transparency so that parents know exactly what is being taught in classrooms.

 

[DisneyHead123]

Well, I haven't done the research into that, but if the big wave of transitions is really due to role of schools, they haven't been neutral enough imho. But there are way more ways to fix that. If there's such a worry about the way good information, why isn't the bill used to form a frame what's part of that 'good information' and what teachers shouldn't and should do. Define the details for what is and isnt age appropriated and maybe create some general, high quality lessons for this.

The current bill does nothing to fix that problem: it only prevents the school from giving any information. Kids with questions will find their information elsewhere.

This bill is a way bigger limit on more than what you mentioned. And with the bill being so vague (on purpose?), there's a risk of even more censure on this social theme.

I should probably clarify - I'm not in support of this bill. I think for some the bill is in response to at least semi-valid concerns - concerns that Democrats are currently ignoring or dismissing (probably at their peril come midterms). For some, this bill probably really is about anti-gay and trans attitudes, no doubt. And for many on the GOP side, I suspect, this bill is about opportunism - finding a way to gain political ground and nothing more.

My frustration with the Dems is not that they are against this bill - I'm totally cool with that - it's the way they've framed this as a battle between the ideologically pure on the one hand and evil bigots on the other. This dismisses the valid concerns of real people, discourages good faith discussion, and, maybe most importantly, is a losing strategy (in my humble opinion - but I'm no political strategist, of course.)

 

[ImperfectPixie]

In summary - I do agree that it's difficult to draw extremely firm conclusions about what exactly is taught in classrooms, when the media (you would probably say right wing media, I would say media on both sides of the aisle) is rather ideologically driven at the moment. One likes to think they are not simply going to make up facts out of thin air, but certainly the details are subject to interpretation.

My conclusion is that we need better information about what is being taught in classrooms. I recall not long ago that there was a proposal that teacher's put their curriculum online for parents to see (can't remember where that was, exactly) and there was a big hullabaloo about how then critics would go over plans with a fine tooth comb looking for issues. I can understand how that would be a stressor for teachers, especially if the critics are acting in bad faith, but ultimately I think the transparency would be worth it. To my mind transparency is the common sense middle ground here, then - don't pass laws saying teachers can be sued if they read a book with two mommies or daddies, but do create transparency so that parents know exactly what is being taught in classrooms.

I only addressed right-wing media because that's what those three articles are. I would say the same for any left-wing media that was similarly biased to the far- or extreme- left and lacked in factuality the way those three sites do. My top 5 preferred news sources fall under "left-center" (which is actually close to center on the scale) in bias or "least biased" (3 and 2 sources respectively) but all 5 rate extremely high in factuality.

I think if we did some deep research, we'd find that the majority of the websites and news sources pushing the idea that gender theory or critical race theory are being taught in schools likely fall into the far- to extreme- right category and that their factuality ratings aren't good...because it really isn't true. We aren't seeing articles from the far- to extreme- left here because they aren't making these claims. Yes, some elementary schools are teaching children that some people love someone who is the same sex as them, and that some people feel like they were born in the wrong body, but that's a far cry from the claims that are being made.

I do agree that there needs to be more transparency in regards to education - and the Common Core tried to achieve that (not saying the CC is great...just that it is available for anyone to read). However, going public with curriculum - even at the state or district level - is going to be problematic because as we saw in the three articles we've been discussing, there are special interest groups who will purposely distort the facts to achieve their goals at the expense of children's education and well-being.

ETA: Further, much of the general public doesn't understand how specific books and stories are used to achieve educational goals. That much is clear from the article you posted in which one of the books in question has a trans character and the parent was making false allegations about what is being taught (the claim was that children are being told that the sex they are born as is wrong).

 

[lazyboy97o]

My conclusion is that we need better information about what is being taught in classrooms. I recall not long ago that there was a proposal that teachers put their curriculum online for parents to see

“1003.42(3) Any student whose parent makes written request to the school principal shall be exempted from the teaching of reproductive health or any disease, including HIV/AIDS, its symptoms, development, and treatment. A student so exempted may not be penalized by reason of that exemption. Course descriptions for comprehensive health education shall not interfere with the local determination of appropriate curriculum which reflects local values and concerns. Each school district shall, on the district’s website homepage, notify parents of this right and the process to request an exemption. The home page must include a link for a student’s parent to access and review the instructional materials, as defined in s. 1006.29(2), used to teach the curriculum.“

 

[Casper Gutman]

I only addressed right-wing media because that's what those three articles are. I would say the same for any left-wing media that was similarly biased to the far- or extreme- left and lacked in factuality the way those three sites do. My top 5 preferred news sources fall under "left-center" (which is actually close to center on the scale) in bias or "least biased" (3 and 2 sources respectively) but all 5 rate extremely high in factuality.

I think if we did some deep research, we'd find that the majority of the websites and news sources pushing the idea that gender theory or critical race theory are being taught in schools likely fall into the far- to extreme- right category and that their factuality ratings aren't good...because it really isn't true. We aren't seeing articles from the far- to extreme- left here because they aren't making these claims. Yes, some elementary schools are teaching children that some people love someone who is the same sex as them, and that some people feel like they were born in the wrong body, but that's a far cry from the claims that are being made.

I do agree that there needs to be more transparency in regards to education - and the Common Core tried to achieve that (not saying the CC is great...just that it is available for anyone to read). However, going public with curriculum - even at the state or district level - is going to be problematic because as we saw in the three articles we've been discussing, there are special interest groups who will purposely distort the facts to achieve their goals at the expense of children's education and well-being.

ETA: Further, much of the general public doesn't understand how specific books and stories are used to achieve educational goals. That much is clear from the article you posted in which one of the books in question has a trans character and the parent was making false allegations about what is being taught (the claim was that children are being told that the sex they are born as is wrong).

Yes, this is a moment when media is ideologically driven - but the media has always been thus. The idea that Walter Cronkite was in some way a bastion of a golden era of impartial journalism is nostalgia. And if you REALLY want to see a biased press, go back and read up on Adams vs Jefferson... or Adams 2 vs Jackson. The idea that media is now uniquely biased is usually an attempt to dismiss the media as a whole because the speaker doesn't like what they are reporting.

What has changed is that the rise of social media has obliterated gate keepers and created an incentive for the abandonment of any notion of journalistic ethics, a phenomenon exacerbated by the country's dramatic populist turn. Not all news outlets have fallen to this temptation, but many have.

How much do schools lack transparency at the moment? Are parents banned from looking at the material students bring home, talking with teachers, and otherwise involving themselves in children's education? The "transparency" line is being pushed by many of the same folks behind the full-court press to attack public schooling, in this case by putting a further, huge workload on teachers who are already overworked and underpaid. In its most extreme form, the push for transparency includes mandates for live web cameras in every classroom. And many of the people pushing "transparency" measures are part of or closely aligned with the many groups who will use the information to attack teachers and school districts and try to make it impossible for them to do their job. And again, the web of special interest groups on the right laser-focused on culture war issues in education are completely unmatched in scope and enthusiasm by anything on the opposing side. More transparency might be a great thing, if everyone is dealing in good faith. But they aren't right now, which makes negotiation over even reasonable topics very difficult.