How is that a strawman? From the article linked above: it sounds like the OH law is trying to outlaw teachers from including sexual orientation and gender identity scheduled lesson plans in k-3rd grade. If those aren't in the lesson plans this law is changing nothing - which seems fine to me as why would any teacher care if a topic they don't plan on teaching about is illegal to teach about.

Thankfully, pontificating about the revolting homophobic views of the bible in a school setting largely fall under the well established legal rules surrounding separation of church and state.

This is silly. There is plenty of entirely reasonable 1st grade appropriate things to be done. This isn't talking about penises and vaginas or whatever other nonsense the right imagines it to be when trying to ban it. But it might be reading a book where the kid has two dads. Or one parent. Or two parents that don't live together. Or a parent that doesn't look like they do.

I have a four year old. One of his sets of grandparents are "gramma and oma". We read an enormous number of books, and it is a good thing he has seen representations of families that look like his family as well. One of his favourite books is this one, that represents all sorts of weird families. I'm proud that at four, he already is so much ****ing better than Ohio republicans, and guess what: I barely did a ****ing thing because kids know instinctively that we should be kind to everyone and it is ok to be different.

Also for what it is worth, he has totally learned his planets in the solar system and loves flying his lego space shuttle to the pillow planets in our living room.

Indeed, indeed. One other "tactic", or rhetorical theme that is highly used is presenting LGBTQ+ people as being "fake", just an excuse to get into the bathroom/changeroom/spas etc to sexually predate women and children, or any number of other nefarious purposes. Patterns of rhetoric are super dangerous, even if sometimes people find an actual example of fake gay pedophile or whatever, it is the constant reframing of the discussion into these types of topics we need to call out.

“Let’s not teach preschoolers about the planets” is a fun tale. Let’s not tell them about dinosaurs and other cool **** either.

I agree that these events are likely rare, but after seeing BLM success in highlighting extremely rare events to get millions of dollars I think we will see more and more groups try to use these type of tactics.

I'm glad someone else enjoyed my short, but true tale. I'm slightly surprised the take away was we shouldn't teach them about the planets or dinosaurs at all though.

I apologize for asking this question in this forum..

My rejoinders to those responding to my question would probably find me "earning" about 100 infraction points.

So, I will leave this topic alone in this forum.

Sorry for the derail.

Yup. The same kind of strawman that is being used in all the culture wars being brought to school boards across the US. I'm pretty sure the vast majority of parents who get riled up about this **** have no ****ing clue what is being taught in their schools.

As an example of the small amount of spillover we're seeing here in Canada, our school district recently engaged with a group around racial equity - after months of interviews of different stakeholders including primarily POC, they provided the school district with a report that has many recommendations. The only action taken thus far was that the superintendent is to report back to the school board with next steps. Yet that didn't stop a parent from emailing with concerns that the school district is moving ahead with teaching Critical Race Theory to kids. There's a very deliberate campaign to use CRT and SOGI as tools to whip parents into a frenzy for no reason other than their own political gain, and sadly there's a number of people that are buying it all hook, line, and sinker. And of course there are others who are homophobes, transphobes, and/or racists who are more than happy to be part of this.

Your precise wording may not have been a strawman, but it's a line ripped right out of the anti-SOGI strawman playbook. Why is there a need for such legislation? The proponents will tell you about all the horrible things being taught to kids at an inappropriate age, or that will be if something isn't done. That's the strawman.

This, this, a thousand times this. The idea that rather than trust professional educators to teach age-appropriate lessons, we need legislators to pass sweeping laws deciding what should or shouldn't be taught, is simply preposterous. Especially when said laws are so transparently intended for political purposes. The words "is illegal to teach about" are something we should pretty much never want to hear.

Well said.

Yeah, I have to say that's the first time I've heard someone complain that their niece was being taught about the solar system too early. Wait, what?

Have you considered that learning about the planets is also a way to introduce counting to eight in a fun way?

Wait, you mean teachers might be using things kids are excited to learn to teach them about the alphabet and numbers? What an odd concept.

Bobo, can a woman have a penis? Can a man give birth? Am I a transphobe, bigot, whatever for believing that to not be true?

Please don't be a coward and just answer my question. Say "Yes a woman can have a penis and men can give birth" if that's really what you believe.

Seems like you ought to do a bit of background reading on the topic before demanding people explain the basic concepts to you.

Here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_an...er_distinction

I am not going to look up and read the legislation but i was listening to legal talking heads speak about it this morning.

The view was that although the crafters of this legislation want you to believe and focus on Grade's 1-3 with a 'Who does not want to protect young children' type exclamation, the actual legislation leaves it open for claims of inappropriate content taught or presented at ANY AGE, and that determination may be made by how very political people take it at the time of telling.

So a high school discussion could be subject to a legal test with the teacher dragged in, if a prosecutor thinks the topic too risqué or inappropriate.

It was compared to the abortion law that could see even an Uber driver sued just for taking a person to an abortion clinic. Deliberately vague so the threat is in place.

When I was kid, we could actually count to nine that way!

Death Camps for Unborn Babies (a.k.a. "Abortion" Clinics) usually also offer some legitimate medical services, so such a law I suspect would be difficult to prosecute.

It's more about the threat then its execution. The law in Texas is accepted to be more about intimidation than prosecution.

The deliberate vagueness is indeed a good point (ffs Cuepee is having a good morning!). This is part of the florida don't say gay bill as well. Can a school teacher mention the existence of their opposite gender spouse, for instance? Well....it's....vague. That is teaching about sexual orientation, right? Presumably all the right wing people advocating for this absolutely don't intend this, but the vagueness cuts both ways.

A super-literal interpretation would mean we also don't teach hetero-normative gender identities. So I guess everyone gets gender-neutral pronouns? Maybe by the time they reach 9th grade we can tell them George Washington was a man?

This is a common tactic. Rhetorically focus on the thing you think is more obvious (banning trans people from elite competition) while the actual consequences of the law primarily are affecting a whole different group where it is no where near as obvious (school kids being banned from school teams).

uke posted a link saying OH is considering a law banning teachers from having a planned discussion about SOGI to K-3rd grade kids.

I asked who thinks it is a good idea to teach SOGI to k-3rd grade.

cuepee asks if I am straw manning by asking if the actual law that OH is considering is a good or bad idea.

I didn't say anything except asking if anyone in their right mind is for teachers teaching SOGI to k-3rd graders, which is exactly what the article uke posted says is in the bill. I didn't rip anything from anyone's playbook except the playbook of the actual proposed law.

If there is no need for the legislation because teachers aren't teaching this stuff, which is what you suggest, why are you against it? Why would you be against any legislation that doesn't effect anything or anyone? Let the politician pass his worthless legislation and let's move on.

You act like I haven't read that or don't understand your arguments. I have and I do, I just disagree that sex and gender are separate. Race is also classified as a social construct just like gender, even though it's obviously rooted in biology and is real. So if race is also a social construct, can I identify as black? What if I take tanning injections and change my skin tone to carmel, am I black then? What about Michael Jackson, was he white at the end of his life? Help me understand guys, thanks.

I'd like Bobo to answer but you can answer too if you like, can a woman have a penis? And can a man get pregnant? It's an easy question Bobo, just tell me what you believe. And am I a bigot for thinking that's not true? Thanks.

That's the thing though, these groomers do want to teach sex to kids.

The threat is more powerful than the execution. -Aron Nimzovich

Dude, if you come in and ask a bunch of dumb questions, I’m just going to assume you’re a dumb person. Maybe next time just skip the bad-faith questions and lead with whatever your point is?

Again, stop with the bad faith questioning and just come out with whatever you actually want to say. Why are bigots always so coy?

For additional background then on it's very deliberate vagueness...

I'm being serious though, my questions aren't in bad faith I'm just curious how far people who believe you can change genders believe you can choose your own identity. Race, like gender, is classified as a social construct. So I'm just curious if you think I can identify as black too? I'm just genuinely curious what people think, I'm not trying to make a point or say anything. Obviously since I don't believe you can transition genders I also don't believe you can transition races by getting tanning injections. But I'd like to know what you believe.

I don't understand why these question are so hard to just directly answer. If you ask me a question of what I believe I will give you an honest direct answer and all I'm asking for is the same. I just want to know what people believe. Thanks.