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

[RunningKoen]

In Connecticut, it's very much class-and-income based, it's kind of sad. We have the January cutoff. The poor and working-class kids with late birthdays all start age age 4 because parents are eager to drop that extra year of childcare expense, but the families who can easily afford daycare or who have a stay-at-home parent almost all hold their kid back a year if they have a fall birthday.

It might be too off-topic, but we've noticed over here that the kids that are very close to the cut-off, or even pushed before that, just sometimes start too early. They aren't ready for some things and need an extra year.

We have a check to see if a kid should be ready to learn reading and writing. When not year, they re-do a full grade because they need an extra year without that pressure.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

they should all be fired on dress code alone.

If you're a grown man and you find yourself wearing basketball shorts outside of a gym, reevaluate your life.

 

[JohnD]

You know that "gay" is a sexual orientation, right?

You know that gay people exist even when children are in third grade, right?

You know someone in the class has a gay parent or sibling, right? It's going to come up. I don't see how it never comes up.

When someone is getting teased at recess because their brother is gay, the teacher can't explain different families to the class?

Your last line was offensive. You should edit it and apologize if you are decent.

You're right. That was strong language and I apologize. But I see I hit a nerve. I'll turn it around. Maybe you can now understand why parents are uncomfortable with sex being taught to children.

 

[Casper Gutman]

You're right. That was strong language and I apologize. But I see I hit a nerve. I'll turn it around. Maybe you can now understand why parents are uncomfortable with sex being taught to children.

So why did this bills champions vote down an amendment prohibiting the discussion of sex acts in K-3? I'd really like your take on that.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

So why did this bills champions vote down an amendment prohibiting the discussion of sex acts in K-3? I'd really like your take on that.

"Sex acts" is too narrow. There are lots of topics that are inappropriate that aren't "sex acts."

 

[Tony the Tigger]

You're right. That was strong language and I apologize. But I see I hit a nerve. I'll turn it around. Maybe you can now understand why parents are uncomfortable with sex being taught to children.

Thank you.

But I find it odd you think I want "sex" being taught to children. I already explicitly stated otherwise.

Acknowledging gay people exist is not teaching sex.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Acknowledging gay people exist is not teaching sex.

This bill does not prohibit any such thing.

If it were actually a "Don't Say Gay" bill, I'd be right there with you. But it isn't.

 

[Disney Analyst]

"Sex acts" is too narrow. There are lots of topics that are inappropriate that aren't "sex acts."

Good point, there are a lot of topics that could be considered innapropriate. Yet the only ones named are sexual orientation and gender identity.

I wonder why?

It’s as if this is targeted, but vague.

What aspects of sexual orientation and gender identity are inappropriate and off limits?

Where are the parameters?

Why were all efforts to add clarification shot down?

Why did they intentionally start the groomer narrative regarding anyone opposed to this bill in its current form?

 

[Tony the Tigger]

This bill does not prohibit any such thing.

If it were actually a "Don't Say Gay" bill, I'd be right there with you. But it doesn't.

Come on. You're too smart to fall for that.

The purpose of this bill is to delegitimize gay people, to prohibit teachers from getting it into little kids' heads that being gay is OK, that gay people are equal, that two mommies are ok. And some of them are ignorant enough to think talking about it or showing acceptance might make their kids "turn" gay.

That's what this is really all about.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Off to the gym - in my gym shorts LOL. WDWmagic phone app doesn't work for me anymore so I can only post on my laptop. Might be a minute.

 

[Bill in Atlanta]

You know that "gay" is a sexual orientation, right?

You know that gay people exist even when children are in third grade, right?

You know someone in the class has a gay parent or sibling, right? It's going to come up. I don't see how it never comes up.

When someone is getting teased at recess because their brother is gay, the teacher can't explain different families to the class?

In this situation, it would more than likely go to guidance and be handled in that setting, along with the parents.

Schools exist as a sort of informal agreement among parents to have their kids educated in a cost-effective way. There is never going to be perfect consensus among all parents on how exactly to accomplish this, but I'd wager that the vast majority would prefer to decide for themselves when & how to approach sensitive topics with their children.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

It might be too off-topic, but we've noticed over here that the kids that are very close to the cut-off, or even pushed before that, just sometimes start too early. They aren't ready for some things and need an extra year.

We have a check to see if a kid should be ready to learn reading and writing. When not year, they re-do a full grade because they need an extra year without that pressure.

They don't keep kids back anymore. At least where we live.

I actually wanted to hold my youngest back a year because of his significant language delay along with his developmental delay...at the time, he wouldn't have known the difference. I was told that wasn't an option.

 

[RunningKoen]

You're right. That was strong language and I apologize. But I see I hit a nerve. I'll turn it around. Maybe you can now understand why parents are uncomfortable with sex being taught to children.

There are a ton of subjects some or all parents are too comfortable with it being taught (at all). That shouldnt be a standard for what a school should or shouldn't teach.

When a school doesn't, kids will do so themselves. The desire to know will happen once things start to change.

 

[flynnibus]

As I've said, we're having three different debates in parallel.

[]
...to which I say... yes, no, and not a damn thing.

I think putting food in your drink is criminal and should be banned - however, I don't need a state law to avoid that situation... nor is there a real issue with me being able to prevent the problem from happening.

Much like this situation, inclusion of language around this into a state law is not necessary and does not address a legitimate problem that can't be addressed without the law. Which means the law serves some other purpose... and unfortunately in this case it's done in a way that opens up far more risks than gains. But this law is all about dividing people and trying to make it look like you've done something important.

Is there a problem with the board of education creating content in contradiction with the law today? If not, then the law isn't effective and is a burden.

Disney is a Florida citizen. If this issue really was just about school - I'd agree and say 'stay away' - but the truth is this is more about social issues in Florida. School is just the chosen battlefield because nothing fuels the fire like 'they are coming for your children!'

 

[Casper Gutman]

"Sex acts" is too narrow. There are lots of topics that are inappropriate that aren't "sex acts."

But so many of the folks championing this bill say its to prevent teachers from instructing children about "sex acts."

But the amendment wasn't that narrow, anyway. It banned instruction on "human sexuality, including, but not limited to, curricula addressing sexual activity." Seems quite broad.

It was proposed in both the house and senate, by a Republican in the latter.

The Senator who proposed it, Brandes, explained, "“It gives [the bill's supporters] what they want without treating people differently... It’s really focused on equality across the board and ensuring that those types of sensitive conversations happen at home for our youngest kids.” Seems like that would achieve the stated goal of the bill and what all of the supporters in this thread claim they want. Why was it rejected?

 

[Angel Ariel]

I'd wager that the vast majority would prefer to decide for themselves when & how to approach sensitive topics with their children.

Which is why family life/sex Ed has always given parents the opportunity to opt their child out. Long before this bill. I have yet to see why that’s not enough parental say?

(Keeping in mind of course the given that parents are involved in broader curricular decisions in other ways as well).

 

[Casper Gutman]

This bill does not prohibit any such thing.

If it were actually a "Don't Say Gay" bill, I'd be right there with you. But it isn't.

Why does this bill use private lawsuits as an enforcement method? Doesn't it seem like that element, combined with what you have admitted is the vague wording, is designed to chill and, in essence, prohibit mention of same-sex couples?

 

[Club Cooloholic]

In this situation, it would more than likely go to guidance and be handled in that setting, along with the parents.

Schools exist as a sort of informal agreement among parents to have their kids educated in a cost-effective way. There is never going to be perfect consensus among all parents on how exactly to accomplish this, but I'd wager that the vast majority would prefer to decide for themselves when & how to approach sensitive topics with their children.

Why do they have to be considered sensitive topics?

 

[Disney4Lyfe]

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.

Excellent perspective!

Unfortunately we don’t have this level of trust here in the states. We locked kids out of schools for months and in some cases years. Millions of kids dropped out and have not come back. We have a crisis of literacy. It’s a mess.

To this specific topic…Wether folks want to admit it or not. There is a lot of questionable instruction happening in our schools. I seem to recall a Florida School Board member taking a group of very young children to a gay bar, where the menu was assuredly not age appropriate. I could also start linking some very inappropriate lessons and messages from Teachers that have inexplicably been posted to social media, I won’t do it publicly here, but if you’d like I can aim you in the right direction in a private message.

There has also been a concerted effort to keep parents out of schools. Which as a teacher myself, was a HUGE mistake. And now there has been massive blowback. Look to the Virginia election if you don’t believe me.

I appreciate your outlook, and I so wish we could have that type of school situation here. Sounds quite idyllic. But you Nordic countries have earned quite a bit more trust then your American counterparts. Especially the last 2+ years!

 

[JohnD]

So why did this bills champions vote down an amendment prohibiting the discussion of sex acts in K-3? I'd really like your take on that.

You tell me which amendment and I'll be happy to discuss it. The entire bill history is found here: https://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=76545&SessionId=93