> parents can't be trusted to teach these sorts of things
Neither can the state. I'll refer you to Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and North Korea for excellent examples of why we shouldn't trust the state to decide what children should learn.
> It prohibits discussions of sexuality. As in, you can't even acknowledge that same-sex relationships or transgendered people even exist. Sounds like it wouldn't come up? Think again: Teachers and students don't just exist inside a classroom. They will encounter each other regularly in the community. If some kid sees a (male) teacher kissing their husband in the Walmart parking lot how is the teacher supposed to respond to that when asked about it in school the next day?
Nothing. The point is that it is the parents' responsibility to address these issues. Whether they actually address these issues is a moot point. It is their right, first and foremost.
> No Florida curriculum for K-3 has any sex-related material.
No. But many other states have introduced sex-related materials into curricula for K-3/4. [0]
[0] https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/spring-fever (the majority of the article is about the Dutch, see the section discussing Chicago)
Perhaps sex in its entirety should not be taught before 5th grade. That's when I learned it in school. I always thought it seemed a bit early, but I suspect it was done in order to get ahead of wet kids might be exposed to from 8th graders when they moved up to middle school.
But preventing discussion of sexuality does nothing about the general problem of teaching sex education too early. It's just piling worse on top of bad.
I see no merit in banning discussion of topics like "sometimes men love men instead of women". That's literally a fact about the world, even if you think it's an abomination or whatever.
Moreover, let's extend the parent-choice principle further. Should teaching evolution in schools be exempt because some parents don't believe in it? What about the germ theory of disease? It's simply not a logically-sound or morally-consistent justification for a "don't say gay" law.
What are they going to say? “I’m sorry, I’m not allowed to talk about that. Ask your parents?”
There's two problems with this:
1) Parents often don't do that. Resulting in all sorts of societal problems e.g. increased teenage pregnancy, STDs, suicides, etc. We can argue about the age at which they need to learn about sex but ultimately they do have to learn about it and no, parents can't be trusted to teach these sorts of things (if history is any guide!).
2) You assume that the bill in question only prevents discussions of sex (as in, intercourse). That's not the only thing it prohibits. It prohibits discussions of sexuality. As in, you can't even acknowledge that same-sex relationships or transgendered people even exist. Sounds like it wouldn't come up? Think again: Teachers and students don't just exist inside a classroom. They will encounter each other regularly in the community. If some kid sees a (male) teacher kissing their husband in the Walmart parking lot how is the teacher supposed to respond to that when asked about it in school the next day?
You can say that the teacher should tell the kid to mind their own business or some other, "avoid talking about it by all means possible" excuse but it still puts the teacher at risk. In fact, schools might not even hire gay or transgendered teachers just to avoid that risk... Which is one of the big problems with the bill: It gives school administrators an excuse not to hire someone based on sex.
Remember: The bill isn't about curriculum. No Florida curriculum for K-3 has any sex-related material. It's a tool for religious/conservative parents to attack gay and transgendered teachers.