I have not read the entire thread. Someone may have already provided a similar analysis of the bill. But here are the basics of my analysis:
The bill primarily does 3 things: (1) Guards parents’ right to know, approve, and access materials at the school regarding various things relating to the mental, emotional, or physical health of their children. IMPORTANTLY, there is an exception when there is cause to believe that involving parents will result in abuse, abandonment, or neglect of the child; (2) Requires that instruction about “sexual orientation or gender identification” does not occur in the classroom up through grade 3. From grade 4 and up, discussions on those topics are allowed but must be age- and development-appropriate (as defined in pre-existing legislation); (3) Gives parents rights to bring concerns to the school, then to the county school board. If resolution is not then achieved, they have the right to bring a case in court.
Those who oppose the bill call it the “Don’t Say Gay” bill. Well, guess what you also can’t say (thru grade 3)? “Straight” It’s the “Don’t say Straight” bill too. The topic of sexual orientation (gay, straight, or anything in between) is not to be part of the curriculum (thru grade 3). Same goes for transgender words. Not only can you not have a session about “transgenderism”, you cannot have a session on “cisgender” gender either!
Many who oppose the bill also worry that some students who do not conform to straight, cisgender norms will not receive the words of affirmation from their teachers and that many will be bullied, feel shame, and/or attempt/commit suicide. But, at such a young age, what would be concerning about themselves to these kids that might make them depressed or seek self-harm is not some concept about “orientation” (they are not sexually or romantically attracted to anybody at young ages) or “gender identity.” What would cause them angst is that they have interests or proclivities that are unusual (not common) in others they deem "like" them. So, a boy would be concerned if he liked making jewelry and didn’t like wrestling. Or a girl would feel angst about liking playing in the mud and not dressing up. (These are just stereotypical examples.) They are not thinking in terms of sexual attraction or genitalia v. self-identity.
But this bill does not stop a teacher from providing valuable lessons to these kids (and ALL kids) about the value of being kind to all regardless of how they are different, that bullying is wrong, that we share a common humanity and are similar in so many ways--but we each are unique in our own ways too. And, it seems to me, they are also free to communicate the message that not all boys like typically-boy things (and the same for girls) since this truth does not necessarily equate to transgenderism (and does not require the concept of transgenderism to explain). Messages like these help to safeguard the mental and emotional status of all kids. And this bill does nothing to stop this messaging. As the kids get older and their self-knowledge starts to expand into more sexual/gender identities, these topics can then be brought up. This bill allows that to happen from grade 4 and up in an age-appropriate way. I think that is wise.
