Supporters have rebutted that the bill is not meant to silence sexual identity or gender expression and that the media has sensationalized their intentions with despicable slander. Ultimately, no matter how you look at it, there isn’t a favorable outcome for the bill. There’s a greater chance of a crocodile sitting in office (purely hypothetical) than parents successfully censoring the Twitter LGBTQ+ community. I, as well most of my peers, became aware of sexual identity and gender expression notably through social media, not academia. ![]() If the parent’s intention is to shield their child from such “inappropriate” topics, then they are horrendously mistaken if they think this bill can fulfill that purpose. If parents aren’t concerned about shielding their child from conversations about sexual identity and simply want the school to be a safe space for their child, then they will be the cause for the phenomenal deterioration of that intention because a safe space cannot possibly exist if children are not allowed to safely express themselves. Like how children are neglected the details about sexual reproduction and warfare, I highly doubt that teachers would implement, excruciatingly detailed lesson plans regarding sexuality. Essentially, these topics will have become stigmatized in the learning environment.įrom what I’ve gathered, parents support this bill because they consider topics about sexuality and gender to be too mature for their children. If educators are unsure about what lines they can’t cross regarding sexual identity and gender expression, then they’ll ultimately decide to not even try crossing over into that territory. With this bill enforced, how many teachers would potentially risk their job to thoroughly explain gay marriage to the student, and how many would provide a succinct answer to avoid further discussion? At what point does “curriculum relevant discussions” become “age inappropriate?” The line between acceptable and unacceptable is so blurred that there is no apparent distinction between the two. However, it is the lack of explicit standards that creates room for flexible interpretation and weaponizes this bill.Ī student can inquire about gay marriage, and the teacher is expected to respond. Yes, the bill never explicitly stated it would enforce complete censorship of these topics. So, what does this bill change in the classroom?įor the small price of emotional suppression and tentative restricted development, you get awkward, painful silences when classmates share their “inappropriate” family trees, ask about gay marriage, or share curiosities about personal pronouns!Īdmittedly, I might be dramatizing the consequences of this bill given that lawmakers have assured that curriculum relevant discussions about sexual orientation and gender identity will not be prohibited. Governor DeSantis has reported that it will only be focusing on “grades pre-K through 3,” so mainly targeting “ five-year-olds, six-year-olds, seven-year-olds.” However, the term “age appropriate” and “developmentally appropriate” have yet to be explicitly defined. ![]() ![]() ![]() The bill, verbatim, states that “Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards.”Īfter scampering through that swamp of implications, this bill has managed to be simultaneously specific yet astoundingly vague.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |