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

[ImperfectPixie]

The text of the bill targets public school instruction (up through third grade) regarding "sexual orientation" and "gender identity". If "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" (which reference gay/straight and transgender/cisgender) is considered "qualities of humans" (as you say) then I suppose it could be said to target "qualities of humans". But that is far from discriminatory as you contend because no distinctions are being made between classes or types of people (straight v. gay, cisgender v. transgender)--it simply takes certain topics off the table for instruction (up through third grade) in a non-discriminatory way.

I do not see your point about changing the text to "genealogical background and race" showing me why the verbiage is problematic. If you can expand your thoughts on that, I would like to consider that point.

The bill is clearly non-descriminatory and does not violate anyone's rights. It is also clear that many in the LGBTQ community do NOT want this bill to pass. BOTH can be true at the same time.

The "up through the third grade" part isn't exactly true, because it also limits these topics in grades 4 and up to what is "age or developmentally appropriate" without defining what that means exactly and leaving it open to different interpretations.

Any verbiage that targets the qualities of a group of humans opens the door for discrimination. There was an attempt (by another Republican) to change the verbiage to "human sexuality or sexual activity" so that it doesn't marginalize anyone (or target people), and that amendment was rejected by Baxley (the man behind the bill), on the grounds that it would "gut the bill". See the direct quotes here: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article258886088.html

Further, here is Baxley himself answering questions about the bill:



Even further, there have been claims that the bill only limits "instruction" and not "discussion", but that's also not true, as there is a line in the text of the bill that mentions "instruction" and also a line in the bill that mentions "discussion".

The problem with vague and broad bills like this is that they are ripe for abuse and weaponization...and that is 100% purposeful.

ETA: And if this yahoo Baxley thinks kids aren't talking about this stuff when adults aren't around, then he has no understanding of reality.

EDIT 2: The part about procedures to allow for the withholding of information in the case of suspected abuse. The wording of this part is EXTREMELY bad. It says "does not prohibit". That means such procedures are ALLOWED, but not REQUIRED...so schools may opt NOT to create such procedures. Such protections should 100% be required...better to prevent potential abuse before it happens, rather than reacting to it after-the-fact.

 

[Casper Gutman]

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.

Some questions:

What groups do you think are salivating to sue school districts under this bill? Do you think they will share your good faith interpretations? Do you think that the massive potential legal fees will exert any chilling effects on teachers? Would it surprise you if the very gentle, general lessons you suggest here are exactly the sort of thing that draws loads of lawsuits from eager special interest group? What is the legal definition of “instruction?” Why has the language of this bill been kept so vague? Exactly what other legislation describes what is age appropriate for those beyond third grade?

More succinctly - if this bill initiates a cascade of high-profile lawsuits against anything that even acknowledges the existence of same-sex couples and exerts a chilling effect on education, will you and everyone else interpreting this bill as harmless come back here and admit you were wrong?

 

[chriskbrown]

3 diverse takes here

1) I can't remember 2nd graders getting into this type of deep sexuality talk in school. Maybe at home where it's really the right place. Are 2nd graders becoming celebrities right now over this?

2) My wife is a teacher; legislative bodies telling educators what to teach is just over reach. Let them go teach high scool for a few weeks then come back. How about fixing teacher pay first?

3) Chapek is trying to reel in the corporate social political space - problem for him is that at least for now that cow is left the barn along ago. He is tryin to steer the ship back into a different lane/channel but it's not going to be pretty. I am not anti-woke here but understand what Chapek is trying to do. Yet it is not possible.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

3 diverse takes here

1) I can't remember 2nd graders getting into this type of deep sexuality talk in school. Maybe at home where it's really the right place. Are 2nd graders becoming celebrities right now over this?

They aren't. That's the dog-whistle.

 

[chriskbrown]

They aren't. That's the dog-whistle.

That's what was so weird about this - like making up a law that feels incredibly unneeded. I mean I had the awkward middle school health sex ed talk with the young female PE coach experience but I was like 13

 

[Crunchie9]

They aren't. That's the dog-whistle.

Strawman.

 

[morphi]

The "up through the third grade" part isn't exactly true, because it also limits these topics in grades 4 and up to what is "age or developmentally appropriate" without defining what that means exactly and leaving it open to different interpretations.

This is false. The bill clearly incorporates already existing state standards regarding what is age- and developmentally-appropriate.

Have you read the bill? You seem to never discuss the bill itself (the text).

Any verbiage that targets the qualities of a group of humans opens the door for discrimination.

The bill does NOT target the qualities of a "group" of humans. I explained this previously. The bill targets (instruction relating to) "sexual orientation" or "gender identity." These are things that ALL OF HUMANITY share--ALL humans have a sexual oritentation and ALL humans have a gender identity. They are not restricted to a "group of humans. Your analysis is flawed.

There was an attempt (by another Republican) to change the verbiage to "human sexuality or sexual activity" so that it doesn't marginalize anyone (or target people), and that amendment was rejected by Baxley (the man behind the bill), on the grounds that it would "gut the bill". See the direct quotes here: https://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics-government/state-politics/article258886088.html

Further, here is Baxley himself answering questions about the bill:

Why do you want to talk about this man much more than the TEXT of the bill? I can understand how it is unsettling if a sponsor of a bill is bigoted. But, by far, the most important thing about legislation is the text. And you seem to never want to focus on it.

If a good-intentioned legislator sponsored a bill and the text of that bill would have unintended negative consequences (in your view), you would not disregard the text of the bill and focus solely on the virtue of the man who proposed the bill. You would, rightly, focus on the text of the bill (and its unintended negative consequences) because you know that it is the text of the bill that matters, not the virtue of the man who originally proposed the bill.

Even further, there have been claims that the bill only limits "instruction" and not "discussion", but that's also not true, as there is a line in the text of the bill that mentions "instruction" and also a line in the bill that mentions "discussion".

The bill only targets "instruction", not "discussion". The word "discussion" you are referring to is in the preamble of the bill and is not part of the substantive legislation. It does not override the word "instruction" explicitly written in the core of the bill.

The problem with vague and broad bills like this is that they are ripe for abuse and weaponization...and that is 100% purposeful.

I do not find the bill vague or broad. Please provide details about how you find this bill to be vague. If it is vague, the court will strike it down or not enforce it.

ETA: And if this yahoo Baxley thinks kids aren't talking about this stuff when adults aren't around, then he has no understanding of reality.

I think you over-estimate how much kindergarteners discuss what kind of people they are sexually attracted to or what their mental view of themselves is relative to the masculine & feminine and relative to their genitalia.

EDIT 2: The part about procedures to allow for the withholding of information in the case of suspected abuse. The wording of this part is EXTREMELY bad. It says "does not prohibit". That means such procedures are ALLOWED, but not REQUIRED...so schools may opt NOT to create such procedures. Such protections should 100% be required...better to prevent potential abuse before it happens, rather than reacting to it after-the-fact.

The bill just leaves the status quo in place regarding a school's ability to provide information to parents if there is reason to think that it might result in abuse, abandonment, or neglect. I do not know all of Florida's laws at the state and county levels, but I would bet all schools are covered by such a policy already. And so this bill, does not change that. This is a very weak argument against the bill.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

That's what was so weird about this - like making up a law that feels incredibly unneeded. I mean I had the awkward middle school health sex ed talk with the young femal PE coach experience but I was like 13

It's absolutely unneeded. And if it's unneeded, then why the urgent and pressing desire to pass it? And why the efforts to ensure that HUMAN QUALITIES are targeted, rather than sex and sexual activities?

Sex-ed here starts in 5th grade, so ages 10-11 (but limited to the reproductive system until later grades).

 

[morphi]

That's what was so weird about this - like making up a law that feels incredibly unneeded. I mean I had the awkward middle school health sex ed talk with the young femal PE coach experience but I was like 13

The most controversial part of the bill is about not instructing "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" to children 8 years-old and under--not 13 years old as you mentioned.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

The most controversial part of the bill is about not instructing "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" to children 8 years-old and under--not 13 years old as you mentioned.

No. The controversial thing about the bill is that it sets zero limits or guidelines and is far to broad and vague in scope, leaving it ripe for abuse and weaponization from those who feel that even acknowledging that the LGBTQ+ community exists is inappropriate.

 

[morphi]

It's absolutely unneeded. And if it's unneeded, then why the urgent and pressing desire to pass it? And why the efforts to ensure that HUMAN QUALITIES are targeted, rather than sex and sexual activities?

Sex-ed here starts in 5th grade, so ages 10-11 (but limited to the reproductive system until later grades).

It was needed since some Florida public schools were instructing (or soon would be instructing) regarding "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" in kindergarten through third grade and Floridians, through their representatives in the legislature, did not want that to continue (or to start).

 

[Casper Gutman]

The most controversial part of the bill is about not instructing "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" to children 8 years-old and under--not 13 years old as you mentioned.

That's the part getting the press from both sides, yes. But that pesky little "or" in the section everyone quotes means that it is not limited to that group and can include 13 year olds.

 

[Nubs70]

All biological men should say they "feel" like they have menstruation cramps and walk out...science was abandoned a long time ago and now it's all about how we feel. Just like the menstruating (what the NY times is stating we should call biological women) women on the Penn swim team who are complaining about the trans athlete who keeps whipping out her *****...her *****. What a juvenile country we have become

Does that female Penn swimmer still possess her "twig and berries"?

 

[Casper Gutman]

It was needed since some Florida public schools were instructing (or soon would be instructing) regarding "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" in kindergarten through third grade and Floridians, through their representatives in the legislature, did not want that to continue (or to start).

Allow me to ask - what legal experts are you relying on to interpret the bill? Not political experts, legal ones.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

It was needed since some Florida public schools were instructing (or soon would be instructing) regarding "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" in kindergarten through third grade and Floridians, through their representatives in the legislature, did not want that to continue (or to start).

Links, please. If you're going to make a claim, please back it up with proof.

 

[morphi]

No. The controversial thing about the bill is that it sets zero limits or guidelines and is far to broad and vague in scope, leaving it ripe for abuse and weaponization from those who feel that even acknowledging that the LGBTQ+ community exists is inappropriate.

Not true. The bill obviously sets limits: limits up through grade 3 only, different limits for grades after that, limit on when a school must provide information to a parent, limits about what topics should wait for later grades, limits the process by which issues under the law must be handled, etc.

It also references pre-existing guidelines regarding what Florida defines as being age-appropriate in education.

See my previous reply about this bill being overly-broad. It is not. Please provide a better analysis of how it is overly-broad. If it is, the courts will overturn it.

Please demonstrate (describe a scenario) based on the text of the bill of exactly how it can be weaponized?

 

[Casper Gutman]

Not true. The bill obviously sets limits: limits up through grade 3 only, different limits for grades after that, limit on when a school must provide information to a parent, limits about what topics should wait for later grades, limits the process by which issues under the law must be handled, etc.

It also references pre-existing guidelines regarding what Florida defines as being age-appropriate in education.

See my previous reply about this bill being overly-broad. It is not. Please provide a better analysis of how it is overly-broad. If it is, the courts will overturn it.

Please demonstrate (describe a scenario) based on the text of the bill of exactly how it can be weaponized?

Again, what legal experts are you referencing? Do you have legal training?

I asked you a bunch of questions above, but to reiterate a couple - what is the operative definition of "instruction"? What "pre-existing guidelines" are being referenced - please cite the exact ones, and please cite where, exactly, the bill directly references them.

 

[morphi]

Allow me to ask - what legal experts are you relying on to interpret the bill? Not political experts, legal ones.

I read the bill. It is not complex and does not use arcane language. Being written in straight-forward language, I am able to understand the bill. Did you consult an expert linguist to understand my post(s) before replying to them?

Linguistics: the scientific study of language and its structure, including the study of morphology, syntax, phonetics, and semantics. Specific branches of linguistics include sociolinguistics, dialectology, psycholinguistics, computational linguistics, historical-comparative linguistics, and applied linguistics.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

I read the bill. It is not complex and does not use arcane language. Being written in straight-forward language, I am able to understand the bill.

You would think that would be the case. Having had personal experience with legal documents and their meaning and consulting three different attorneys (not about this bill), you'd be wrong.

 

[morphi]

Links, please. If you're going to make a claim, please back it up with proof.

I will amend my post slightly by changing "(or soon would be instructing)" to "(or many Floridians believed soon would be instructing)". Apart from whether or not Florida public schools were currently instructing like this, if Floridians (through their elected representatives in the state legislature) believed that their public schools would soon be instructing like this based on the public schools in other states instructing like this, this would be reasonable legislation to enact. Are you challenging the assertion that public school in some states are instructing like this?