Re:The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy...
by rayiner on Friday April 29, 2022 @03:09PM
(#31209433)
This is the relevant text:
> 3. Classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3…
I read this to prohibit discussion of sexual attraction with kids third grade and under. I don’t read this to prohibit incidental mention of someone’s same-sex spouse.
Re:The Contractual Impossibility of Unwinding Disney’s Reedy...
by psyklic on Saturday April 30, 2022 @03:55AM
(#31214193)
In practice, there is no problem if a teacher shows video incidentally including a straight couple. If it contains a gay couple, however, suddenly that could count as "classroom instruction" of sexual orientation. The teachers are left with the unenviable position of interpreting a vague law, resulting in it being safest to exclusively show kids straight couples.
This is the sort of deliberate, disingenuous misapprehension that I'm talking about. You understand that the phrase "sexual orientation" is widely interpreted as "what gender of person a person has relationships with", right? As in, it's not just about "sex" in the prurient, not-safe-for-children sense.
[0] https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/1557/BillText/er/... (warning, PDF)