FL HB 1557 (dubbed by critics as “don’t say gay)

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Mar 11, 2006
4,644
2,492
1,743
#1
I finally got bored enough to actually read the bill. First, nowhere in the bill is the word “gay” mentioned. Second, I don’t see anything controversial in the bill.
It is about parental rights in schools. There is one small section about not teaching about gender identity or sexual orientation in grades K through 3rd grade.

Is there anyone that thinks we should have public school instruction in young elementary grades on gender identity and sexual orientation? I can’t imagine why, but would love to hear what I may be missing in perspective.

After reading this bill, I don’t get the fuss.
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
12,977
4,671
1,743
#3
There's a TikTok influencer that had a bunch of misinformation about it. She says it is the "Don't Say Gay Bill" like that is really the name of the bill. She goes on to say they are erasing anything from schools that had anything to do with gay, etc.. people. Including removing then from history books. Then starts talking about how line 40% of homeless in Florida are LGBT,etc... youth, and that this will cause there to be more.

It's like many of the voter id laws. People don't read them to see how people are able to obtain free ids to comply with the laws, but instead start talking about how minorities can't afford them and so they are a poll tax...

So much common sense out the window these days.

Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk
 
Sep 3, 2010
1,101
227
1,693
#8
No but it gives you a good mindset of the people who are supporting and pushing for it and where their mentality and focus is at the time they are working on the bill.
What exactly is the mentality and focus of the people that want to talk to my 6 year old grandkids about sex in school?
 

oks10

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 9, 2007
11,201
6,887
1,743
Piedmont, OK
#9
I finally got bored enough to actually read the bill. First, nowhere in the bill is the word “gay” mentioned. Second, I don’t see anything controversial in the bill.
It is about parental rights in schools. There is one small section about not teaching about gender identity or sexual orientation in grades K through 3rd grade.

Is there anyone that thinks we should have public school instruction in young elementary grades on gender identity and sexual orientation?
I can’t imagine why, but would love to hear what I may be missing in perspective.

After reading this bill, I don’t get the fuss.
My question is, ARE these things being discussed in young elementary? This goes along with the fight against CRT. Are these things ACTUALLY being taught in schools at young ages or are these just some political bogeymen that politicians are using to drum up their base for votes?
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,904
17,376
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#10
No but it gives you a good mindset of the people who are supporting and pushing for it and where their mentality and focus is at the time they are working on the bill.
I'm just saying, maybe when talking about the bill, we talk about what's actually in the bill. And we can talk about the mindset of the politicians when we are discussing the politicians.

The topic was whether or not this bill is as bad as some people are saying. The belief of the governor does not matter in that regard unless those beliefs are in the bill.
 

Pokit N

Gent of Good Intent
A/V Subscriber
Sep 29, 2006
8,527
4,859
1,743
43
Lily Lake, IL
#12
My question is, ARE these things being discussed in young elementary? This goes along with the fight against CRT. Are these things ACTUALLY being taught in schools at young ages or are these just some political bogeymen that politicians are using to drum up their base for votes?
YEP in both cases YEP
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,644
2,492
1,743
#13
I guess don't acknowledge Trans people either ?

https://twitter.com/tulsaworld/status/1506609975145152512
As @CocoCincinnati correctly said, this has nothing to do with the bill I posted about. It probably deserves it own thread, but I think it is worth addressing.

First, I think the DeSantis proclamation was silly. DeSantis is definitely playing politics. He is just looking to get press ---seems to me it is signaling a Presidential run. But it was politically smart of him. Almost all Republicans, almost all independents, and a strong percentage of Democrats understand that allowing a biological male to compete in female sports is inherently unfair.

Second, you can absolutely be for transgender rights...recognize people as transgender and work to insure you respect the individual by calling them by their preferred new name and/or pronoun. You can strongly be for allowing people to be what they want to be. But you can also understand that there is a biological reason we have separate men's and women's sporting competitions for many sports. As a father of two daughters, I find it hard to understand why a small minority in the far-far left think allowing a biological man to participate in women's sports is fair.
There are several examples:
Lia Thomas (I think she was ranked the 400th best swimmer when she was a man and now she is the #1 swimmer in her main race. Venus and Serena are other great examples. They are two of the best women's tennis players of all-time. Yet when they played a male player ranked outside the top 200 they lost 6-1 and 6-2. The national women's soccer team that won the World Cup lost 5-2 to a high school boys team in an exhibition.

As I have mentioned before, I have a niece who used to be my nephew. My family respects her decision. It is her life. She should have all rights to work, marry, and live how she chooses. We would never disparage her and always call her by her new name and pronouns. But that doesn't mean I think my niece, if she was into high-level competitive sports, should be able to take the place of female on a sports team.
 

CocoCincinnati

Federal Marshal
Feb 7, 2007
16,904
17,376
1,743
Tulsa, OK
#14
No but it gives you a good mindset of the people who are supporting and pushing for it and where their mentality and focus is at the time they are working on the bill.
I will add to my previous point that sometimes our politicians write bills that are so large and impossible to understand that our only recourse is the consider the mindset of those pushing it. So if that is the case with this particular bill then your comment was not unwarranted in the discussion.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,644
2,492
1,743
#15
My question is, ARE these things being discussed in young elementary? This goes along with the fight against CRT. Are these things ACTUALLY being taught in schools at young ages or are these just some political bogeymen that politicians are using to drum up their base for votes?
I think that is a fair question. Honestly, I don't know. My assumption is probably no - and would hope not. So is that portion of the bill needed ...maybe not...but is there a harm with including it??
I am always for LESS regulation, but unless there is something else I am not understanding in the provision of the bill I read -- I don't think it causes any additional work for school employees.
 

Binman4OSU

Legendary Cowboy
Aug 31, 2007
36,737
10,829
1,743
Stupid about AGW!!
#16
I think that is a fair question. Honestly, I don't know. My assumption is probably no - and would hope not. So is that portion of the bill needed ...maybe not...but is there a harm with including it??
I am always for LESS regulation, but unless there is something else I am not understanding in the provision of the bill I read -- I don't think it causes any additional work for school employees.
I very seriously dislike the idea of legislating to change something that isn't actually occurring but the idea it may occur drives the legislation. I've always saw this as a waste of time and tax payers $$'s. but I can understand it sometimes.

In this case and the entire Political environment of Florida surrounding MULTIPLE issues....I just don't get it
 

wrenhal

Federal Marshal
Aug 11, 2011
12,977
4,671
1,743
#17
I finally got bored enough to actually read the bill. First, nowhere in the bill is the word “gay” mentioned. Second, I don’t see anything controversial in the bill.
It is about parental rights in schools. There is one small section about not teaching about gender identity or sexual orientation in grades K through 3rd grade.

Is there anyone that thinks we should have public school instruction in young elementary grades on gender identity and sexual orientation?
I can’t imagine why, but would love to hear what I may be missing in perspective.

After reading this bill, I don’t get the fuss.
My question is, ARE these things being discussed in young elementary? This goes along with the fight against CRT. Are these things ACTUALLY being taught in schools at young ages or are these just some political bogeymen that politicians are using to drum up their base for votes?
There are videos of teachers and documents from schools talking about how they introduce it to young kids even in kindergarten. There are also specific mentions of making sure to have kids know that they don't take paperwork of this kind home, and don't discuss with their parents.

Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk
 

cowboyinexile

Have some class
A/V Subscriber
Jun 29, 2004
20,776
11,488
1,743
42
Fairmont, MN
#18
There are videos of teachers and documents from schools talking about how they introduce it to young kids even in kindergarten. There are also specific mentions of making sure to have kids know that they don't take paperwork of this kind home, and don't discuss with their parents.

Sent from my motorola one 5G using Tapatalk
Just curious. Can you post specific instances of this?
 

oks10

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 9, 2007
11,201
6,887
1,743
Piedmont, OK
#19
I think that is a fair question. Honestly, I don't know. My assumption is probably no - and would hope not. So is that portion of the bill needed ...maybe not...but is there a harm with including it??
I am always for LESS regulation, but unless there is something else I am not understanding in the provision of the bill I read -- I don't think it causes any additional work for school employees.
My problem with all of this is that Republicans are parading this like it's some widespread issue that schools across the country are teaching our young kids about being LGBT or that our country is systemically racist against them and I just have not seen anything (credible) to support that being the case.
 
Mar 11, 2006
4,644
2,492
1,743
#20
My problem with all of this is that Republicans are parading this like it's some widespread issue that schools across the country are teaching our young kids about being LGBT or that our country is systemically racist against them and I just have not seen anything (credible) to support that being the case.
You are right - I agree I have no belief that is this a widespread issue. It is an issue that Republicans are leveraging because it is a political winner for them. It drives their base and it works for independents. Honestly, I don't know why Democrats are pushing back against the bill. The more the facts come out about the bill the worse the opposition to it looks. The attack ads are writing themselves "Candidate xxx supports teaching kindergarteners about sexual orientation".