54

50 comments

That's me! Card-carrying Florida Democrat. Read the bill WAAAAAY before any of the media picked up on it and I supported it. Only more firmly supported it once the media created stupid rhetoric around it.

I find "likely Democratic voters" an interesting phrase. Like I said, registered Dem here, but when I go into that voting booth...doesn't mean I'm voting Democrat. They've been pissing me off every day.

How out of touch can the party be? It's nuts!

I warned my mom (a "yella dog Democrat") a year ago that the Democratic party was creating open goals for the Republicans. I kept saying "all Republicans have to do is POINT to this stuff"--meaning the gender stuff. All they have to do is point to all the Democratic rhetoric, the defense of Lia Thomas, etc, etc. The Dems HANDED Republicans winnable talking points. Meanwhile, almost NO ONE is talking about Florida's abortion ban, which passed about the same time as "No Gay, Jose!" (hey, my moniker for it is no more ridiculous than the media's)

Meanwhile, almost NO ONE is talking about Florida's abortion ban, which passed about the same time as "No Gay, Jose!"

This is my entire point. Gender ideology erased women as a sex class, which meant we can't fight for our rights. We can't go to a pro choice rally without it being taken over by TWAW!!!! and violence against women. Gender ideology drew money and attention away from women's activist groups and redirected it to men with fetishes and medicalizing children.

This diversion weakened women as a sex class and allowed R's to finally succeed with anti-abortion legislation they've been desperate to pass for decades.

[–] real_feminist 7 points Edited

I find "likely Democratic voters" an interesting phrase. Like I said, registered Dem here, but when I go into that voting booth...doesn't mean I'm voting Democrat.

You probably know this, but this verbiage isn't saying that it's likely that you're going to vote for a Democrat. It's saying that you're a Democrat who is likely to vote. Could be more clear. I hope they get the message and about-face soon! I'm with you! I'm considering writing in a radfem if I don't have a good option just to send a message.

Right, that's what I am saying--that verbiage IS correct. That what is going to happen is, registered Democrats who are likely to vote are not falling into line.

But I honestly don't know how I am going to vote. I just really don't know. sigh.

I wish more people would talk about the reason why people unfortunately even feel the need to discuss sex to kids this young, and I truly believe it’s because of the influence of pornography that is actually causing children to engage in sex acts younger and younger. Kids old enough to work their own tablets, laptops, etc. have seen porn, if not seen it directly, then seen it indirectly through the vast amount of “kids videos” on youtube that are hypersexual, pornified, already indoctrinating them with the degradation and sexualization of women and girls. This is an important aspect to all of this and it seems no one speaks of it.

Yes!! Completely agree. The amount of grooming material online is staggering, and it's aimed at kids ( a la Gacha Life content that's sexualized)

We need walled gardens for kids yesterday and we need to be able to actually punish the MEN who breach them.

The infographic refers to 'sexual orientation' but the rest of the article refers to 'sexual orientation or gender identity'. Do we know what they're actually trying to talk to the kids about? I assumed it was gender identity.

I think the bill is against sex and gender education preschool through 3rd grade.

And I'm completely ok with this.

that is a very interesting angle that I have not heard brought up before. I only hear that it is about "grooming" or "indoctrinating" to one or the other side on gender/sex politics, but it makes a lot of sense that the questions the kids themselves will have are going to be different regardless of the law...

It seems that on either side, whether this bill passes or not, our children are being groomed but we’re being led to dead ends and useless battles, when the larger fight is one of pornography and misogyny, even gender ideology itself ties back into those very two things!! (which, pornography is misogyny of course, so I guess its really just one enemy: misogyny itself).

I advise everyone to take the 5 minutes it takes to read the 7 page bill. It gives you all the backing you need for any discussion.

Also it doesn’t even say the word gay or mention anything of LGBT.

Simply states children prek-3 won’t have explicit instruction on sexuality and gender identity.

Despite the lies the media is peddling, a child is allowed to talk about his two moms or whatever have you

That’s what I thought, I was so confused by some people’s interpretation both here and in LGBT circles I’m a member of. I think it’s a good thing sexuality is being included with gender identity here because neither is a topic appropriate for young children.

I actually think it’s the perfect balance BECAUSE it doesn’t say anything about “gay” or “LGBT” and is just focused on forbidding inappropriate conversations.

No one would be getting so upset about it if the media wasn’t being disingenuous and outright lying about the context of the bill.

Well, at least people who don’t want to groom children wouldn’t be mad.

[–] NoOneSpecial 12 points Edited

The T literally cannibalized the LGB and destroyed all the hard work that has been done to gain our acceptance. Shame on these sexist proliferators of the gender divide.

Same thing happened with the Equality Act. They mashed gender ideology with basic understanding about same-sex attraction, making the protection of one (LGB folk) dependent on the peddling of the other (transgender nonsense). Horribly, "protecting" transgenderism as these people claim to be doing directly removes the safeguarding of the LGB community. You cannot protect against discrimination based on sexual orientation if sexual orientation doesn't exist. They handed a win to all the religious homophobes.

This is what happens when you don't protect sex as a class from discrimination, but you're more than willing to protect sexist gender stereotypes.

Looks like their obfuscation tactics haven't worked. Turns out that the majority of Democrats don't want TRAs telling their children they can identify out of their biological sex anymore than Republicans do.

That's DEMOCRATIC voters--boy, the Democratic Party sure needs a wake-up all!

So long as Pritzker and Rothblatt keep funding them, they ain't doing shit.

The object isn't to win things like "a majority" it's to maintain power over their state. They're rich as Croesus anyway.

Forced teaming...I think it's totally appropriate that students in grades K-3 should be taught that "some families have two moms, some families have two dads" when they learn about families in school. That's an important gain and we shouldn't backtrack on that. This bill is trying to erase the acknowledgement of gay people, I find it chilling.

But discussing sexual attraction in K-3 and teaching "gender identity" stereotypes as pseudoscience, these things should not be permitted.

Don't fall into the outrage spirals fed by our two-party system. If only we had more parties, there could be some to take a reasonable stance in the middle between these extremes. I wish Americans could take that energy that they have to demand that corporations like Disney take a side, and point it at the two-party system instead.

I don’t think forbidding discussion of sexuality in K-3 would prevent classrooms from teaching stories or lessons that depict families with two dads or two moms, no? Did I misread the bill?

I know that’s how a lot of LGBT people interpreted it, but I don’t think representation of a same sex couple falls under the umbrella of actually explaining/discussing sexuality (which I think we can all agree is inappropriate for K-3 kids).

[–] Selkiesmer 6 points Edited

I’d be curious to get some clarification on this. Unfortunately it seems like social conservatives see anything related to sexual orientation as “sexuality” so it does sound to me like non-sexual references to gay couples could be targeted?

It’s a terrible double standard that doesn’t get applied to heterosexuals. No one thinks the Little Mermaid is inappropriately sexual, despite that it’s a romance and she eventually kisses and has a baby with a male partner.

The bill is 7 pages long. It doesn’t mention the word gay or “LBGT” at all, simply states that there will be no lesson plans on sexuality or gender identity from pre k-3

I finally looked at the bill, which is called the "Parental Rights in Education" act. Most of it deals with parents' rights to be involved in, or at least informed of, matters relating to a "student's mental, emotional, or physical health or well-being, or a change in related services or monitoring." So it seems like a reaction to school personnel helping a child adopt a new identity while keeping this secret from "transphobic" parents. The "don't say gay" part seems designed to head off these new identities by keeping gender ideology out of the classroom, at least in the early years. It's too bad they included sexual orientation in the prohibition; I bet many LGB people who are against a "don't say gay" bill would have been on board with getting rid of gender indoctrination in kindergarten.

[–] NO 19 points

See? You trans people will make it so gay people lose rights. Can't you put your willy away for one second? I know you think your erections are more important than all women globally and all gay and bi men combined and here you're seeing the consequences.

Leave us gays the fuck out of your ideology.

TRAs are doing more than causing gays to lose their rights. They’re trying to wipe gays by transitioning gay, lesbian and bi kids. I read that some gays are calling it the “gay genocide or gay eugenics.”

This goes beyond gay and women's rights.

They are asking people to literally lie in a major way and say things are the opposite of what they are. Not to pretend for the sake of niceness... but to literally believe a lie. Everyone. Not just gays. Not just women. Everyone.

I've seen some non-binary, crazy young women who claim to be teachers, and the things they are telling their students is awful.

I'm truly starting to wonder whether I support full employment rights for "transgender" crazies.

[–] hmimperialtortie AGP = evil 3 points

Who named it “Don’t Say Gay” in the first place?

I'd like to know, too . . . I mean it doesn't even mention "gay"--it just says you can't talk to kids under 9 about sex or sexualities. That seems pretty darned reasonable to me!

[–] hmimperialtortie AGP = evil 2 points

Ditto!

I know I’d have died of embarrassment (or possibly just confusion) if any of my teachers had talked about anything to do with sex in any way when I was at primary school. Mind you they’d have walked out en masse if required to.

Lying liars who lie.

They know it doesn't have jack shit to do with gay people. This bill is about TRAs who are intent on injecting gender ideology into elementary school curriculum.

Load more (5 comments)