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

[Sirwalterraleigh]

….well this thread is sure in the “deep, dark place”

 

[morphi]

Actually let me rephrase this. In your own scenario: Lgbtq is actually faced with discrimination by whoever uses it against them, straight/cis is faced with being an example of the law’s absurdity by whoever uses it against them.

You are conflating a neutral object being used by only one side in a dispute to attack the other side with the object itself being discriminatory. If two professional wrestlers both have access to folding chairs to hit their opponents with and only one wrestler uses them, the chairs are not discriminatory.

Further, I laid out how the law's neutrality as reflected in the text works against the possibility of only side using it in a discriminatory way both before it takes effect (e.g., preemptive or pre-existing regulations) and after (e.g., judicial rulings defining scope, scrutiny/tests, and application).

 

[ParkPeeker]

You are conflating a neutral object being used by only one side in a dispute to attack the other side with the object itself being discriminatory. If two professional wrestlers both have access to folding chairs to hit their opponents with and only one wrestler uses them, the chairs are not discriminatory.

Further, I laid out how the law's neutrality as reflected in the text works against the possibility of only side using it in a discriminatory way both before it takes effect (e.g., preemptive or pre-existing regulations) and after (e.g., judicial rulings defining scope, scrutiny/tests, and application).

I’m trying to continue with the wrestle analogy but I can’t because it doesn’t fit, it’s an example that is devoid of any dynamics, it’s completely in a vacuum, the object is in a vacuum. You keep trying to put everything in a vacuum from the real world and history, but you can’t, we can’t. Language itself isn’t in a vacuum.“Prohibit and Sexual orientation and gender identity” are not neutral words. They’re words with a lot of connotations, they’re both loaded words. And especially put together the words and meaning is hecka loaded and one sided.

Let me think of an analogy.

Ok suppose there’s a new bill proposed that says “In the city, it will be prohibited to sleep outdoors”
It’s not discriminating anybody, anyone has the ability to sleep outdoors in the city right? It can be used against the homeless, sure. But so what right, you can use it against somebody who isn’t homeless but happens to be tired that they ended up sleeping on a bench or outdoor setting.
Language can look neutral when you exert so much effort to see it in a vacuum.

 

[Casper Gutman]

You are conflating a neutral object being used by only one side in a dispute to attack the other side with the object itself being discriminatory. If two professional wrestlers both have access to folding chairs to hit their opponents with and only one wrestler uses them, the chairs are not discriminatory.

Further, I laid out how the law's neutrality as reflected in the text works against the possibility of only side using it in a discriminatory way both before it takes effect (e.g., preemptive or pre-existing regulations) and after (e.g., judicial rulings defining scope, scrutiny/tests, and application).

Again, why was an amendment that made it explicit that it pertains to both same sex and heterosexual couples rejected? Why did the champions of this bill not want to make its neutrality explicit?

Also, I am sure you are aware of the history of laws, particularly in the former Confederate states, that were designed to seem unbiased and benign if one looked only at the text separate from all other context but were intended to be and, in action, actually were horribly discriminatory, violating the civil rights of African Americans for decades and decades. Those seem like a real good example of the danger of pretending legal texts can be analyses in an artificial vacuum.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I’m trying to continue with the wrestle analogy but I can’t because it doesn’t fit, it’s an example that is devoid of any dynamics, it’s completely in a vacuum, the object is in a vacuum. You keep trying to put everything in a vacuum from the real world and history, but you can’t, we can’t. Language itself isn’t in a vacuum.“Prohibit and Sexual orientation and gender identity” are not neutral words. They’re words with a lot of connotations, they’re both loaded words. And especially put together the words and meaning is hecka loaded.

Let me think of an analogy.

Ok suppose there’s a new bill proposed that says “In the city, it will be prohibited to sleep outdoors”
It’s not discriminating anybody, anyone has the ability to sleep outdoors in the city right? It can be used against the homeless, sure. But so what right, you can use it against somebody who isn’t homeless but happens to be tired that they ended up sleeping on a bench or outdoor setting.
Language can look neutral when you exert so much effort to see it in a vacuum.

We can all think of of lots and lots of terms or words that seem benign but that are, given context, horribly racist or antisemitic. “Rootless Cosmopolitans” springs to mind. Such terms are designed and deployed to let the speaker disingenuously claim innocence - hey, the text, in a vacuum is so innocent - while actually signaling hate and derision and enabling cruelty and abuse. It’s a common tactic among trolls on the internet. And this bill springs from the same place - “look how innocent the text is! No bias there! You’re the biased ones,” cry it’s authors, knowing full well what the intentions behind the bill are and what effect it will have.

 

[morphi]

I’m trying to continue with the wrestle analogy but I can’t because it doesn’t fit, it’s an example that is devoid of any dynamics, it’s completely in a vacuum, the object is in a vacuum. You keep trying to put everything in a vacuum from the real world and history, but you can’t, we can’t. Language itself isn’t in a vacuum.“Prohibit and Sexual orientation and gender identity” are not neutral words. They’re words with a lot of connotations, they’re both loaded words. And especially put together the words and meaning is hecka loaded and one sided.

Let me think of an analogy.

Ok suppose there’s a new bill proposed that says “In the city, it will be prohibited to sleep outdoors”
It’s not discriminating anybody, anyone has the ability to sleep outdoors in the city right? It can be used against the homeless, sure. But so what right, you can use it against somebody who isn’t homeless but happens to be tired that they ended up sleeping on a bench or outdoor setting.
Language can look neutral when you exert so much effort to see it in a vacuum.

No analogy is perfect of course. I don't think yours was well thought-through as it misses a key distinction (a distinction that I made several pages back).

In your analogy not everyone sleeps outside and not everyone sleeps inside. So barring something that only SOME people do can be discriminatory.

This is not the case with either "sexual orientation" or "gender identity". EVERY human being has a sexual orientation and EVERY human being has a gender identity. Therefore, barring discussions of "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" applies to EVERYONE and is NOT discriminatory.

 

[Casper Gutman]

No analogy is perfect of course. I don't think yours was well thought-through as it misses a key distinction (a distinction that I made several pages back).

In your analogy not everyone sleeps outside and not everyone sleeps inside. So barring something that only SOME people do can be discriminatory.

This is not the case with either "sexual orientation" or "gender identity". EVERY human being has a sexual orientation and EVERY human being has a gender identity. Therefore, barring discussions of "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" applies to EVERYONE and is NOT discriminatory.

This seems to ignore that millions of Americans think being gay is a “sexual orientation” while being straight is “normal.” Again, look at the amendments to the bill that were rejected - that is exactly the bias that it’s authors seek to leverage.

It also ignores the huge network of special interest groups eager to file lawsuit after lawsuit, which is exactly what the bills authors want. Why include that as the enforcement mechanism? Why not just say something can’t be taught in K-3 rather then inviting lawsuits?

 

[morphi]

Also, I am sure you are aware of the history of laws, particularly in the former Confederate states, that were designed to seem unbiased and benign if one looked only at the text separate from all other context but were intended to be and, in action, actually were horribly discriminatory, violating the civil rights of African Americans for decades and decades. Those seem like a real good example of the danger of pretending legal texts can be analyses in an artificial vacuum.

Perhaps you had in mind some laws intended to keep former slaves from voting (e.g., literacy tests). Yes, that requirement looks neutral to some even though its intention and effect was not.

But see my previous reply to ParkPeeker. The literacy test laws (and other similar laws) were discriminatory because not everyone could read (and the ability to read was not considered necessary to be a valid voter).

Again, this case is different in that EVERY human being has a sexual orientation and EVERY human being has a gender identity. Therefore, barring discussions of "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" applies to EVERYONE and is NOT discriminatory.

 

[morphi]

This seems to ignore that millions of Americans think being gay is a “sexual orientation” while being straight is “normal.”

I think we have arrived at the real CRUX of the issue here--aside from text, intent, lawsuits, etc. There is a deep divide between two (to keep things simple) powerful groups in America. For simplicity I will refer to themas Traditionalists and Progressives. This law has sprung out of the struggle between these two groups regarding sexual orientation and, more recently, gender identity.

I think what you say is true that Traditionalists (even those who accept homosexuality and may even approve of legalized same-sex marriage) still hold heterosexuality as of a different ontological status than homosexuality. The same goes for transgenderism and cisgenderism.

The ultimate question is: Is that view legitimate? And what does the answer to that question mean for education of young children? [edit]

 

[lazyboy97o]

Again, this case is different in that EVERY human being has a sexual orientation and EVERY human being has a gender identity. Therefore, barring discussions of "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" applies to EVERYONE and is NOT discriminatory.

To you. Not others. Which is why more explicitly neutral language was rejected. You keep claiming it’s neutral while continuing to ignore the statements by those who crafted the text saying otherwise. The language was chosen because others do not consider it neutral.

 

[ImperfectPixie]

Perhaps you had in mind some laws intended to keep former slaves from voting (e.g., literacy tests). Yes, that requirement looks neutral to some even though its intention and effect was not.

But see my previous reply to ParkPeeker. The literacy test laws (and other similar laws) were discriminatory because not everyone could read (and the ability to read was not considered necessary to be a valid voter).

Again, this case is different in that EVERY human being has a sexual orientation and EVERY human being has a gender identity. Therefore, barring discussions of "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" applies to EVERYONE and is NOT discriminatory.

Then why allow for schools to NOT create procedures for withholding information from parents if there is a potential risk of abuse?

 

[Casper Gutman]

Perhaps you had in mind some laws intended to keep former slaves from voting (e.g., literacy tests). Yes, that requirement looks neutral to some even though its intention and effect was not.

But see my previous reply to ParkPeeker. The literacy test laws (and other similar laws) were discriminatory because not everyone could read (and the ability to read was not considered necessary to be a valid voter).

Again, this case is different in that EVERY human being has a sexual orientation and EVERY human being has a gender identity. Therefore, barring discussions of "sexual orientation" or "gender identity" applies to EVERYONE and is NOT discriminatory.

Again, WHY WAS AN AMENDMENT MAKING THAT EXPLICIT REJECTED?

There were also laws that voters had to answer certain questions on American history and civil institutions before voting. But guess who was asking those questions and evaluating the answers? In that vein, I ask again - why did the authors of this bill and numerous other culture war bills in GOP states make private lawsuits the enforcement mechanism, a very unconventional choice?

 

[ImperfectPixie]

To you. Not others. Which is why more explicitly neutral language was rejected. You keep claiming it’s neutral while continuing to ignore the statements by those who crafted the text saying otherwise. The language was chosen because others do not consider it neutral.

Intent is important.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I think we have arrived at the real CRUX of the issue here--aside from text, intent, lawsuits, etc. There is a deep divide between two (to keep things simple) powerful groups in America. For simplicity I will refer to themas Traditionalists and Progressives. This law has sprung out of the struggle between these two groups regarding sexual orientation and, more recently, gender identity.

I think what you say is true that Traditionalists (even those who accept homosexuality and may even approve of legalized same-sex marriage) still hold heterosexuality as of a different ontological status than homosexuality. The same goes for transgenderism and cisgenderism.

The ultimate question is: Is that view legitimate? And what does the answer to that question mean for education of young children? [edit]

Defining LGBTQ individuals as abnormal is not legitimate, no.

And I utterly, completely, and definitively reject the idea that those seeking to undermine and sidestep the US Constitution and the enlightenment ideals that inform it should be labeled “Traditionalists.” They can be labeled National Populists.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Intent is important.

So is impact.

 

[morphi]

To you. Not others. Which is why more explicitly neutral language was rejected. You keep claiming it’s neutral while continuing to ignore the statements by those who crafted the text saying otherwise. The language was chosen because others do not consider it neutral.

I may have misunderstood your previous point. Upon re-reading it, it seems like you are saying that some people hold that "sexual orientation" = "homosexuality"?!

I find that very hard to believe.

Does that mean that some think that "gender identity" = "transgender" too?!

No person involved with the application of this law thinks that the text in the bill that says "Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3" means the exact same thing as "Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on homosexuality or transgenderism may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3".

 

[morphi]

So is impact.

Not all disparate impact is caused by discrimination.

 

[morphi]

Defining LGBTQ individuals as abnormal is not legitimate, no.

And I utterly, completely, and definitively reject the idea that those seeking to undermine and sidestep the US Constitution and the enlightenment ideals that inform it should be labeled “Traditionalists.” They can be labeled National Populists.

I was speaking of ontological status of an orientation [edit], not of abnormality of a person. (But I made that point after mis-understanding your prior point. So it might be moot.)

I'm fine with rejecting the term Traditionalists. (Though I was using that term thinking more of traditional moralists not traditional politics.) I don't think National Populists quite gets it right. But it might be a moot point so we don't need to quibble over names.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I was speaking of ontological status of an orientation [edit], not of abnormality of a person. (But I made that point after mis-understanding your prior point. So it might be moot.)

I'm fine with rejecting the term Traditionalists. (Though I was using that term thinking more of traditional moralists not traditional politics.) I don't think National Populists quite gets it right. But it might be a moot point so we don't need to quibble over names.

Again I ask - why was an amendment making clear that this bill applied equally to heterosexuality rejected?

 

[morphi]

Again I ask - why was an amendment making clear that this bill applied equally to heterosexuality rejected?

You'd have to ask each individual legislator why they voted against any amendment. The analysis of their answer would have to include the text of the amendment (and how that amendment affected the rest of the bill).

If a legislator rejected replacing the text "sexual orientation" in paragraph 3 with "sexual orientation including but not limited to the heterosexual and homosexual orientations" thinking that with the original text judges (including appellate and supreme court justices) would just apply the ban to instruction on homosexuality, they'd be a fool.