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

[CaptainAmerica]

Is showing heterosexual couples - like almost every Disney film ever - “talking about sex?” Or are only same-sex couples inherently, unavoidably sexual?

We're talking about preschool content. Neither heterosexual nor any other kind of sexual content needs to be injected into it.

High School Musical: The Musical: The Series has tons of gay content. I love it. My wife loves it. Our oldest daughter loves it. It's not a PRESCHOOL show.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

That's where the disconnect is. People don't understand that only adults make any assumptions about sex. Children have absolutely no reason to - for them, it's only about love and caring.

True, no child has ever asked where babies come from, everyone knows this.

 

[Casper Gutman]

We're talking about preschool content. Neither heterosexual nor any other kind of sexual content needs to be injected into it.

High School Musical: The Musical: The Series has tons of gay content. I love it. My wife loves it. Our oldest daughter loves it. It's not a PRESCHOOL show.

So you consider every classic Disney film, every cartoon with a married couple, unfit for preschoolers?

 

[ImperfectPixie]

True, no child has ever asked where babies come from, everyone knows this.

Don't be ridiculous. They ask where they come from because they have no idea. And they don't know it's because of sex until adults tell them it is.

 

[Figment1984]

Hi - long time lurker, first time poster. Thanks for posting something so abhorrent that finally pushed me to join the fun.

This is fantastic. A week ago, the idea that some teachers might possibly be pushing "queer content" on young children was a conspiracy theory. Now, the idea that media executives are pushing "queer content" on young children is not only acknowledged (because they were busted), but it's Good, Actually.

How are queer writers and producers wanting to create content that represents them and their stories unacceptable? I guess gay people should just sit down and be grateful that they are allowed to exist but let's not dare try to be public about their stories or create characters that represent themselves. Any sort of LGBT representation is pushing "queer content". The only way to placate what you're asking for is to stay in the closet.

Nothing in the video you shared was inappropriate to me. It was a queer person who joined the network, scared that she was going to be forbidden from including queer characters in her show due to the company's long history of previous censorship - and was pleasantly surprised that Disney allowed it. Pixar literally penned a letter earlier this month that accused Disney executives of forcefully changing significant portions of their stories and characters that had any hints of LGBT representation in them. She has every right to be proud of her show and to continue pushing for more representation that was forbidden for years and years.

Exactly to what extent can LGBT people do to make their existence publicized and normalized without being accused of pushing "queer content" or the "gay agenda" in your eyes? I'm honestly curious.

Why are so many people this eager to talk to my preschoolers about sex?

And this post is where my mouth dropped. When someone utters the words "homosexual" or "gay" do you immediately get inappropriate, perversive thoughts flooding your brain? Nobody said anything about sex. It seems you're exclusively equating LGBT content to whatever goes on in the bedroom. When you see a pregnant woman or heterosexual parents do you immediately think of sexual thoughts and start fantasizing about what they did? Because that's just weird and I really hope you work on that.

We're talking about preschool content. Neither heterosexual nor any other kind of sexual content needs to be injected into it.

High School Musical: The Musical: The Series has tons of gay content. I love it. My wife loves it. Our oldest daughter loves it. It's not a PRESCHOOL show.

"We're talking about preschool content."
Lol huh? Nobody ever mentioned preschool content in these recent posts. I went back and looked at the article, I went back and looked at the video, not once did anyone specifically mention queer content designed for preschoolers. You're either incredibly confused and didn't watch the own video you posted, or you're trying to walk back on what you said earlier.

 

[DisneyHead123]

Another interesting article - this one is clearly from a conservative point of view but the author says he or she is an Imagineer:

Disney’s Institutional Capture

The declarations from Disney’s executive leadership have been agonizing and predictable, remarkable only for their robotic conformity. On March 11th, Disney’s CEO Bob Chapek released a statement which began like this: To my fellow colleagues, but especially our LGBTQ+ community, Thank you to...

quillette.com

 

[Casper Gutman]

Another interesting article - this one is clearly from a conservative point of view but the author says he or she is an Imagineer:

Disney’s Institutional Capture

The declarations from Disney’s executive leadership have been agonizing and predictable, remarkable only for their robotic conformity. On March 11th, Disney’s CEO Bob Chapek released a statement which began like this: To my fellow colleagues, but especially our LGBTQ+ community, Thank you to...

quillette.com

Well, a quick skim makes clear that the author misrepresents the intent of the bill, saying it bans discussion of "sexual topics" in K-3. As I'm sure everyone in this thread is bored of hearing by now, the supporters of this bill rejected amendments that WOULD have banned sexual topic in K-3 because they claimed it would "gut" the bill.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Another interesting article - this one is clearly from a conservative point of view but the author says he or she is an Imagineer:

Disney’s Institutional Capture

The declarations from Disney’s executive leadership have been agonizing and predictable, remarkable only for their robotic conformity. On March 11th, Disney’s CEO Bob Chapek released a statement which began like this: To my fellow colleagues, but especially our LGBTQ+ community, Thank you to...

quillette.com

There are a few issues I have with this point of view.

1. It doesn't address the fact that even legal experts describe the bill as discriminatory and designed to be weaponized.
2. The bill - for the millionth time - IS NOT about sexual topics. An amendment that would have made sure it was targeting sexual topics was shot down. The bill is specifically about "sexual orientation and gender identity"...and that's all.
3. It's the point of view of someone who very clearly isn't part of a marginalized group that has been struggling for equal rights. This person clearly has no idea what it's like to have to seek out characters you identify with in film, television, or books. (Not that I have personal experience, but I care about people who do.)

 

[DLR92]

Don't be ridiculous. They ask where they come from because they have no idea. And they don't know it's because of sex until adults tell them it is.

I have asked this question to every adult when I was given different answers when I was 6!

 

[DisneyHead123]

Well, a quick skim makes clear that the author misrepresents the intent of the bill, saying it bans discussion of "sexual topics" in K-3. As I'm sure everyone in this thread is bored of hearing by now, the supporters of this bill rejected amendments that WOULD have banned sexual topic in K-3 because they claimed it would "gut" the bill.

There are a few issues I have with this point of view.

1. It doesn't address the fact that even legal experts describe the bill as discriminatory and designed to be weaponized.
2. The bill - for the millionth time - IS NOT about sexual topics. An amendment that would have made sure it was targeting sexual topics was shot down. The bill is specifically about "sexual orientation and gender identity"...and that's all.
3. It's the point of view of someone who very clearly isn't part of a marginalized group that has been struggling for equal rights. This person clearly has no idea what it's like to have to seek out characters you identify with in film, television, or books. (Not that I have personal experience, but I care about people who do.)

This person is an Imagineer, not a lawyer, so I don’t think they have any special insight into or expertise on the bill itself. But it seems very rare to hear an “insider’s view” of Disney, so I thought that aspect was interesting.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

This person is an Imagineer, not a lawyer, so I don’t think they have any special insight into or expertise on the bill itself. But it seems very rare to hear an “insider’s view” of Disney, so I thought that aspect was interesting.

The author even misrepresented the bill when they asked other CMs about it...by referring to it banning "sexual topics", when that isn't what it bans.

 

[mkt]

First challenge to the law has been filed

First federal lawsuit filed against Florida's "Don't Say Gay" law

The law "is an unlawful attempt to stigmatize, silence, and erase LGBTQ people in Florida’s public schools."

www.axios.com

 

[mkt]

First challenge to the law has been filed

First federal lawsuit filed against Florida's "Don't Say Gay" law

The law "is an unlawful attempt to stigmatize, silence, and erase LGBTQ people in Florida’s public schools."

www.axios.com

And the full text of the suit:

https://www.kaplanhecker.com/sites/default/files/ECF%201_Complaint_Equality%20Florida%20et%20al%20v%20Desantis%20et%20al_22cv00134.pdf

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Boil it down to it's bare essence and this is simply an argument about indoctrination of children. Liberals believe they should be able to indoctrinate other peoples' kids on any topic at any age with no pushback (and be paid by the taxpayers to do it). And Conservatives believe they (and only they) should control what is taught to their own children regarding sexual orientation (and a multitude of other political divisive topics). Everything else is just talking points, political double speak and posturing.

Liberals want to teach children that being gay (and trans, and every other non-straight sexual proclivity a person might describe themselves as at any given moment) is normal; as early in childhood as possible because the younger a person adopts a belief, the more likely they are to believe it strongly for the rest of their lives. And Conservatives want their childrens' educations on sexual orientation to come from sources they (and only they) deem appropriate.

If you want to understand what is going on, read up on Joe Camel.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Boil it down to it's bare essence and this is simply an argument about indoctrination of children. Liberals believe they should be able to indoctrinate other peoples' kids on any topic at any age with no pushback (and be paid by the taxpayers to do it). And Conservatives believe they (and only they) should control what is taught to their own children regarding sexual orientation (and a multitude of other political divisive topics). Everything else is just talking points, political double speak and posturing.

Liberals want to teach children that being gay (and trans, and every other non-straight sexual proclivity a person might describe themselves as at any given moment) is normal; as early in childhood as possible because the younger a person adopts a belief, the more likely they are to believe it strongly for the rest of their lives. And Conservatives want their childrens' educations on sexual orientation to come from sources they (and only they) deem appropriate.

If you want to understand what is going on, read up on Joe Camel.

So you feel this bill is intended to prevent children from being taught that gay people are normal?

 

[AdventureHasAName]

So you feel this bill is intended to prevent children from being taught that gay people are normal?

No, I feel this bill is intended to prevent children from being educated K through 3rd about sexual orientation of any kind by public school teachers.

 

[Casper Gutman]

No, I feel this bill is intended to prevent children from being educated K through 3rd about sexual orientation of any kind by public school teachers.

That doesn’t seem to be what your previous post was saying, but OK. So any depiction of heterosexual marriage or romance is banned under this bill as well?

 

[mkt]

Liberals believe they should be able to indoctrinate other peoples' kids on any topic at any age with no pushback

No. They don't.

Liberals want to teach children that being gay (and trans, and every other non-straight sexual proclivity a person might describe themselves as at any given moment) is normal

That's because it is. And even if it weren't, who cares what someone else does with their life that doesn't affect you?

 

[AdventureHasAName]

That doesn’t seem to be what your previous post was saying, but OK. So any depiction of heterosexual marriage or romance is banned under this bill as well?

No, any instruction about heterosexual marriage or romance is banned by the bill. Also banned? A 1st grade teacher telling their student (with two gay dads) that their parents are sexual deviants who are going to go to hell when they die. Do you feel that if a teacher felt like teaching that to their students they should be allowed to? How about if a teacher felt like teaching its 2nd grade class that a man having three wives is perfectly normal and if their parents don't agree, they are bigots?

This bill is well-designed in that it simply states that a teacher should not and cannot provide instruction on any of it because it is not appropriate for children of that age.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

That's because it is. And even if it weren't, who cares what someone else does with their life that doesn't affect you?

The parents of the kids who don't want it taught in the classroom and don't want to pay for it with taxpayer money.