RPGnet's decay (TBP madness)

[Mistwell]

And fuck you and you're bullshit virtue signalling about how delightfully woke your family is. You know why? Because you are the same hypocritical twat who posted on Dellaforno's Facebook page to declare about how you posted here to troll us neanderthals in an effort to show much of a social justice warrior you were.

I'm not buying it. You perfectly understand what I'm saying. You just don't want to look at the reality of the situation because an honest appraisal of it will destroy your outlook on fighting for the cause using these tactics.

Fuck you, jeff. What I said to Dellaforno's friend is that we're a bunch of assholes here - which is exactly the same thing I say to your face. Most of us here will proudly admit to that. I didn't say anything on Facebook that I don't say here.

The only thing I said just now was that I had gay friends - so you're claiming that having gay friends is being "woke". But I know plenty of libertarian or even conservative folks who have gay friends, or are gay themselves. You can accuse me of being woke over other things, but being gay or having gay friends doesn't mean that someone is woke.

Bullshit.

My son learned about gender before he could speak, like all kids as far as I know. He knew that there was male and female, and had to learn appropriate pronouns as part of speaking. During the process of learning to speak, he also learned traditional classification of people as boys or girls, men or women, based on their appearance.

He was also exposed to stories of romantic love well before kindergarten - like in movies, picture books, and TV. We had brought him to two weddings I think before he was in 1st grade - his aunt's and a friend's. He was ringbearer for his aunt. So he knew about love, romance, and marriage. The friend's wedding was a same-sex wedding, so he knew that two women could get married (though it had no legal meaning at the time). After he got to elementary school, he made a friend whose parents were lesbians - so he also knew through that.

Is you using your son as a standard bearer to impress upon the reader how socially just your son has been raised by you. It is virtue signalling at its lowest and is woke as Hell.

Meanwhile, you're acting as if the Florida bill prevents explicit sex ed in grades K-3, but that's not what the bill does. It allows any degree of sex ed to kids, as long as it's hetero sex. What it does is ban any discussion of gayness. And my position is there's nothing inappropriate to kids in K-3 about stuff like marriage, parents, growing up, and similar.

Wow. It is like you have not bothered to read the Florida bill at all and are just making shit up. Why don't you try reading the bill?

Or, better yet, since you think that readers are stupid, show us the exact wording in the Florida bill where it only allows the teaching of hetero sex ed to kids grade K-3 and demands that people "don't say gay". Can you do that at least?

I keep seeing "You didn't read the bill" repeated by both sides here. So, here is the relevant text:

In its preamble, the bill's authors write that their aim is to prohibit "classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity."

Later, the bill states:

"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."

[Trond]

So, if I were a school principal interpreting this bill and trying to avoid trouble, I'd say "avoid any discussion of sex and sexual orientation until after 3rd grade". Which is probably what the intention is, and probably is just fine. I didn't have any discussion of sexual matters by teachers in school until fifth or sixth grade I think.

[jhkim]

It is like you have not bothered to read the Florida bill at all and are just making shit up. Why don't you try reading the bill?

Or, better yet, since you think that readers are stupid, show us the exact wording in the Florida bill where it only allows the teaching of hetero sex ed to kids grade K-3 and demands that people "don't say gay". Can you do that at least?

I keep seeing "You didn't read the bill" repeated by both sides here. So, here is the relevant text:

In its preamble, the bill's authors write that their aim is to prohibit "classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity."

Later, the bill states:

"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."

Thanks, Mistwell. I posted it earlier in Reply #940, but it's good to repeat it.

As I read it, this bans a teacher from defining what "gay" means to students, since that would be instruction on sexual orientation. Further, even if they didn't technically define the word "gay" - this could be invoked if a teacher said stuff that portrayed gay people. I gave the example of reading "Heather Has Two Mommies" to students, which I think would be sued under this law.

Wntrlnd gave an example about a message telling kids that probably someone in their class would grow up to be gay, as part of teaching kids not to ostracize or shame kids for perceived gay behavior - and I think that would also be banned, because in order to teach what it means that one will grow up to be gay, that requires either defining or illustrating what that means.

[GeekyBugle]

It is like you have not bothered to read the Florida bill at all and are just making shit up. Why don't you try reading the bill?

Or, better yet, since you think that readers are stupid, show us the exact wording in the Florida bill where it only allows the teaching of hetero sex ed to kids grade K-3 and demands that people "don't say gay". Can you do that at least?

I keep seeing "You didn't read the bill" repeated by both sides here. So, here is the relevant text:

In its preamble, the bill's authors write that their aim is to prohibit "classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity."

Later, the bill states:

"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."

Thanks, Mistwell. I posted it earlier in Reply #940, but it's good to repeat it.

As I read it, this bans a teacher from defining what "gay" means to students, since that would be instruction on sexual orientation. Further, even if they didn't technically define the word "gay" - this could be invoked if a teacher said stuff that portrayed gay people. I gave the example of reading "Heather Has Two Mommies" to students, which I think would be sued under this law.

Wntrlnd gave an example about a message telling kids that probably someone in their class would grow up to be gay, as part of teaching kids not to ostracize or shame kids for perceived gay behavior - and I think that would also be banned, because in order to teach what it means that one will grow up to be gay, that requires either defining or illustrating what that means.

Is straight a sexual orientation? Yes or no.
Is "Cis" a gender identity? Yes or no.

Let me save you the mental gimnastics, the answer to both is yes. Therefore the bill clearlñy prohibits any and all discussion of such matters regardless of your sexuality or gender identity.

But both of you may (and most certainly will) keep equivocating and being disingenuous.

[Trond]

As far as "only heterosexual content" is allowed, there is one more aspect to this:
Say, that a kid asks "how do moms and dads make babies" ?
Well, you can answer the question perfectly well, with no lies, without getting into sexual orientation, although the activity is a heterosexual one. So heterosexuality does, in a sense, have more of a general "application" if you will.  But given the current law, it's probably safest for the teacher to tell the kid to ask mom and dad.

[jhkim]

Is straight a sexual orientation? Yes or no.
Is "Cis" a gender identity? Yes or no.

Let me save you the mental gimnastics, the answer to both is yes. Therefore the bill clearlñy prohibits any and all discussion of such matters regardless of your sexuality or gender identity.

But both of you may (and most certainly will) keep equivocating and being disingenuous.

This is the point that I was making earlier that straight and gay are not being treated equally.

Let's take, for example, a coming-of-age story like Bambi growing up in the Disney movie. In the "twitterpated" scene, he and his male friends are shown becoming attracted to and pairing off with girl animals. Does this mean that Bambi or any story with similar themes would be banned from being shown to kids in K-3?

I believe that this was not intended and would not be enforced. However, I do think that if any story portrayed gay attraction in the same manner would be sued under the law.

[Mistwell]

It is like you have not bothered to read the Florida bill at all and are just making shit up. Why don't you try reading the bill?

Or, better yet, since you think that readers are stupid, show us the exact wording in the Florida bill where it only allows the teaching of hetero sex ed to kids grade K-3 and demands that people "don't say gay". Can you do that at least?

I keep seeing "You didn't read the bill" repeated by both sides here. So, here is the relevant text:

In its preamble, the bill's authors write that their aim is to prohibit "classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity."

Later, the bill states:

"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."

Thanks, Mistwell. I posted it earlier in Reply #940, but it's good to repeat it.

As I read it, this bans a teacher from defining what "gay" means to students, since that would be instruction on sexual orientation. Further, even if they didn't technically define the word "gay" - this could be invoked if a teacher said stuff that portrayed gay people. I gave the example of reading "Heather Has Two Mommies" to students, which I think would be sued under this law.

Wntrlnd gave an example about a message telling kids that probably someone in their class would grow up to be gay, as part of teaching kids not to ostracize or shame kids for perceived gay behavior - and I think that would also be banned, because in order to teach what it means that one will grow up to be gay, that requires either defining or illustrating what that means.

Is straight a sexual orientation? Yes or no.
Is "Cis" a gender identity? Yes or no.

Let me save you the mental gimnastics, the answer to both is yes. Therefore the bill clearlñy prohibits any and all discussion of such matters regardless of your sexuality or gender identity.

But both of you may (and most certainly will) keep equivocating and being disingenuous.

By "both of you" are you accusing jhkim of having multiple personalities? Or did you include Jeff in that? Because all I said in that quote is "People keep accusing others of not reading the text so here is the text" and earlier I said "I get the intent of this but I don't think they wrote the legalize all that well to match that intent." Neither of which I think can be fairly construed as "being disingenuous."

I am genuinely saying they should have written this bill better, with specific examples of acceptable and unacceptable behavior so that everyone is clear on what is and is not allowed and doesn't have to depend on vaguely worded standards or "mother may I?" memos to the whims of principals and other administrators which can vary from school to school or district to district.

I work in the education field, in an adjacent sense, and I know how vaguely worded standards tend to operate. It doesn't help anyone to not make standards really clear, and with examples.

[GeekyBugle]

Is straight a sexual orientation? Yes or no.
Is "Cis" a gender identity? Yes or no.

Let me save you the mental gimnastics, the answer to both is yes. Therefore the bill clearlñy prohibits any and all discussion of such matters regardless of your sexuality or gender identity.

But both of you may (and most certainly will) keep equivocating and being disingenuous.

This is the point that I was making earlier that straight and gay are not being treated equally.

Let's take, for example, a coming-of-age story like Bambi growing up in the Disney movie. In the "twitterpated" scene, he and his male friends are shown becoming attracted to and pairing off with girl animals. Does this mean that Bambi or any story with similar themes would be banned from being shown to kids in K-3?

I believe that this was not intended and would not be enforced. However, I do think that if any story portrayed gay attraction in the same manner would be sued under the law.

I'm sure there's lots of gay deer, rabits and skunks....

Turn on the TV, tell me the ratio of LGB  to hetero in ANY kids show not to mention in other age brackets.

" I do think, I do believe, I feel" Call me when you have anything concrete that can be measured.

[tenbones]

There is a difference between watching Bambi, which is a non-interactive animated movie that literally has nothing to do with sexuality in theme, and an adult human authority figure with an agenda to inculcate the mind of a child with their specific viewpoint on sexual practices that *they* arbitrarily find "normal" for the express purpose of promoting such.

[Pat]

Let's take, for example, a coming-of-age story like Bambi growing up in the Disney movie. In the "twitterpated" scene, he and his male friends are shown becoming attracted to and pairing off with girl animals. Does this mean that Bambi or any story with similar themes would be banned from being shown to kids in K-3?

I did not know Bambi was a teacher in Florida. That's a major victory for cervine representation!

[GeekyBugle]

Let's take, for example, a coming-of-age story like Bambi growing up in the Disney movie. In the "twitterpated" scene, he and his male friends are shown becoming attracted to and pairing off with girl animals. Does this mean that Bambi or any story with similar themes would be banned from being shown to kids in K-3?

I did not know Bambi was a teacher in Florida. That's a major victory for cervine representation!

LOL!

Also "Girl Animals"?

Girl = Immature Human Female.

Ergo there's no such thing as "Girl Animals", you have ONE animal to which you can apply the term.

[Shasarak]

jkim is absolutely right.  I personally would have turned out queer if not for the gender affirmation of the animated Bambi movie.

[jeff37923]

And fuck you and you're bullshit virtue signalling about how delightfully woke your family is. You know why? Because you are the same hypocritical twat who posted on Dellaforno's Facebook page to declare about how you posted here to troll us neanderthals in an effort to show much of a social justice warrior you were.

I'm not buying it. You perfectly understand what I'm saying. You just don't want to look at the reality of the situation because an honest appraisal of it will destroy your outlook on fighting for the cause using these tactics.

Fuck you, jeff. What I said to Dellaforno's friend is that we're a bunch of assholes here - which is exactly the same thing I say to your face. Most of us here will proudly admit to that. I didn't say anything on Facebook that I don't say here.

The only thing I said just now was that I had gay friends - so you're claiming that having gay friends is being "woke". But I know plenty of libertarian or even conservative folks who have gay friends, or are gay themselves. You can accuse me of being woke over other things, but being gay or having gay friends doesn't mean that someone is woke.

Bullshit.

My son learned about gender before he could speak, like all kids as far as I know. He knew that there was male and female, and had to learn appropriate pronouns as part of speaking. During the process of learning to speak, he also learned traditional classification of people as boys or girls, men or women, based on their appearance.

He was also exposed to stories of romantic love well before kindergarten - like in movies, picture books, and TV. We had brought him to two weddings I think before he was in 1st grade - his aunt's and a friend's. He was ringbearer for his aunt. So he knew about love, romance, and marriage. The friend's wedding was a same-sex wedding, so he knew that two women could get married (though it had no legal meaning at the time). After he got to elementary school, he made a friend whose parents were lesbians - so he also knew through that.

Is you using your son as a standard bearer to impress upon the reader how socially just your son has been raised by you. It is virtue signalling at its lowest and is woke as Hell.

Meanwhile, you're acting as if the Florida bill prevents explicit sex ed in grades K-3, but that's not what the bill does. It allows any degree of sex ed to kids, as long as it's hetero sex. What it does is ban any discussion of gayness. And my position is there's nothing inappropriate to kids in K-3 about stuff like marriage, parents, growing up, and similar.

Wow. It is like you have not bothered to read the Florida bill at all and are just making shit up. Why don't you try reading the bill?

Or, better yet, since you think that readers are stupid, show us the exact wording in the Florida bill where it only allows the teaching of hetero sex ed to kids grade K-3 and demands that people "don't say gay". Can you do that at least?

I keep seeing "You didn't read the bill" repeated by both sides here. So, here is the relevant text:

In its preamble, the bill's authors write that their aim is to prohibit "classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity."

Later, the bill states:

"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."

Hey look, it is the other flavor of jell-o!

Nowhere in your quotes, which don't link back to a verified representation of the bill, does it say "don't say gay". Your quotes appear to say that discussion of that subject matter of ANY orientation will not occur.

So thank you for supporting my argument.

[jeff37923]

It is like you have not bothered to read the Florida bill at all and are just making shit up. Why don't you try reading the bill?

Or, better yet, since you think that readers are stupid, show us the exact wording in the Florida bill where it only allows the teaching of hetero sex ed to kids grade K-3 and demands that people "don't say gay". Can you do that at least?

I keep seeing "You didn't read the bill" repeated by both sides here. So, here is the relevant text:

In its preamble, the bill's authors write that their aim is to prohibit "classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity."

Later, the bill states:

"Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3 or in a manner that is not age appropriate or developmentally appropriate for students in accordance with state standards."

Thanks, Mistwell. I posted it earlier in Reply #940, but it's good to repeat it.

As I read it, this bans a teacher from defining what "gay" means to students, since that would be instruction on sexual orientation. Further, even if they didn't technically define the word "gay" - this could be invoked if a teacher said stuff that portrayed gay people. I gave the example of reading "Heather Has Two Mommies" to students, which I think would be sued under this law.

So we should only use your own personal interpretation? Even though it is most likely a lie?

gave an example about a message telling kids that probably someone in their class would grow up to be gay, as part of teaching kids not to ostracize or shame kids for perceived gay behavior - and I think that would also be banned, because in order to teach what it means that one will grow up to be gay, that requires either defining or illustrating what that means.

Can you provide us with a link? Otherwise, this is also most likely a lie.

[jeff37923]

Is straight a sexual orientation? Yes or no.
Is "Cis" a gender identity? Yes or no.

Let me save you the mental gimnastics, the answer to both is yes. Therefore the bill clearlñy prohibits any and all discussion of such matters regardless of your sexuality or gender identity.

But both of you may (and most certainly will) keep equivocating and being disingenuous.

This is the point that I was making earlier that straight and gay are not being treated equally.

Let's take, for example, a coming-of-age story like Bambi growing up in the Disney movie. In the "twitterpated" scene, he and his male friends are shown becoming attracted to and pairing off with girl animals. Does this mean that Bambi or any story with similar themes would be banned from being shown to kids in K-3?

I believe that this was not intended and would not be enforced. However, I do think that if any story portrayed gay attraction in the same manner would be sued under the law.

Straight and gay are not being treated equally because Bambi?

You are trying to turn this into a drinking game, aren't you?