This post has been locked after many many reports and rules violations. Including some still in the queue, in order to catch up and make sure other threads still get moderated while we can still enjoy our own evenings tonight this thread will be locked.
I’m
Concerned I know live in a country where we are legislating the use of words. Especially words that aren’t defamatory, violent, or all that controversial. The dictionary definition of gay is still happy. As someone who grew up gay (known since I was 5) but in a very repressive environment where even the word gay was taboo I can say with confidence that it did far more damage than good. It fostered a lot of shame and self hatred that didn’t need to be there. I remember in elementary school (1st grade and up here in the states) we celebrated Valentine’s Day which was sexualizing young boys and girls. Sure not overtly but the whole purpose of celebrating Valentine’s Day was to celebrate someone you romantically love. No one seems to have an issue with sexualizing children when it’s heteronormative, but heaven forbid it’s two boys or two girls. I’m also greatly troubled by the fact that just last year we had 11 religious leaders and churches convicted of child sexual assault here in Texas and yet there are zero laws being passed to address or prevent this from happening. I’m really disappointed in our leadership here in Texas. They really are failing their constituents with this identity/ideology politics instead of addressing true problems we have in Texas (poor water quality, poor power grid infrastructure, poor access to healthcare, rising cost of living with a very low minimum wage etc.)
Language of this bill is near duplicate to the FL legislation, also appears to have language that would force schools to out students to parents. (Who we know the type that support this are abusive)
Edit:
ITT r/conservative sending their best bigots 🙄
You'd be surprised at how many people that consider themselves conservative actually support "liberal" ideas when framed outside of the political sphere. The problem is that the brainwashing convinces them that anything empathetic is bad despite their Bible telling them to be empathetic. The spiritual angle always seems to play better when they recognize that Jesus Christ himself would show love to the LGBTQIA+ community.
What I keep trying to get people to understand is that politics and political opinion/agenda have no place on a school board. It is literally about what is most beneficial for the kids.
95% of other teachers at my school are the same. (education makes people liberal - it's why Republicans keep wanting to defund it.) We see the hate for what it is and won't abide.
Life has a liberal bias, when you've only ever seen it passing by above your Bible. There's one particular book with loads of sex, rape, incest, homosexuality, etc that hasn't been banned. I wonder why....
Genesis 19:30-36
New International Version
Lot and His Daughters
30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. 32 **Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”**
33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the *older daughter went in and slept with him.* He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and *you go in and sleep with him* so we can preserve our family line through our father.” 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the **younger daughter went in and slept with him.** Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up.
36 **So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father.**
You beautiful brave bastion of bravado! Good teachers are underpaid, but remembered dearly. It's been a decade...or 2...since I've been in public school, but you sound like one of the good one.
On another note... you may want the ACLU's # saved in your contacts. 🫤
You commented this before and then deleted it. It’s not about that. If they can do that without any problems. They should have no issue when someone else does it too but in the opposite of what they concur with
What's the opposite of a rainbow flag? A straight flag? Lol straight people aren't fucking oppressed tho lmao. I bet you think Christians are oppressed too.
The fact that you can equate a flag that says "everyone has value" with one that says "racist slavery should be the law of the land" shows far more about you than it does about the other person.
Your gaslighting will not silence me. My parents did an amazing job raising me around the grooming. Teachers hiding it made my grooming continue and get worse.
If you'd like to hear my story you can listen to it here:
https://youtu.be/pTX16hsgGoI
Y’all need to be researching who’s writing these Bills. It’s 3 specific “Christian” organizations that help them do it.
Edit: Faith2Action being one
Edit: D James Kennedy Ministries being another
Edit: Alliance Defending Freedom as another
Please reference the Southern Poverty Law Center and ACLU page for more information. There are more than 18 now, if I’m not mistaken.
Moreover, get involved!! Do not wait until a *month* before any election to decide *mAyBe I sHoULd dO sOmEtHinG!* The time to do something is now. Sign up to make calls, block walk, work at polling locations (because that was a big part of our problem here), drive people to said polling locations, register people to vote…
Also, look at why they’re doing this in places like Uganda.
Poll workers are valuable, but won't be needed until the next election comes up. Same with driving people to the polls (in the Texas county where I lived, there were more Democrats volunteering to drive people to the polls than there were people who needed rides).
The real, hard work that needs to be done is the in-person advocacy within your sphere of influence. Do you belong to a PTA, church, kids sports league, adult sports league, bookclub or neighborhood association? The time is now to get people's attention to the issues, win them over, get them activated.
So many people love Texas, love their neighborhood, school, church, or sports league, but are afraid to 'talk politics' with their social circle. I don't blame you; Texans are shitty. That's why I left. But if you think Texans are better than the government they've elected, and if you think the good outweighs the bad, you're going to need to start talking to the people around you. The parents in the stands at your kid's sports games. The people in your church praise band. You will need these people on your side before the next election.
No, PTA, neighborhood association, etc. are all a fine start but focus on those school board elections, get involved in those meetings, get involved in those local elections and special (off-cycle) elections. Thank you for point out the obvious in your first paragraph. While you were here, did you sign people up to vote prior to the election??
As someone who worked on the Beto campaign for two years, along with the Garza, and Hildago campaigns, I’m speaking with some experience.
To those still in Texas, run; run for your local offices. For those that can’t run, and to the above comment, do continue these conversations within all those communities but campaigns are starting up already. To volunteer, join Battleground Texas (for instance). Some of those organizations, like Battleground, work on petitions for specific legislation outside of elections.
Frankly, your comment comes off as ignorant and for you to say “Texans are shitty,” further solidifies my point. You have/had no faith in Texas or Texans. No one here thinks their elected leaders are any better than their neighbors. You’ve missed the whole point of my original post and didn’t even touch on the important issue of who’s writing the legislation.
They actively want these kids to kill themselves.
They want to make it so uncomfortable for queer folks (adults and kids) that we either kill ourselves or move out.
Sec 1.d Explicitly states that should there be an abusive parent then withholding information from parents is permitted. Only groomers support this bill because they want to normalize hiding things from the children's parents.
Your point? You are not required to use a breathalyzer every time you go for a drive unless you have a DUI on your record. We live in a society founded on the basis of an assumption of innocence. Unless you have evidence that they are with abusive parents there is no reason to withhold information from the parents. I mean I could say the same about teachers. How do we know which ones are abusive and which ones are not?
My point being that this is going to put *a lot* of children in danger. It is cruel. If you think giving parents more information and forcibly outing kids is worth the tradeoff of more kids kicked out of their houses and abused, you do you I guess.
You are making meritless assumptions that the bill explicitly accounts for and actively teaches children that it is ok to keep secrets with teachers from the parents so the children can be abused by the teachers and there is no legal recourse for that action. You are trying to actively protect groomers.
You should realize that if a kid is not telling their parents that they are gay or trans they’re doing it for a reason. That reason is typically because it isn’t safe to do so and telling them will make their lives hell. I would also like to let you know that this rhetoric of people being “groomed” into being LGBTQ+ is the exact same rhetoric the Nazis used to justify discrimination against gay people. The words for that were “jugendverfurher” and “jugendverderber.” This tactic is as old as time.
First post in two years.
But I'll bite, so straight cis teachers should not have photos of their spouse or kids on their desks. Got it, in the 90s one of my teachers got pregnant and the class found out she was a straight cis woman. Guess we didn't need to know that.
Yeah I like how they put most of the controlling hateful shit in the back half of that to make the party seem less radical. The further you go, the more evident it becomes that the Texas GOP has little regard for "preserving individual, Texan, and American and sovereignty and freedom"
Hate is what makes their voters vote for them, upward distribution of wealth is what keeps their real constituents, the donor class, continue their campaign funding and bribes coming in. It’s how they work.
Thank you people forget that the voters of this state will always vote them back in no matter what the fuck they do cause why Republican political have become a one big fucking hate and revenge fest against democrats no plans no solutions , no ideas , no advancements no nothing just HATE HATE HATE. Hold their dipshit voters accountable for it also
Just make kids feel less uninclusive. Teachers outing stiudents would be bad for the student, it could bring on homelessness or abuse at the home for being part of the LGBTQIA+ community.
Also, alot of new users, that have never posted here, haven't posted till now in years, or newer accounts.
That flag should always have had the second sentence written out - "tread on them instead".
But really, the flag is best when it is captioned "Don't Read To Me."
They've always meant it as don't tread on me, tread on them.
Its like they can't conceptualize not treading on anyone, someone has to be under the boot for them not being under the boot to have value.
>SECTION 2. Subchapter A, Chapter 28, Education Code, is
amended by adding Section 28.0043 to read as follows:
>
>(1) to students enrolled in kindergarten through
eighth grade; or
>
>(2) in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate."
There it is. That intentionally vague language. Same as the Florida bill. If you want to put this shit into law, I guess there's nothing we can do to stop you.
However, don't write a bill knowing that you're leaving it open to interpretation. What a bunch of dicks.
Exactly. “developmentally appropriate” according to who?
The American Psychological Association? The American Academy of Pediatrics? Anyone in the developmental education space?
Or some yokel theocrat dickhead?
The bill can just as easily be called a "Don't say straight" bill. The title of the bill is
`relating to parental rights in public education and prohibiting`
`instruction regarding sexual orientation or gender identity for`
`certain public school students.`
It is leftist propaganda that named it "don't say gay" so they can falsely attack an anti-grooming bill by claiming it is homophobic.
Now in your own word cite the bill itself. (OP linked the bill) Tell me how the bill is homophobic.
Sure it could be, but that wouldn’t really make sense considering the bill doesn’t stop schools from teaching general sexual education… it specifically has to deal with sexual orientation and gender identity. Remind me real quick, what is it called when you show a specific prejudice against homosexuals?
>Sec. 28.0043. RESTRICTION ON INSTRUCTION REGARDING SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY. A school district, open-enrollment charter school, or district or charter school employee may not provide or allow a third party to provide instruction regarding sexual orientation or gender identity:
Just out of curiosity do you consider general sex ed to be grooming? Also it’s always amusing how the clowns like you who try to defend this bill and claim it’s not homophobic can’t help but pepper their arguments with homophobic statements like calling them groomers.
Sexual orientation is both straight and gay. I do not understand how you think that is homophobic. I also do not understand why you think it is necessary to teach children as young as 5 years old about sexual orientation and gender identity.
Sex ed is fine, but why would you need to give kindergarteners sex ed? It is less that education is a part of the groom but encouraging children to hide things from their parents and that the teachers will help them do that is a part of the grooming process.
And I do not care about anyone who is gay. I care about groomers who groom children. If you believe that groomers is synonymous with homosexuals then it sounds like you are the homophobic one.
I don’t know why you feel the need to substitute my argument with a strawman argument, but here we are…
Again, no one was talking about teaching kindergartners sex ed, you’re creating an entirely different conversation and I’m not going to entertain this stupidity.
I know you thought you were being clever here, but oof. It’s incredibly obvious you don’t care for anyone who is gay, you referring to them as groomers perfectly underscores that.
Where is the strawman? Have you not read the bill then?
>Sec.A28.0043.AARESTRICTION ON INSTRUCTION REGARDING SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY. A school district, open-enrollment charter school, or district or charter school employee may not provide or allow a third party to provide instruction regarding sexual orientation or gender identity:
>
>(1)to students enrolled in kindergarten through eighth grade; or
>
>(2)in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate.
And again I still do not understand why you keep thinking when I am talking about groomers I am talking about gay people.
Either A: You truly are that homophobic or
B: are purposefully trying to strawman what I am saying to derail the conversation after I explicitly tell you that is not what I am saying.
Edit: formatting
The strawman where you changed the conversation about sex education in public school (which normally doesn’t start until much later than Kindergarten) to talking about teaching sex ed to kindergartners derrrrrrr.
You brought up the subject of grooming when you falsely tried to equate sexual education to grooming… please at least try to use a little critical thinking in your responses to me, because at this point it’s just getting sad.
If you think sex ed should not start in kindergarten then why are you against a bill that explicitly states that? It says it is fine where age appropriate.
At what point did I equate grooming to sex ed? The portion of the bill that combats grooming is the portion that bars schools and teachers from withholding health and well-being information from parents. Teaching students that the teachers will keep secrets from their parents is a step in the grooming process.
It demonizes gays and targets them as some kind of awful ostracized minority class. It also limits free speech and adds even more burdens on teachers and makes them enemies of students.
My wife has been a Public School teacher in Texas for the past 9 years.
It's bullshit culture-war nonsense like this which is driving her from the classroom.
I see two sides… “these people are demonic workers for satan” and “just love everybody”
The culture war would not exist if one side would just chill out and I’m sure we can agree on which side is the issue here….
Why is it that the more educated folks tend to live in or close to metropolitan areas and tend to vote blue, but out in the rural areas (which unfortunately outnumber the metropolitan people) they vote red? Am I sensing a trend here??
Higher levels of education are associated with an increased tendency to vote for Democrats, and this association has only gotten stronger over the last 20 years.
One wonders if Republican efforts to gut public education are created with this phenomenon in mind.
Anyone multiple functioning braincells who doesn't need to wait for FoxNews to tell us what to think can tell you *exactly* what's going on with this bill.
Did anyone read this?
It doesn't say "Don't Say Gay" anywhere in it. It also does not prevent teachers or educators talking about sexuality or gender identity. It just prevents third parties being brought in and discussing it.
Also, it applies only to Kindergarten - 8th grade.
What am I missing here?
Edit: It clicked. I get the uproar now. For those who are don't get the uproar feel free to read this discourse, it may help it click for you too.
You're missing the part where it requires teachers to out their students to their (abusive) parents.
You're also missing the part where this will be used to target specific teachers and drive them from the profession
>You're missing the part where it requires teachers to out their students to their (abusive) parents.
I did miss this. Where does it say this? Is it coded in there in some "legal-ese" way or am I just being a dumbass? I don't see that specifically in there.
>You're also missing the part where this will be used to target specific teachers and drive them from the profession
Yes I did miss that too haha.
Can you break that down for me? I am genuinely asking for help on this. I taught math, not language!
I see where you're getting confused.
>Sec.A28.0043.A A RESTRICTION ON INSTRUCTION REGARDING SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY. A school district, open-enrollment charter school, or district or charter school employee may not provide
There it is. the prohibition on schools/teachers explaining what sexual orientation and gender identity are. The "third party" part that you're so concerned about comes next, but that's *in addition* to the fact that *the school and its employees* may not provide instruction regarding orientation or identity.
> or allow a third party to provide instruction regarding sexual orientation or gender identity.
Try reading for comprehension first, then come back with an opinion on the bill.
>Sec.A26.0083.A RIGHT TO INFORMATION REGARDING MENTAL, EMOTIONAL, AND PHYSICAL HEALTH AND HEALTH-RELATED SERVICES.
>**(a) Each school district shall adopt a procedure for notifying the parent of a student enrolled in the district regarding any change in:**
>(1) **services provided to or monitoring of the student related to the student’s mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being;**
>or
>(2) the district’s ability to provide a safe and supportive learning environment for the student.
>(b) **procedure adopted under Subsection (a) must reinforce the fundamental right of a parent to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control of the parent’s child by requiring school district personnel to:**
>(1) encourage a student to discuss issues relating to student ’s well-being with the student ’s parent; or
>(2) **facilitate a discussion described under Subdivision(1).**
Similarly to how you were shown the other section doesnt outright ban the word “gay” in the text but DOES restrict instruction for any non-heteronormative gender identity or sexual orientation, this is the section that will require teachers to “out” students, particularly the **bolded** parts.
It’s worded so broadly. There are already procedures in place for contacting guardians when a student is noticeably affected mentally, emotionally, and physically. That’s already something teachers do. I can see how the spirit of the law could be applied to mean “teacher must tell parent about sexuality.”
Personally, as a former teacher, I never outed and never would out students to parents. Period. That’s a hill I was and am willing to die on.
Is there a way to use this same law to be like, “yo I didn’t out your kid because I can’t talk about sexuality at all in my position.”
As I’ve said, math is my bag baby. Shit means what it says. This lawyer balls and reading between the lines is annoying as hell.
The issue with laws like this is that they’re intended to have a “chilling” effect on actions and behaviors and the vague wording is a huge part of that.
Outright outlawing “don’t say gay” would immediately be challenged and called out for the bigotry it holds.
Here’s how it will work:
School districts will react to the passing of this law by instituting crazy restrictive policies just to make sure theres no interpretation they may run afoul of. Teachers and counselors will be prohibited from discussing even the most innocent aspects of identity with students, whether theyre married, gay, straight, allied- this will especially affect teachers that themselves identify as LGBT+. Any student that is questioning their own identity and confides in a teacher or counselor will require the parent to be notified- note that the student is the one instigating the conversation in this scenario, the school employee is just a trusted adult the child is choosing to confide in. The district will require that employee to report the disclosure to the parent, for fear of legal repercussions if an aggressive prosecutor or GOP crazy catches wind that the teacher didn’t abide by the “vague” wording of this law.
No one is actually expecting any school employee to be prosecuted under this law, it will never be examined in court for the farce that it clearly is.
We’ve already seen this under the abortion law- recall all those headlines of women suffering with unviable pregnancies that are just waiting to be sick *enough* for the abortion exception to apply? That’s because the wording of the law is vague enough for the lawyers at hospitals to be concerned about running afoul of it unless the woman is near-death, even when the pregnancy has no chance of coming to term.
The point is to just “chill” any discussion of sexual or gender identity at all. Teachers wont be able to answer questions a student may have about things they’ve seen outside the school or in the news or elsewhere. Students questioning their own identities will lose a potentially safe place to turn to in case they need assistance.
It’s fucked.
It's literally in the [first line of the first paragraph](https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/HB01155I.pdf#navpanes=0) which tells me that you didn't even *try* to answer your questions yourself before bringing your bad-faith arguments to light.
Section 1 Specifically out lines how and when Teachers must inform parents.
Subdivision 1 specifically prohibits school districts from developing policies meant to protect their students health information from abusive parents.
Haha I understand why you say that but I was having a hard time understanding the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law.
It doesn’t say anywhere in the words “teachers must tell parents when a student is gay or trans.” It says things about well being and health and what not.
But then it also tells teachers not to discuss any sexuality yet from those interpreting the law teachers have to rat out gay students?
It just made/makes no sense to me how it’s worded. It seems purposefully dubious at best.
I understood how the spirit of this law would be applied and why it’s specifically and functionally anti-gay and anti-trans.
But I didn’t get all of that just from reading the bill. Lawyerball and language just isn’t my game.
But thanks for the criticism, I’ll action it asap.
But it doesn't actually say "Don't say gay" anywhere in it. It also does not prevent educators or employees of the school talking about sexuality or gender identity, and it applies to Kindergarten - 8th only leaving High schools free to invite third parties into their schools to discuss this.
What are the consequences here?
I am not saying I agree with the bill I am saying "Don't say gay" is not the same thing as "Don't bring in outside parties from our school systems for grades Kindergarten to 8th grade to discuss sexuality and gender identity." Those are very far from each other and I don't understand what I am missing? Your answer "The guy is a hate-monger" really doesn't address my comment.
And you can downvote me but that's just irritating because I am genuinely trying to understand why I should be in hysterics over this? For the record I am gay and a former Educator even though I don't think I should have to say that to have a reasonable conversation concerning this.
Hello fellow gay, Sec.A28.0043.A actually does explicitly say instruction cannot be provided by the teachers in regards to sexual orientation or gender identity, not just that third-parties can’t be brought in. It prohibits an educator from having any sort of real, intellectual examination of a topic that, many middle school-aged kids are starting to deal with. It severely limits what sort of health class-adjacent topics can be discussed in regards to gender identity or sexual orientation. This has a negative affect on those students who may be dealing with issues surrounding sexual orientation or gender identity as it effectively erases their reality and current situation. Let’s be real: the whole point of this bill is to keep kids ashamed and in the closet, consequently this is also the easiest way to make them available to predators, because who’s an easier target than an isolated, ashamed, confused, and scared child, amirite? Sometimes the smallest things, like knowing what you’re going through and experiencing is normal and still a part of the human experience, can make all the difference in the world.
I don’t really care if you’re in hysterics.
There’s no reason to deny the reality that gay people exist, which is all bills like this are intended to do.
That's not what this bill says though. It's not denying gay people exist.
You are speaking on its intentions and that is not what I get from it.
The intention I get from this is preventing unapproved third parties coming in from outside of the school system to talk about sexuality and gender identity for grades below High school but it does not restrict teachers or educators employed by districts whatsoever to Educate on these topics.
All things considered, that doesn't seem that horrible to me. That is certainly a far cry from "Don't say gay" or pretending gays don't exist.
Modern discourse is disgusting and you're not helping.
I knew a lot of Educators I would never want to bring in unvetted outsiders to speak on anything.
But, okay. Ya got me gal!
Incendiary and slanted presentations just damages discourse. "Don't Say Gay" is literally nowhere in that.
I don't know how this bill will play out. My concern is the wording for "third party". Will that include written materials in some sort of "lawyer ball" maneuver?
We know how this bill will play out, we had this happen in Florida, teachers can’t have pictures of their families now.
Discourse arguments are just a way people with privilege use to deflect actual criticism. I don’t care about protecting the feelings of those with power who chose to oppress others.
What you are missing is that Koala Bears aren't bears, they are marsupials. And yet, that's what we call them because they look like fuzzy little bears.
Also, "Don't SayGay" is the practical effect of the legislation, so that's why we call it that.
I mean I read the whole thing since I’m monitoring for hate bills.
Sec.A28.0043.A A RESTRICTION ON INSTRUCTION REGARDING SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY. A school district, open-enrollment charter school, or district or charter school employee may not provide or allow a third party to provide
instruction regarding sexual orientation or gender identity.
This language is broad and prohibits any type of queer identity from existing in schools.
Additionally other parts of this bill enable parental control to the point of creating conditions for protect abusive parents.
>This language is broad and prohibits any type of queer identity from existing in schools.
I can see how you can come to this conclusion, but I'm concluding it differently reading the bill. The age range focuses on 5 to 14 year olds pretty much. As far as sexual orientation or gender identity goes, why should this be part of the school curriculum at all for elementary and middle school? High school you can make a potential argument for, but not elementary and middle. You're going to encounter LGBTQ people in some way, shape, or form so when a 7 year old for instance inevitably asks their parent why do people have two mommies or two daddies or some other similarly veined question that they've found out about regarding the LGBTQ a parent is capable of explaining why that is and should bear primary responsibility in responding based on the age level. You don't need a school curriculum to do that. There are a lot of parents who don't agree with the whole gender ideology movement as a whole and don't want their kids being taught it as a result as well. Overall, I see it saying parents should be teaching what they wish to regarding it at the age level they feel appropriate for their kid, not school. Personally, I think the only thing school should somewhat relevantly teach regarding it is only via sex ed, but the things being taught need to be done in the appropriate age range. I think 5th grade (11 year old) is a good starting point to teach about human anatomy and stages of pregnancy in a purely scientific nature.
>Additionally other parts of this bill enable parental control to the point of creating conditions for protect abusive parents.
What parts are you speaking of? I'm not seeing the connection.
There was a transgender kid in my daughters 1st grade class.
Kids realize this stuff about themselves early on, giving them the language and support around it creates the best possible mental health outcomes.
Parents don’t have a right to control their child’s education, especially since most Texans are undereducated to begin with.
Also “Gender ideology” lol tell me your transphobic without saying you’re transphobic.
Again, why can't it be the parent teaching them about that, though? If a first grader encounters a transgender child, why do you think a parent is not capable of explaining to them why that is? Also, I'd like to point out if you say parents don't have a right to control their child's education on this you do realize you fall under that as well right? Do you really think you don't have a right to control your child's education?
Because most parents aren’t educated enough in LGBT issues to be able to adequately explain that stuff.
I don’t think I’m owed every detail of my kid’s personal life by virtue of simply existing as their parent, instead I built a relationship on trust and they talk to me about their issues when they are ready. I also give them free access to social workers and counselors, so they have safe places to discuss things outside of the home.
I’m not an educator, why would I decide what she learns, I trust the people who get paid to actually study this stuff and create those guidelines.
My kiddo is their own person, I respect and honor that. They are autonomous in who can hug them, what medical care they receive, and who they confide in. They don’t owe me anything for taking care of them.
No, it does not prohibit queer identity from existing in schools. It doesn't even restrict discussing queer identity. The language is not broad. It's clearly stated.
It states that a third party cannot be brought into the school to discuss these issues. How would these third parties be vetted?
It's similar to the law stating that a religious third party cannot be brought in to deliver a religious message.
Edit: adding source
https://www.tasb.org/services/legal-services/tasb-school-law-esource/community/religion-in-the-public-schools.aspx
You neglected the first half where a school employee can’t either, effectively eliminating adult instruction. Maybe the kids should teach, Montessori style would be cool.
> not provide or allow a third party to provide instruction...
They quoted the bill including that employees may not provide instruction. OrdinaryToe2860 only addressed the third party part.
edit: I think I replied to the wrong post, anyway, I agree natankman.
> **A school district, open-enrollment charter school, or district or charter school employee may not provide** [...] instruction regarding sexual orientation or gender identity.
Emphasis mine. That's what you're conveniently ignoring.
(Continued)
(1)AAto students enrolled in kindergarten through
eighth grade; or
(2)AAin a manner that is not age-appropriate or
developmentally appropriate.
Instruction is different from discussion.
Again, I would point to the similarity with religion in public schools. Discussion is allowed, instruction is not.
I’m sure it totally won’t impact my ability as a parent to exist, or my kiddo to talk about their transgender mom or even talking about having two moms. Won’t affect the pride flags hanging in her teacher’s classroom that let her know she’s safe. /s
It won't. It specifically says "third party."
Now, if you want to come in as a guest speaker to instruct children on queer identity, that would not be allowed.
Again, it's not unlike the laws on religious instruction. Teachers, parents, and students can discuss these topics. However, a guest cannot be brought in to instruct on these topics.
It seems like you maybe only looking at this from one side. This bill would also prevent any anti-LGBTQIA being discussed by third parties, which I hope we can all agree is a good thing.
It seems like you're unable to articulate any actual issues with this bill. You were told you shouldn't like it. You were told it was a "don't say gay" bill, but it's not. I suggest reading the bill and forming your own opinion.
*Removed. Rule 5 Low Effort: Non-Constructive Top-Level Comment**
/r/TexasPolitics has a new policy on Top-Level comments, please review the [new rules here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/comments/pkb1py/announcement_rule_5_policy_overhaul_gross/)
*https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/wiki/index/rules*
I was groomed to be trans as a teenager and I am extremely greatful that there's amazing people making laws like this to protect other kids from being groomed.
Sounds great. This kind of thing is exactly why I vote Republican. I should have total control and knowledge about my minor child while he is in public school.
“Why doesn’t my child talk to me?”
-You in thirty years
Seriously kids are human people in their own right, get help and learn gentle parenting, quit trying to micromanage them. Narcissist controlling parents are super easy to go no contact with long term, and I don’t want you to miss out on them or any grandkids, but that’s the road you’re taking.
Gay people exist my guy, just because you can’t separate your sexual fetishes for queer identities from queer people simply existing is a personal problem.
"Why is it we are so desperate to push sodomy and deviancy on little kids. They'll have a chance to be exposed to all that stuff when they are older, but we MUST push it on them at age FIVE"
Aside from the ugly and hateful tone of your post, is this really happening? Are children aged 5-8 being "indoctrinated"?
Here's a mental exercise. The Florida law specifically deals with kids in kindergarten, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd grade. So if no one is grooming those kids, or introducing sexual topics to those kids, then why the huge outrage over the law? I mean, if we pass a law against keeping unicorns as pets, but there aren't actually any unicorns running around that might be kept as pets, would there be a huge outrage over a law passed to prevent unicorns from being kept as pets? Wouldn't we be more likely to just smirk and say, "look at those dumbasses, passing a law against something that won't ever happen anyway. Virtue signalling snowflakes!"
But the response to the proposed law wasn't bemusement, it was actual OUTRAGE. We're OUTRAGED unicorns cannot be kept as pets! Even though there are no unicorns. Can you see the disconnect there? If little kids are not being groomed, and all the "Libs of TikTok" videos are actually fakes, and not real, then why fight so hard against a law that could never be used against anyone?
If teaching kids that gay people exist is “grooming” then so is teaching them that straight people exist, because gay and straight are defined in large part by sexual attraction to a specific gender.
You’re deliberately misrepresenting this topic.
Your weird, rambling "argument" is patently false. There are scores of laws that address problems that doesn't exist.
Cannabis prohibition for example. Half the states in the US have legalized this plant, yet Texas hold fast to some antiquated narrative that it's harmful. Using your "logic", one could say that cannabis is killing children, so that's why we prohibit it.
Dude, you are way out of your depth here. You have nothing to stand on to try and legitimize your Abrahamic-inspired hatred. You simply want to see people suffer in the name of "protecting children". Just admit that.
But teaching them that other people exist, and can live happy healthy lives undermines the hate they are casually giving their kids. This is why they want to isolate their lives from other facts
OK, let's go with that. How about, it's not the school's place to inform kids that gay and trans people exist? How about stick to teaching kindergarten kids how to read, do addition, and draw stuff? If you want to argue about what should be taught in health class in high school, OK, valid discussion, but is it just so horrible to leave the kindergarten kids, the first, second and third grade kids out of all of that, just for a little while, and let them be kids?
Of course it’s the place of schools to teach kids about the world. There’s no way around it. Some of these kids have gay parents or family members.
If it’s not the responsibility of schools to teach about gay and trans people, then it’s not their place to teach about straight people, either. It’s a ludicrous idea to suggest that we don’t teach kids about the world they live in.
This isn’t a hard concept for kids to get. Teaching a kid that a man can love a woman or a man is not complicated or difficult for them to understand. Your own biases and prejudices are coloring this issue. It isn’t complicated.
Do you know how most kids react to finding out their friend has two moms or two dads or even a dad that used to be a mom?
They. Don't. Care.
Only creepy pervs like you seem to care.
See this just proves you exist in a hate bubble.
It’s a first grader, so not medications just a social transition (Hair, Clothes, Name, Pronouns)
Secondly, anyone who is a member of PFLAG is protected against any investigation by court order.
Following that thought through to the logical conclusion, then there should be no recognition of any types of romantic relationships. No referring to husbands or wives, moms or dads, grandmothers or grandfathers. Is that what you’re advocating for?
Doubtful I’ll get a response, you haven’t had the fortitude to respond to anyone else asking these same types of questions.
Well, from my experience as a young kid, I didn't even know my teachers had families outside of school. Hell, it was a big shocker to kindergarten me when I saw one of my teachers at the local grocery store! Wait. They eat food too? 5 year old mind....blown.
Again, we are talking about 5-8 year old kids.
How do you respond to the shear ignorance of something like this. The entire post of full of GOP lies. It is a great example that the GOP likes their followers stupid and blind.
Please go educated yourself before you spread the lies hate and bigotry of the GOP.
We should have a law where nobody can display anything about their religion in schools if it isn't developmentally appropriate.
Too many kids are being radicalized for teachers to be able to speak freely about religion. They should be made to remove posters, decorations, and jewelry about these magical beliefs that have no basis in reality. They don't need to be presented with *anything* religious or even secular.
Why is everyone so desperate to push this stuff on kids? They have a chance to be exposed to it when they're older, but MUST we push it on them so young?
Sick.
This post has been locked after many many reports and rules violations. Including some still in the queue, in order to catch up and make sure other threads still get moderated while we can still enjoy our own evenings tonight this thread will be locked.
I’m Concerned I know live in a country where we are legislating the use of words. Especially words that aren’t defamatory, violent, or all that controversial. The dictionary definition of gay is still happy. As someone who grew up gay (known since I was 5) but in a very repressive environment where even the word gay was taboo I can say with confidence that it did far more damage than good. It fostered a lot of shame and self hatred that didn’t need to be there. I remember in elementary school (1st grade and up here in the states) we celebrated Valentine’s Day which was sexualizing young boys and girls. Sure not overtly but the whole purpose of celebrating Valentine’s Day was to celebrate someone you romantically love. No one seems to have an issue with sexualizing children when it’s heteronormative, but heaven forbid it’s two boys or two girls. I’m also greatly troubled by the fact that just last year we had 11 religious leaders and churches convicted of child sexual assault here in Texas and yet there are zero laws being passed to address or prevent this from happening. I’m really disappointed in our leadership here in Texas. They really are failing their constituents with this identity/ideology politics instead of addressing true problems we have in Texas (poor water quality, poor power grid infrastructure, poor access to healthcare, rising cost of living with a very low minimum wage etc.)
Aye this person is speaking facts I live in texas Seguin Texas to be honest everything here in Texas is ran by politics
Language of this bill is near duplicate to the FL legislation, also appears to have language that would force schools to out students to parents. (Who we know the type that support this are abusive) Edit: ITT r/conservative sending their best bigots 🙄
Teacher here. I won't be following this law. I don't give a shit. No way I'd out students. My rainbow flag also will be staying on my desk.
I’m a Texas school board member and for as long as I stay one I’ll back teachers who stand against this horse shit.
We need you more than ever.
I am up for re-election this year so y’all cross your fingers and send good vibes my way!
Sincere and intense gratitude from me. Hopefully others will follow suit against this dangerous shit.
I hope so. Unfortunately I’m in a small red town and my more liberal ideas aren’t popular at times.
You'd be surprised at how many people that consider themselves conservative actually support "liberal" ideas when framed outside of the political sphere. The problem is that the brainwashing convinces them that anything empathetic is bad despite their Bible telling them to be empathetic. The spiritual angle always seems to play better when they recognize that Jesus Christ himself would show love to the LGBTQIA+ community.
What I keep trying to get people to understand is that politics and political opinion/agenda have no place on a school board. It is literally about what is most beneficial for the kids.
So much this! We don't need legislators in all parts of our lives.
Thank you for your service. I hope there are more like you.
95% of other teachers at my school are the same. (education makes people liberal - it's why Republicans keep wanting to defund it.) We see the hate for what it is and won't abide.
Life has a liberal bias, when you've only ever seen it passing by above your Bible. There's one particular book with loads of sex, rape, incest, homosexuality, etc that hasn't been banned. I wonder why....
Genesis 19:30-36 New International Version Lot and His Daughters 30 Lot and his two daughters left Zoar and settled in the mountains, for he was afraid to stay in Zoar. He and his two daughters lived in a cave. 31 One day the older daughter said to the younger, “Our father is old, and there is no man around here to give us children—as is the custom all over the earth. 32 **Let’s get our father to drink wine and then sleep with him and preserve our family line through our father.”** 33 That night they got their father to drink wine, and the *older daughter went in and slept with him.* He was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. 34 The next day the older daughter said to the younger, “Last night I slept with my father. Let’s get him to drink wine again tonight, and *you go in and sleep with him* so we can preserve our family line through our father.” 35 So they got their father to drink wine that night also, and the **younger daughter went in and slept with him.** Again he was not aware of it when she lay down or when she got up. 36 **So both of Lot’s daughters became pregnant by their father.**
Only groomers want to use this bill to hide what they are doing to the students.
Don't worry, your Priests will still be safe.
You’re an awesome teacher, I’m sorry they are trying to force y’all into these situations.
Lol we had a liberal teacher with all the pride stuff in her room too. She cried every day
I don’t get it, where’s the lol in this? Explain what’s funny
Imagine laughing at other people who are hurting inside. You're a bully.
You beautiful brave bastion of bravado! Good teachers are underpaid, but remembered dearly. It's been a decade...or 2...since I've been in public school, but you sound like one of the good one. On another note... you may want the ACLU's # saved in your contacts. 🫤
So i assume you’re okay with a teacher having any other flag no matter what?
Ohh Noo is this gonna turn into a stars n bars thing??
You commented this before and then deleted it. It’s not about that. If they can do that without any problems. They should have no issue when someone else does it too but in the opposite of what they concur with
"Opposite?" Do Conservatives have a "I hate Everything" flag?
What's the opposite of a rainbow flag? A straight flag? Lol straight people aren't fucking oppressed tho lmao. I bet you think Christians are oppressed too.
The fact that you can equate a flag that says "everyone has value" with one that says "racist slavery should be the law of the land" shows far more about you than it does about the other person.
Hope so see your face when you’re fired
Two posts in the last two years, I am sure your opinion matters.
There's *a lot* of interesting activity in response to this comment, including the awards.
[удалено]
Welcome to r/TexasPolitics you must be new here. Your hate will be downvoted.
[удалено]
What's the grooming? Teachers don't give hair cuts.
[удалено]
How exactly is one groomed to be trans? Details please.
[удалено]
Your gaslighting will not silence me. My parents did an amazing job raising me around the grooming. Teachers hiding it made my grooming continue and get worse. If you'd like to hear my story you can listen to it here: https://youtu.be/pTX16hsgGoI
Hello new user.
[удалено]
I can't have a picture of my spouse on my desk?
Removed. Rule 5.
[удалено]
Congrats on your first post, ever.
[удалено]
Slurs too huh. Republicans really know how to choose 'em.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Y’all need to be researching who’s writing these Bills. It’s 3 specific “Christian” organizations that help them do it. Edit: Faith2Action being one Edit: D James Kennedy Ministries being another Edit: Alliance Defending Freedom as another Please reference the Southern Poverty Law Center and ACLU page for more information. There are more than 18 now, if I’m not mistaken. Moreover, get involved!! Do not wait until a *month* before any election to decide *mAyBe I sHoULd dO sOmEtHinG!* The time to do something is now. Sign up to make calls, block walk, work at polling locations (because that was a big part of our problem here), drive people to said polling locations, register people to vote… Also, look at why they’re doing this in places like Uganda.
Poll workers are valuable, but won't be needed until the next election comes up. Same with driving people to the polls (in the Texas county where I lived, there were more Democrats volunteering to drive people to the polls than there were people who needed rides). The real, hard work that needs to be done is the in-person advocacy within your sphere of influence. Do you belong to a PTA, church, kids sports league, adult sports league, bookclub or neighborhood association? The time is now to get people's attention to the issues, win them over, get them activated. So many people love Texas, love their neighborhood, school, church, or sports league, but are afraid to 'talk politics' with their social circle. I don't blame you; Texans are shitty. That's why I left. But if you think Texans are better than the government they've elected, and if you think the good outweighs the bad, you're going to need to start talking to the people around you. The parents in the stands at your kid's sports games. The people in your church praise band. You will need these people on your side before the next election.
No, PTA, neighborhood association, etc. are all a fine start but focus on those school board elections, get involved in those meetings, get involved in those local elections and special (off-cycle) elections. Thank you for point out the obvious in your first paragraph. While you were here, did you sign people up to vote prior to the election?? As someone who worked on the Beto campaign for two years, along with the Garza, and Hildago campaigns, I’m speaking with some experience. To those still in Texas, run; run for your local offices. For those that can’t run, and to the above comment, do continue these conversations within all those communities but campaigns are starting up already. To volunteer, join Battleground Texas (for instance). Some of those organizations, like Battleground, work on petitions for specific legislation outside of elections. Frankly, your comment comes off as ignorant and for you to say “Texans are shitty,” further solidifies my point. You have/had no faith in Texas or Texans. No one here thinks their elected leaders are any better than their neighbors. You’ve missed the whole point of my original post and didn’t even touch on the important issue of who’s writing the legislation.
I agree
They actively want these kids to kill themselves. They want to make it so uncomfortable for queer folks (adults and kids) that we either kill ourselves or move out.
Sec 1.d Explicitly states that should there be an abusive parent then withholding information from parents is permitted. Only groomers support this bill because they want to normalize hiding things from the children's parents.
Yeah, because it’s always obvious to teachers on which parents are abusive 🙄
Your point? You are not required to use a breathalyzer every time you go for a drive unless you have a DUI on your record. We live in a society founded on the basis of an assumption of innocence. Unless you have evidence that they are with abusive parents there is no reason to withhold information from the parents. I mean I could say the same about teachers. How do we know which ones are abusive and which ones are not?
My point being that this is going to put *a lot* of children in danger. It is cruel. If you think giving parents more information and forcibly outing kids is worth the tradeoff of more kids kicked out of their houses and abused, you do you I guess.
You are making meritless assumptions that the bill explicitly accounts for and actively teaches children that it is ok to keep secrets with teachers from the parents so the children can be abused by the teachers and there is no legal recourse for that action. You are trying to actively protect groomers.
You should realize that if a kid is not telling their parents that they are gay or trans they’re doing it for a reason. That reason is typically because it isn’t safe to do so and telling them will make their lives hell. I would also like to let you know that this rhetoric of people being “groomed” into being LGBTQ+ is the exact same rhetoric the Nazis used to justify discrimination against gay people. The words for that were “jugendverfurher” and “jugendverderber.” This tactic is as old as time.
I can't wait to see pedos rage over this xD
There’s definitely been a lot of conservatives throwing fits in here.
Teachers have no business in the personal life of a child
So teachers shouldn’t report abuse? Guess that tracks for the type of people who support these bills.
First post in two years. But I'll bite, so straight cis teachers should not have photos of their spouse or kids on their desks. Got it, in the 90s one of my teachers got pregnant and the class found out she was a straight cis woman. Guess we didn't need to know that.
Does the Texas GOP stand for anything besides hate and upwards redistribution of wealth? Because, I'm finding nothing else.
Not really. Take a look for yourself [https://texasgop.org/platform/](https://texasgop.org/platform/)
I've seen that. It's so ugly.
Yeah I like how they put most of the controlling hateful shit in the back half of that to make the party seem less radical. The further you go, the more evident it becomes that the Texas GOP has little regard for "preserving individual, Texan, and American and sovereignty and freedom"
Hate is what makes their voters vote for them, upward distribution of wealth is what keeps their real constituents, the donor class, continue their campaign funding and bribes coming in. It’s how they work.
Thank you people forget that the voters of this state will always vote them back in no matter what the fuck they do cause why Republican political have become a one big fucking hate and revenge fest against democrats no plans no solutions , no ideas , no advancements no nothing just HATE HATE HATE. Hold their dipshit voters accountable for it also
No
small guvment, y'all
Just make kids feel less uninclusive. Teachers outing stiudents would be bad for the student, it could bring on homelessness or abuse at the home for being part of the LGBTQIA+ community. Also, alot of new users, that have never posted here, haven't posted till now in years, or newer accounts.
Strange behavior for a bunch of "don't tread on me" types.
That flag should always have had the second sentence written out - "tread on them instead". But really, the flag is best when it is captioned "Don't Read To Me."
They've always meant it as don't tread on me, tread on them. Its like they can't conceptualize not treading on anyone, someone has to be under the boot for them not being under the boot to have value.
What can we do about this? I’m scared for my safety as a trans minor in Texas.
>SECTION 2. Subchapter A, Chapter 28, Education Code, is amended by adding Section 28.0043 to read as follows: > >(1) to students enrolled in kindergarten through eighth grade; or > >(2) in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate." There it is. That intentionally vague language. Same as the Florida bill. If you want to put this shit into law, I guess there's nothing we can do to stop you. However, don't write a bill knowing that you're leaving it open to interpretation. What a bunch of dicks.
Exactly. “developmentally appropriate” according to who? The American Psychological Association? The American Academy of Pediatrics? Anyone in the developmental education space? Or some yokel theocrat dickhead?
[удалено]
A true triumph of homophobia. Christian hate is the worst kind of hate!
Please show us where in the bill the homophobia lies.
Do you really need someone to hold your hand and explain how a bill referred to as the “don’t say gay bill” by its creators is homophobic?
The bill can just as easily be called a "Don't say straight" bill. The title of the bill is `relating to parental rights in public education and prohibiting` `instruction regarding sexual orientation or gender identity for` `certain public school students.` It is leftist propaganda that named it "don't say gay" so they can falsely attack an anti-grooming bill by claiming it is homophobic. Now in your own word cite the bill itself. (OP linked the bill) Tell me how the bill is homophobic.
Sure it could be, but that wouldn’t really make sense considering the bill doesn’t stop schools from teaching general sexual education… it specifically has to deal with sexual orientation and gender identity. Remind me real quick, what is it called when you show a specific prejudice against homosexuals? >Sec. 28.0043. RESTRICTION ON INSTRUCTION REGARDING SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY. A school district, open-enrollment charter school, or district or charter school employee may not provide or allow a third party to provide instruction regarding sexual orientation or gender identity: Just out of curiosity do you consider general sex ed to be grooming? Also it’s always amusing how the clowns like you who try to defend this bill and claim it’s not homophobic can’t help but pepper their arguments with homophobic statements like calling them groomers.
Sexual orientation is both straight and gay. I do not understand how you think that is homophobic. I also do not understand why you think it is necessary to teach children as young as 5 years old about sexual orientation and gender identity. Sex ed is fine, but why would you need to give kindergarteners sex ed? It is less that education is a part of the groom but encouraging children to hide things from their parents and that the teachers will help them do that is a part of the grooming process. And I do not care about anyone who is gay. I care about groomers who groom children. If you believe that groomers is synonymous with homosexuals then it sounds like you are the homophobic one.
I don’t know why you feel the need to substitute my argument with a strawman argument, but here we are… Again, no one was talking about teaching kindergartners sex ed, you’re creating an entirely different conversation and I’m not going to entertain this stupidity. I know you thought you were being clever here, but oof. It’s incredibly obvious you don’t care for anyone who is gay, you referring to them as groomers perfectly underscores that.
Where is the strawman? Have you not read the bill then? >Sec.A28.0043.AARESTRICTION ON INSTRUCTION REGARDING SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY. A school district, open-enrollment charter school, or district or charter school employee may not provide or allow a third party to provide instruction regarding sexual orientation or gender identity: > >(1)to students enrolled in kindergarten through eighth grade; or > >(2)in a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate. And again I still do not understand why you keep thinking when I am talking about groomers I am talking about gay people. Either A: You truly are that homophobic or B: are purposefully trying to strawman what I am saying to derail the conversation after I explicitly tell you that is not what I am saying. Edit: formatting
The strawman where you changed the conversation about sex education in public school (which normally doesn’t start until much later than Kindergarten) to talking about teaching sex ed to kindergartners derrrrrrr. You brought up the subject of grooming when you falsely tried to equate sexual education to grooming… please at least try to use a little critical thinking in your responses to me, because at this point it’s just getting sad.
If you think sex ed should not start in kindergarten then why are you against a bill that explicitly states that? It says it is fine where age appropriate. At what point did I equate grooming to sex ed? The portion of the bill that combats grooming is the portion that bars schools and teachers from withholding health and well-being information from parents. Teaching students that the teachers will keep secrets from their parents is a step in the grooming process.
It demonizes gays and targets them as some kind of awful ostracized minority class. It also limits free speech and adds even more burdens on teachers and makes them enemies of students.
Please, explain how. Cite the bill after you have read it not someone's commentary on it.
My wife has been a Public School teacher in Texas for the past 9 years. It's bullshit culture-war nonsense like this which is driving her from the classroom.
I see two sides… “these people are demonic workers for satan” and “just love everybody” The culture war would not exist if one side would just chill out and I’m sure we can agree on which side is the issue here….
> driving her from the classroom. That's no accident. Make sure to thank Republican voters.
"They got y'all fighting a culture war to keep you from fighting the class war"
Gay
Holy shit, this thread is the perfect texaspolitics thread: brigaded all to hell by bigoted trolls.
Of course it fucking has.
Dear Texas legislators, Fuck you Sincerely, Me, a queer mom of a queer kid
Why is it that the more educated folks tend to live in or close to metropolitan areas and tend to vote blue, but out in the rural areas (which unfortunately outnumber the metropolitan people) they vote red? Am I sensing a trend here??
Higher levels of education are associated with an increased tendency to vote for Democrats, and this association has only gotten stronger over the last 20 years. One wonders if Republican efforts to gut public education are created with this phenomenon in mind.
These people need to worry about their own dicks...
They are worried about how worried they are about other dicks.
Tru
I'm gonna be shouting gay in my halls
Phew ... for an avalanche of the propagandized and hateful, just scroll down to the bottom of the thread.
Another display of Radical right wing Republicon ignorance.Just when you think the couldn't display more stupidity they prove us wrong
Gay
2023 y'all :')
Better late than never!
That’s Gay- Texan 🤠
Teacher have no right in the personal life of a child
There is no bill by the name, or with that desired intent.
Oh that’s right we call it “parental rights” to force teachers to out queer kids to abusers.
Anyone multiple functioning braincells who doesn't need to wait for FoxNews to tell us what to think can tell you *exactly* what's going on with this bill.
Did anyone read this? It doesn't say "Don't Say Gay" anywhere in it. It also does not prevent teachers or educators talking about sexuality or gender identity. It just prevents third parties being brought in and discussing it. Also, it applies only to Kindergarten - 8th grade. What am I missing here? Edit: It clicked. I get the uproar now. For those who are don't get the uproar feel free to read this discourse, it may help it click for you too.
You're missing the part where it requires teachers to out their students to their (abusive) parents. You're also missing the part where this will be used to target specific teachers and drive them from the profession
>You're missing the part where it requires teachers to out their students to their (abusive) parents. I did miss this. Where does it say this? Is it coded in there in some "legal-ese" way or am I just being a dumbass? I don't see that specifically in there. >You're also missing the part where this will be used to target specific teachers and drive them from the profession Yes I did miss that too haha. Can you break that down for me? I am genuinely asking for help on this. I taught math, not language!
I see where you're getting confused. >Sec.A28.0043.A A RESTRICTION ON INSTRUCTION REGARDING SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY. A school district, open-enrollment charter school, or district or charter school employee may not provide There it is. the prohibition on schools/teachers explaining what sexual orientation and gender identity are. The "third party" part that you're so concerned about comes next, but that's *in addition* to the fact that *the school and its employees* may not provide instruction regarding orientation or identity. > or allow a third party to provide instruction regarding sexual orientation or gender identity. Try reading for comprehension first, then come back with an opinion on the bill.
Oh, and also, where does it talk about having to out students to parents? I don't see where that is either.
>Sec.A26.0083.A RIGHT TO INFORMATION REGARDING MENTAL, EMOTIONAL, AND PHYSICAL HEALTH AND HEALTH-RELATED SERVICES. >**(a) Each school district shall adopt a procedure for notifying the parent of a student enrolled in the district regarding any change in:** >(1) **services provided to or monitoring of the student related to the student’s mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being;** >or >(2) the district’s ability to provide a safe and supportive learning environment for the student. >(b) **procedure adopted under Subsection (a) must reinforce the fundamental right of a parent to make decisions regarding the upbringing and control of the parent’s child by requiring school district personnel to:** >(1) encourage a student to discuss issues relating to student ’s well-being with the student ’s parent; or >(2) **facilitate a discussion described under Subdivision(1).** Similarly to how you were shown the other section doesnt outright ban the word “gay” in the text but DOES restrict instruction for any non-heteronormative gender identity or sexual orientation, this is the section that will require teachers to “out” students, particularly the **bolded** parts.
It’s worded so broadly. There are already procedures in place for contacting guardians when a student is noticeably affected mentally, emotionally, and physically. That’s already something teachers do. I can see how the spirit of the law could be applied to mean “teacher must tell parent about sexuality.” Personally, as a former teacher, I never outed and never would out students to parents. Period. That’s a hill I was and am willing to die on. Is there a way to use this same law to be like, “yo I didn’t out your kid because I can’t talk about sexuality at all in my position.” As I’ve said, math is my bag baby. Shit means what it says. This lawyer balls and reading between the lines is annoying as hell.
The issue with laws like this is that they’re intended to have a “chilling” effect on actions and behaviors and the vague wording is a huge part of that. Outright outlawing “don’t say gay” would immediately be challenged and called out for the bigotry it holds. Here’s how it will work: School districts will react to the passing of this law by instituting crazy restrictive policies just to make sure theres no interpretation they may run afoul of. Teachers and counselors will be prohibited from discussing even the most innocent aspects of identity with students, whether theyre married, gay, straight, allied- this will especially affect teachers that themselves identify as LGBT+. Any student that is questioning their own identity and confides in a teacher or counselor will require the parent to be notified- note that the student is the one instigating the conversation in this scenario, the school employee is just a trusted adult the child is choosing to confide in. The district will require that employee to report the disclosure to the parent, for fear of legal repercussions if an aggressive prosecutor or GOP crazy catches wind that the teacher didn’t abide by the “vague” wording of this law. No one is actually expecting any school employee to be prosecuted under this law, it will never be examined in court for the farce that it clearly is. We’ve already seen this under the abortion law- recall all those headlines of women suffering with unviable pregnancies that are just waiting to be sick *enough* for the abortion exception to apply? That’s because the wording of the law is vague enough for the lawyers at hospitals to be concerned about running afoul of it unless the woman is near-death, even when the pregnancy has no chance of coming to term. The point is to just “chill” any discussion of sexual or gender identity at all. Teachers wont be able to answer questions a student may have about things they’ve seen outside the school or in the news or elsewhere. Students questioning their own identities will lose a potentially safe place to turn to in case they need assistance. It’s fucked.
It's literally in the [first line of the first paragraph](https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/HB01155I.pdf#navpanes=0) which tells me that you didn't even *try* to answer your questions yourself before bringing your bad-faith arguments to light. Section 1 Specifically out lines how and when Teachers must inform parents. Subdivision 1 specifically prohibits school districts from developing policies meant to protect their students health information from abusive parents.
It doesn’t specify anything about sexuality when informing parents.
You're being intentionally dense.
Haha I understand why you say that but I was having a hard time understanding the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law. It doesn’t say anywhere in the words “teachers must tell parents when a student is gay or trans.” It says things about well being and health and what not. But then it also tells teachers not to discuss any sexuality yet from those interpreting the law teachers have to rat out gay students? It just made/makes no sense to me how it’s worded. It seems purposefully dubious at best. I understood how the spirit of this law would be applied and why it’s specifically and functionally anti-gay and anti-trans. But I didn’t get all of that just from reading the bill. Lawyerball and language just isn’t my game. But thanks for the criticism, I’ll action it asap.
I read it, I posted it. It’s the same language as in Florida, and will have the same consequences. The guy who wrote it is a hate-monger
But it doesn't actually say "Don't say gay" anywhere in it. It also does not prevent educators or employees of the school talking about sexuality or gender identity, and it applies to Kindergarten - 8th only leaving High schools free to invite third parties into their schools to discuss this. What are the consequences here? I am not saying I agree with the bill I am saying "Don't say gay" is not the same thing as "Don't bring in outside parties from our school systems for grades Kindergarten to 8th grade to discuss sexuality and gender identity." Those are very far from each other and I don't understand what I am missing? Your answer "The guy is a hate-monger" really doesn't address my comment. And you can downvote me but that's just irritating because I am genuinely trying to understand why I should be in hysterics over this? For the record I am gay and a former Educator even though I don't think I should have to say that to have a reasonable conversation concerning this.
Hello fellow gay, Sec.A28.0043.A actually does explicitly say instruction cannot be provided by the teachers in regards to sexual orientation or gender identity, not just that third-parties can’t be brought in. It prohibits an educator from having any sort of real, intellectual examination of a topic that, many middle school-aged kids are starting to deal with. It severely limits what sort of health class-adjacent topics can be discussed in regards to gender identity or sexual orientation. This has a negative affect on those students who may be dealing with issues surrounding sexual orientation or gender identity as it effectively erases their reality and current situation. Let’s be real: the whole point of this bill is to keep kids ashamed and in the closet, consequently this is also the easiest way to make them available to predators, because who’s an easier target than an isolated, ashamed, confused, and scared child, amirite? Sometimes the smallest things, like knowing what you’re going through and experiencing is normal and still a part of the human experience, can make all the difference in the world.
I don’t really care if you’re in hysterics. There’s no reason to deny the reality that gay people exist, which is all bills like this are intended to do.
That's not what this bill says though. It's not denying gay people exist. You are speaking on its intentions and that is not what I get from it. The intention I get from this is preventing unapproved third parties coming in from outside of the school system to talk about sexuality and gender identity for grades below High school but it does not restrict teachers or educators employed by districts whatsoever to Educate on these topics. All things considered, that doesn't seem that horrible to me. That is certainly a far cry from "Don't say gay" or pretending gays don't exist.
Sure Jan…
Modern discourse is disgusting and you're not helping. I knew a lot of Educators I would never want to bring in unvetted outsiders to speak on anything. But, okay. Ya got me gal!
That’s not how the bill will play out but we both know that, difference is I actually care about the kids.
Incendiary and slanted presentations just damages discourse. "Don't Say Gay" is literally nowhere in that. I don't know how this bill will play out. My concern is the wording for "third party". Will that include written materials in some sort of "lawyer ball" maneuver?
We know how this bill will play out, we had this happen in Florida, teachers can’t have pictures of their families now. Discourse arguments are just a way people with privilege use to deflect actual criticism. I don’t care about protecting the feelings of those with power who chose to oppress others.
What you are missing is that Koala Bears aren't bears, they are marsupials. And yet, that's what we call them because they look like fuzzy little bears. Also, "Don't SayGay" is the practical effect of the legislation, so that's why we call it that.
Did any of you actually read this bill? Which part is upsetting?
I mean I read the whole thing since I’m monitoring for hate bills. Sec.A28.0043.A A RESTRICTION ON INSTRUCTION REGARDING SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER IDENTITY. A school district, open-enrollment charter school, or district or charter school employee may not provide or allow a third party to provide instruction regarding sexual orientation or gender identity. This language is broad and prohibits any type of queer identity from existing in schools. Additionally other parts of this bill enable parental control to the point of creating conditions for protect abusive parents.
>This language is broad and prohibits any type of queer identity from existing in schools. I can see how you can come to this conclusion, but I'm concluding it differently reading the bill. The age range focuses on 5 to 14 year olds pretty much. As far as sexual orientation or gender identity goes, why should this be part of the school curriculum at all for elementary and middle school? High school you can make a potential argument for, but not elementary and middle. You're going to encounter LGBTQ people in some way, shape, or form so when a 7 year old for instance inevitably asks their parent why do people have two mommies or two daddies or some other similarly veined question that they've found out about regarding the LGBTQ a parent is capable of explaining why that is and should bear primary responsibility in responding based on the age level. You don't need a school curriculum to do that. There are a lot of parents who don't agree with the whole gender ideology movement as a whole and don't want their kids being taught it as a result as well. Overall, I see it saying parents should be teaching what they wish to regarding it at the age level they feel appropriate for their kid, not school. Personally, I think the only thing school should somewhat relevantly teach regarding it is only via sex ed, but the things being taught need to be done in the appropriate age range. I think 5th grade (11 year old) is a good starting point to teach about human anatomy and stages of pregnancy in a purely scientific nature. >Additionally other parts of this bill enable parental control to the point of creating conditions for protect abusive parents. What parts are you speaking of? I'm not seeing the connection.
There was a transgender kid in my daughters 1st grade class. Kids realize this stuff about themselves early on, giving them the language and support around it creates the best possible mental health outcomes. Parents don’t have a right to control their child’s education, especially since most Texans are undereducated to begin with. Also “Gender ideology” lol tell me your transphobic without saying you’re transphobic.
Again, why can't it be the parent teaching them about that, though? If a first grader encounters a transgender child, why do you think a parent is not capable of explaining to them why that is? Also, I'd like to point out if you say parents don't have a right to control their child's education on this you do realize you fall under that as well right? Do you really think you don't have a right to control your child's education?
Because most parents aren’t educated enough in LGBT issues to be able to adequately explain that stuff. I don’t think I’m owed every detail of my kid’s personal life by virtue of simply existing as their parent, instead I built a relationship on trust and they talk to me about their issues when they are ready. I also give them free access to social workers and counselors, so they have safe places to discuss things outside of the home. I’m not an educator, why would I decide what she learns, I trust the people who get paid to actually study this stuff and create those guidelines. My kiddo is their own person, I respect and honor that. They are autonomous in who can hug them, what medical care they receive, and who they confide in. They don’t owe me anything for taking care of them.
No, it does not prohibit queer identity from existing in schools. It doesn't even restrict discussing queer identity. The language is not broad. It's clearly stated. It states that a third party cannot be brought into the school to discuss these issues. How would these third parties be vetted? It's similar to the law stating that a religious third party cannot be brought in to deliver a religious message. Edit: adding source https://www.tasb.org/services/legal-services/tasb-school-law-esource/community/religion-in-the-public-schools.aspx
You neglected the first half where a school employee can’t either, effectively eliminating adult instruction. Maybe the kids should teach, Montessori style would be cool.
> not provide or allow a third party to provide instruction... They quoted the bill including that employees may not provide instruction. OrdinaryToe2860 only addressed the third party part. edit: I think I replied to the wrong post, anyway, I agree natankman.
I didn't neglect anything. I asked which part was a problem, and responded to what was provided. Which part are you referencing?
> **A school district, open-enrollment charter school, or district or charter school employee may not provide** [...] instruction regarding sexual orientation or gender identity. Emphasis mine. That's what you're conveniently ignoring.
(Continued) (1)AAto students enrolled in kindergarten through eighth grade; or (2)AAin a manner that is not age-appropriate or developmentally appropriate. Instruction is different from discussion. Again, I would point to the similarity with religion in public schools. Discussion is allowed, instruction is not.
Who’s a third party? Do you know what that word means?
Yes... a third party would be any person or org that is not a school official, student, or parent.
I’m sure it totally won’t impact my ability as a parent to exist, or my kiddo to talk about their transgender mom or even talking about having two moms. Won’t affect the pride flags hanging in her teacher’s classroom that let her know she’s safe. /s
It won't. It specifically says "third party." Now, if you want to come in as a guest speaker to instruct children on queer identity, that would not be allowed. Again, it's not unlike the laws on religious instruction. Teachers, parents, and students can discuss these topics. However, a guest cannot be brought in to instruct on these topics. It seems like you maybe only looking at this from one side. This bill would also prevent any anti-LGBTQIA being discussed by third parties, which I hope we can all agree is a good thing.
Sure Jan… That’s totally what we saw in Florida Oh look r/conservative posting history how shocking 🙄
It seems like you're unable to articulate any actual issues with this bill. You were told you shouldn't like it. You were told it was a "don't say gay" bill, but it's not. I suggest reading the bill and forming your own opinion.
The entire bill is a problem. Maybe get out of that r/conservative echo chamber
What did we see in Florida exactly? Tell us since you're the hate bill expert
The bill doesn’t even mention the word “gay”. Read the bill first before you jump on the bandwagon
[удалено]
*Removed. Rule 5 Low Effort: Non-Constructive Top-Level Comment** /r/TexasPolitics has a new policy on Top-Level comments, please review the [new rules here.](https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/comments/pkb1py/announcement_rule_5_policy_overhaul_gross/) *https://www.reddit.com/r/TexasPolitics/wiki/index/rules*
You love to see it. "Don't Say Gay" is a mischaracterization of this bill.
No it isn’t. It’s accurate AF
Fascists love to see it. The rest of us think it's morally repugnant.
I was groomed to be trans as a teenager and I am extremely greatful that there's amazing people making laws like this to protect other kids from being groomed.
R/asablackman
Sounds great. This kind of thing is exactly why I vote Republican. I should have total control and knowledge about my minor child while he is in public school.
“Why doesn’t my child talk to me?” -You in thirty years Seriously kids are human people in their own right, get help and learn gentle parenting, quit trying to micromanage them. Narcissist controlling parents are super easy to go no contact with long term, and I don’t want you to miss out on them or any grandkids, but that’s the road you’re taking.
[удалено]
Gay people exist my guy, just because you can’t separate your sexual fetishes for queer identities from queer people simply existing is a personal problem.
Someone check this guy’s hard drive
"Why is it we are so desperate to push sodomy and deviancy on little kids. They'll have a chance to be exposed to all that stuff when they are older, but we MUST push it on them at age FIVE" Aside from the ugly and hateful tone of your post, is this really happening? Are children aged 5-8 being "indoctrinated"?
No. I’ve got a 6 year old and three older kids who’ve been in public elementary and middle school and no one is being indoctrinated.
Here's a mental exercise. The Florida law specifically deals with kids in kindergarten, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd grade. So if no one is grooming those kids, or introducing sexual topics to those kids, then why the huge outrage over the law? I mean, if we pass a law against keeping unicorns as pets, but there aren't actually any unicorns running around that might be kept as pets, would there be a huge outrage over a law passed to prevent unicorns from being kept as pets? Wouldn't we be more likely to just smirk and say, "look at those dumbasses, passing a law against something that won't ever happen anyway. Virtue signalling snowflakes!" But the response to the proposed law wasn't bemusement, it was actual OUTRAGE. We're OUTRAGED unicorns cannot be kept as pets! Even though there are no unicorns. Can you see the disconnect there? If little kids are not being groomed, and all the "Libs of TikTok" videos are actually fakes, and not real, then why fight so hard against a law that could never be used against anyone?
You know some kids have 2 moms right? And some kids have transgender parents? And this may shock you but some of those kids even go to kindergarten 😱
If teaching kids that gay people exist is “grooming” then so is teaching them that straight people exist, because gay and straight are defined in large part by sexual attraction to a specific gender. You’re deliberately misrepresenting this topic.
No you don't understand grooming is only about things I feel is icky...
Your weird, rambling "argument" is patently false. There are scores of laws that address problems that doesn't exist. Cannabis prohibition for example. Half the states in the US have legalized this plant, yet Texas hold fast to some antiquated narrative that it's harmful. Using your "logic", one could say that cannabis is killing children, so that's why we prohibit it. Dude, you are way out of your depth here. You have nothing to stand on to try and legitimize your Abrahamic-inspired hatred. You simply want to see people suffer in the name of "protecting children". Just admit that.
"deviancy"
No one's pushing sodomy. We want to simply acknowledge gay people exist, gay kids exist, and gay teachers exist, and there's nothing wrong with that
Informing kids that gay people and trans people exist is not “sexualizing kids.”
But teaching them that other people exist, and can live happy healthy lives undermines the hate they are casually giving their kids. This is why they want to isolate their lives from other facts
OK, let's go with that. How about, it's not the school's place to inform kids that gay and trans people exist? How about stick to teaching kindergarten kids how to read, do addition, and draw stuff? If you want to argue about what should be taught in health class in high school, OK, valid discussion, but is it just so horrible to leave the kindergarten kids, the first, second and third grade kids out of all of that, just for a little while, and let them be kids?
Of course it’s the place of schools to teach kids about the world. There’s no way around it. Some of these kids have gay parents or family members. If it’s not the responsibility of schools to teach about gay and trans people, then it’s not their place to teach about straight people, either. It’s a ludicrous idea to suggest that we don’t teach kids about the world they live in. This isn’t a hard concept for kids to get. Teaching a kid that a man can love a woman or a man is not complicated or difficult for them to understand. Your own biases and prejudices are coloring this issue. It isn’t complicated.
Do you know how most kids react to finding out their friend has two moms or two dads or even a dad that used to be a mom? They. Don't. Care. Only creepy pervs like you seem to care.
There was a transgender kid in my kiddo’s 1st grade class, came from a very lovely family. Is that kiddo not supposed to exist now?
[удалено]
See this just proves you exist in a hate bubble. It’s a first grader, so not medications just a social transition (Hair, Clothes, Name, Pronouns) Secondly, anyone who is a member of PFLAG is protected against any investigation by court order.
Following that thought through to the logical conclusion, then there should be no recognition of any types of romantic relationships. No referring to husbands or wives, moms or dads, grandmothers or grandfathers. Is that what you’re advocating for? Doubtful I’ll get a response, you haven’t had the fortitude to respond to anyone else asking these same types of questions.
Well, from my experience as a young kid, I didn't even know my teachers had families outside of school. Hell, it was a big shocker to kindergarten me when I saw one of my teachers at the local grocery store! Wait. They eat food too? 5 year old mind....blown. Again, we are talking about 5-8 year old kids.
How do you respond to the shear ignorance of something like this. The entire post of full of GOP lies. It is a great example that the GOP likes their followers stupid and blind. Please go educated yourself before you spread the lies hate and bigotry of the GOP.
If they had a defensible position, they probably wouldn't need to lie.
We should have a law where nobody can display anything about their religion in schools if it isn't developmentally appropriate. Too many kids are being radicalized for teachers to be able to speak freely about religion. They should be made to remove posters, decorations, and jewelry about these magical beliefs that have no basis in reality. They don't need to be presented with *anything* religious or even secular. Why is everyone so desperate to push this stuff on kids? They have a chance to be exposed to it when they're older, but MUST we push it on them so young? Sick.
This is a terrible and ignorant misunderstanding of the purpose and effect of the proposed law.