[Pete Svarrior]

This sort of promotion is clearly conditioning and grooming.

Would you be so kind as to define "grooming" for me?

[Rama Set]

See above about how people want to identify.  I think people shouldn't be told they have to identify how society wants them to.  I would think that you also wouldn't want the government to interfere with what is a personal choice, but hey ho, lets go authoritarianism!

Crossdressing is fabulous and although many queer identifying people do it, heterosexual people also engage in it. My brother-in-law's father is known for doing drag shows at family functions and he is straight; it is not strictly a sexual act.  Now you have to explain why you want to enforce the heterosexual ideology that certain clothes should only be worn by certain sexes.  I thought you were against people enforcing sexual ideology.

Yes, your brother is a drag queen and loves crossdressing. Awesome. But why do we therefore need to read books to ages 3 - 5 which tell them that crossdressing is fabulous?

Uh, seems you would have to make an arguement as to why not.  If there is nothing wrong with cross-dressing why are you making it in to a taboo?

This sort of promotion is clearly conditioning and grooming. It is not merely letting them know that crossdressers exist.

Grooming for what?  Cher covers?  Crossdressing is not an exclusively sexual act.

I don't see any legitimate argument from you for why ages 3 to 5 must to be taught that they can be gender fluid and be "both" a girl and a boy or "neither" or "something else".

Because kids need to know that their thoughts, feelings and experiences are ok.  That they can discuss them without stigma and that being different doesn't make them wrong or bad.

The parents didn't agree to that like they agree to normal sex education in elementary school. How is that appropriate at all?

I don't agree that parents should dictate an educational curriculum based on their own comfort.  There are people who think that the Earth is 6,000 years old and that the Earth is flat and we don't accomodate those beliefs either.

[stack]

If that were the case, the law would be struck down quickly. The law carries no verbatim language specifically targeting sexual orientation.

Not targeting a specific sexual orientation, but targeting the discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity in general. From the law itself:

prohibiting classroom discussion about sexual orientation or gender identity in certain grade levels or in a specified manner;
https://m.flsenate.gov/session/bill/2022/1557/billtext/er/pdf

Im just not sure how that plays out in real world scenarios. I’m not sure how “discussion” is defined. If a kid asks about the ring around a teachers finger, or the photos of their kids on the desk or why their teacher, Ms. Smith, is not called Mrs like their gym teacher, Mrs. Smith, etc. it’s all a little murky and I’m not sure what “problem” the law is trying to solve.

Okay? If I say "no white people allowed in my business" that is racist. If I say "no people allowed" that is not racist (and probably very bad for business). I'm not sure how you've taken "you cannot discuss sexual orientation with children" as predominantly anti-LGBT. Is a fundamental quality of LGBT requiring that you talk to children about sexual topics?

I'm not sure where you got "you cannot discuss sexual orientation with children" as predominantly anti-LGBT" from. The examples I gave above are equally het oriented as well. They are examples of teachers having a "partner" or not. Regardless of whether that partner is same-sex or not.

[Rushy]

I'm not sure where you got "you cannot discuss sexual orientation with children" as predominantly anti-LGBT" from. The examples I gave above are equally het oriented as well. They are examples of teachers having a "partner" or not. Regardless of whether that partner is same-sex or not.

Then I'm misunderstanding what problem you have with the law. Do you think K-3 elementary schoolers should be introduced to sexual orientation topics, despite not having hit puberty and those topics obviously making zero sense to them?

[Tom Bishop]

This sort of promotion is clearly conditioning and grooming.

Would you be so kind as to define "grooming" for me?

I would define it as grooming when you go beyond the basic education of the existence of other views and purposely paint your ideology as attractive for children or attempt to indoctrinate children into your sexual ideology.

For instance, an Executive Producer at Disney has admitted to her team having a "not-at-all-secret gay agenda" in children's programming.

https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1508912865293619202

Disney corporate president claims to have one transgender child and one pansexual child and has committed to having "many, many, many LGBTQIA characters in our stories" and wants a minimum of 50 percent of characters to be LGBTQIA and racial minorities.

https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1508926408332034049

[stack]

I'm not sure where you got "you cannot discuss sexual orientation with children" as predominantly anti-LGBT" from. The examples I gave above are equally het oriented as well. They are examples of teachers having a "partner" or not. Regardless of whether that partner is same-sex or not.

Then I'm misunderstanding what problem you have with the law. Do you think K-3 elementary schoolers should be introduced to sexual orientation topics, despite not having hit puberty and those topics obviously making zero sense to them?

1) The problem I have is that I don't know what "problem" it is trying to solve. Is there an issue today that requires such a thing? Is the very comprehensive existing FLA teacher's code of conduct and current mechanisms for oversight lacking in some way? That seems unclear to me.
2) Akin to #1, seems like a government overreach that is unnecessary
3) It's so vague and loose that teachers could easily be unfairly dragged into a lawsuit based upon such broad potential interpretations. Sapped by legal fees just to defend against something that could be extremely innocuous
4) And I do think it could be misused by some with an agenda

[Rushy]

1) The problem I have is that I don't know what "problem" it is trying to solve. Is there an issue today that requires such a thing? Is the very comprehensive existing FLA teacher's code of conduct and current mechanisms for oversight lacking in some way? That seems unclear to me.
2) Akin to #1, seems like a government overreach that is unnecessary

Are you overly familiar with the elementary school curriculum in Florida? Obviously not, I think; better let Florida voters decide how to run it. Is that hard for you to accept?

3) It's so vague and loose that teachers could easily be unfairly dragged into a lawsuit based upon such broad potential interpretations. Sapped by legal fees just to defend against something that could be extremely innocuous

The vagueness allows for interpretation in various school systems. Some parents want their children taught differently than others. Surprise!

4) And I do think it could be misused by some with an agenda

I could say this and imagine any number of magic scenarios for any number of laws on the books throughout the US. Your imagination is not a debate point. Stop using it.

[stack]

This sort of promotion is clearly conditioning and grooming.

Would you be so kind as to define "grooming" for me?

I would define it as grooming when you go beyond the basic education of the existence of other views and purposely paint your ideology as attractive for children or attempt to indoctrinate children into your sexual ideology.

For instance, an Executive Producer at Disney has admitted to her team having a "not-at-all-secret gay agenda" in children's programming.

What does "gay agenda" mean to you? To me, from my gay friends and relatives, it means "inclusivity", "acceptance", and "representation". Not "conversion", "conditioning and grooming".

[Tom Bishop]

This sort of promotion is clearly conditioning and grooming.

Would you be so kind as to define "grooming" for me?

I would define it as grooming when you go beyond the basic education of the existence of other views and purposely paint your ideology as attractive for children or attempt to indoctrinate children into your sexual ideology.

For instance, an Executive Producer at Disney has admitted to her team having a "not-at-all-secret gay agenda" in children's programming.

What does "gay agenda" mean to you? To me, from my gay friends and relatives, it means "inclusivity", "acceptance", and "representation". Not "conversion", "conditioning and grooming".

If you listen to it she says that "wherever I could I was basically adding queerness" into her Disney content.

Does your idea of "accepting" mean that your friends and relatives try to make the lives of their children as queer as possible before they have even decided that they want to be queer? Likely not.

[Pete Svarrior]

I would define it as grooming when you [...]

No, sorry, I'm not looking for examples. I'm looking for a definition. What does the word "grooming" mean, in your view?

[Tom Bishop]

I have provided my view of what grooming is here:

I would define it as grooming when you go beyond the basic education of the existence of other views and purposely paint your ideology as attractive for children or attempt to indoctrinate children into your sexual ideology.

I sincerely hope this clears up the confusion. Did you have any commentary to make about the grooming issue?

[stack]

This sort of promotion is clearly conditioning and grooming.

Would you be so kind as to define "grooming" for me?

I would define it as grooming when you go beyond the basic education of the existence of other views and purposely paint your ideology as attractive for children or attempt to indoctrinate children into your sexual ideology.

For instance, an Executive Producer at Disney has admitted to her team having a "not-at-all-secret gay agenda" in children's programming.

What does "gay agenda" mean to you? To me, from my gay friends and relatives, it means "inclusivity", "acceptance", and "representation". Not "conversion", "conditioning and grooming".

If you listen to it she says that "wherever I could I was basically adding queerness" into her Disney content.

So? What's wrong with that inclusion? Are you saying that there should only be hetero couples in children's media?

Does your idea of "accepting" mean that your friends and relatives try to make the lives of their children as queer as possible before they have even decided that they want to be queer? Likely not.

How does including "queerness" into Disney content "make the lives of their children as queer as possible"? That's like saying the vast majority of heterosexual content makes gay people as straight as possible. It would literally mean there are no gay people because they were exposed to pretty much solely heterosexual content as children.

[Tom Bishop]

I see that you have totally avoided the question. I will answer for you:

No, your friends and relatives likely do not make their children's lives as queer as possible before they decide if they want to be queer. They respect them enough not to do that and to let them eventually choose on their own.

It is also likely that your friends and relatives do not employ what they would term to be a 'gay agenda' when raising their kids. They respect them enough not to do that and to eventually choose on their own.

The woman says that she is purposely making the content as queer as possible and declaring that she has a gay agenda. This is conditioning and grooming, full stop.  It doesn't matter if you think it won't work. It's still conditioning. It does not matter if you think that the script she received has heterosexual content, it doesn't matter. When you have an agenda and ideology and are purposely trying to find ways to push your views it onto children you are a groomer and are pushing an agenda. This is grooming as I had described it and is clearly an act of pushing an agenda, no matter the poor excuses made for it.

Similarly, if you get a book and cross out the male names and replace them with female names you are pushing a certain agenda, no matter what backward excuse you make for it - such as claiming that you are balancing out patriarchal society or whatever wacked justification you can conceive of. You are indisputably pushing an agenda. Plain and simple.

[stack]

I see that you have totally avoided the question. I will answer for you:

No, your friends and relatives likely do not make their children's lives as queer as possible before they decide if they want to be queer. They respect them enough not to do that and to let them eventually choose on their own.

It is also likely that your friends and relatives do not employ what they would term to be a 'gay agenda' when raising their kids. They respect them enough not to do that and to eventually choose on their own.

The woman says that she is purposely making the content as queer as possible and declaring that she have a gay agenda. This is conditioning and grooming, full stop.  It doesn't matter if you think it won't work. It's still conditioning. It does not matter if you think that the script she received has heterosexual content, it doesn't matter. When you have an agenda and ideology and are purposely trying to find ways to push your views it onto children you are a groomer and are pushing an agenda. This is grooming and pushing an agenda, no matter what incredibly poor excuses are made for it.

Similarly if you get a book and cross out the male names and replace them with female names you are pushing a certain agenda, no matter what backassward excuse you make for it for trying to balance out society or whatever wacked justification. You are indisputably pushing an agenda. Plain and simple.

I seems as though you are conditioning and grooming, under your definition, with your heterosexual agenda.

[scomato]

Teaching queer perspectives on all facets of life is very important, sexuality and gender is only a small part of it.

And, if we're going to be pedantic about this, being LGBT is only a 'queering' of gender and sexuality because heterosexuality and 'family values' are oppressively enforced, globally. Stop thinking only within western contexts.

For example queerness in America and queerness and India are two completely different conversations involving a queering of two completely different sets of social and cultural relationship/marital norms. There is not one 'gay' monolith, but conservatives have created a bogeyman out of thin air.

Queerness, and oppression, are two sides of the same coin. They do not exist without the other, for if there were no oppressive societal externalities there would be no queering.

You could very much argue that flat earth, and alternative sciences like it, are 'queer' science, and conspiracy theories 'queer' politics, because they subvert the status-quo of what is widely socially accepted, and you will find that there is soft social pressures everywhere that see this enforced. I mean, try getting a job as a scientist, policymaker, or teacher, if you're 'out' as a flat earther? Doors will be shut on your face, that is what it means to be queer.

Thinking that queerness starts and stops inside the bedroom is small-minded.

[AATW]

I seems as though you are conditioning and grooming, under your definition, with your heterosexual agenda.

Ha. Exactly this. Tom is pretending that he cares about children being groomed and indoctrinated. What he really means is he wants them groomed and indoctrinated but into his way of thinking and no-one else's. It's telling that he doesn't understand why representation is important and conflates that with "conditioning and grooming". As a white, heterosexual male most of the TV shows and movies I watched growing up had people in I could identify with. If there was a gay character they were usually a caricature and a punchline. I do think this representation can go a bit too far sometimes, it does feel like every major show now has to have a gay character. I don't approve of "quotas", for sexuality or race in terms of representation*. But, overall, I think it's important that kids have positive role models they can identify with.

(*or in the workplace, while we are here. I work for a very "woke" organisation and they are looking at quotas in senior leadership. I think that's bullshit, honestly. I shouldn't get a job because I'm white, male or straight but neither should I be denied one because I don't tick the right boxes. Positive discrimination is an oxymoron. The solution to discrimination is equal opportunity, not more discrimination).

[Tom Bishop]

I see that you have totally avoided the question. I will answer for you:

No, your friends and relatives likely do not make their children's lives as queer as possible before they decide if they want to be queer. They respect them enough not to do that and to let them eventually choose on their own.

It is also likely that your friends and relatives do not employ what they would term to be a 'gay agenda' when raising their kids. They respect them enough not to do that and to eventually choose on their own.

I seems as though you are conditioning and grooming, under your definition, with your heterosexual agenda.

Yeah, no. When your friends and relatives opted not to push a sexuality onto their child in the above example I gave they did not advocate for a "heterosexual agenda". Parents who are "accepting" typically means that they have no agenda for their child, and which I would advocate for.

If your selected sexual preference isn't the norm in society then it merely means that it isn't the norm. It is not justification at all to push a sexuality onto a child to make them into homosexuals, asexuals, bisexuals, trans, or whatever of the 27 genderfluid identities you decide is best for them.

Why not just let them decide later in their lives like others have done when discovering their sexuality?

Not sure why you are turning a blind  eye to the homosexual agenda by talking about hetrosexuality and leaving out all of the other sexualities you could possibly push onto a child. There is a flaw there. The child could be a sexuality that is neither homosexual or heterosexual. The smallest introspection on this will therefore show that it is wrong to deliberately push a sexuality onto a child by making their life as queer as possible under a "gay agenda".

In fact, you have no defense, which why you are unable to directly justify making a child's life or media queer or employing a gay agenda onto children, and have to argue with the "no u" tactic.

[stack]

I see that you have totally avoided the question. I will answer for you:

No, your friends and relatives likely do not make their children's lives as queer as possible before they decide if they want to be queer. They respect them enough not to do that and to let them eventually choose on their own.

It is also likely that your friends and relatives do not employ what they would term to be a 'gay agenda' when raising their kids. They respect them enough not to do that and to eventually choose on their own.

I seems as though you are conditioning and grooming, under your definition, with your heterosexual agenda.

Yeah, no. When your friends and relatives opted not to push a sexuality onto their child in the above example I gave they did not advocate for a "heterosexual agenda". Parents who are "accepting" typically means that they have no agenda for their child, and which I would advocate for.

If your selected sexual preference isn't the norm in society then it merely means that it isn't the norm. It is not justification at all to push a sexuality onto a child to make them into homosexuals, asexuals, bisexuals, trans, or whatever of the 27 genderfluid identities you decide is best for them.

Why not just let them decide later in their lives like others have done when discovering their sexuality?

Not sure why you are turning a blind  eye to the homosexual agenda by talking about hetrosexuality and leaving out all of the other sexualities you could possibly push onto a child. There is a flaw there. The child could be a sexuality that is neither homosexual or heterosexual. The smallest introspection on this will therefore show that it is wrong to deliberately push a sexuality onto a child by making their life as queer as possible under a "gay agenda".

In fact, you have no defense, which why you are unable to directly justify making a child's life or media queer or employing a gay agenda onto children, and have to argue with the "no u" tactic.

Define "norm". Is it a percentage thing? If so, because there are fewer black people in America than whites, is being white the "norm"?

Your problem is this thing you call "push". How is having a gay couple represented on a TV show "pushing" a sexuality? Conversely, how is having a hetero couple on a TV show "pushing" a sexuality? What's the difference? How is either "pushing" a sexuality onto a child?

[Pete Svarrior]

I sincerely hope this clears up the confusion.

Well, it doesn't clear up the confusion, that's why I asked for a definition, rather than examples. Let's probe this some more. You see, your word of choice is one that normally refers to a crime: lowering a child's inhibitions in preparation for sexual abuse or child trafficking. That's how your @LibDestroyer420 friends use it, too.

Your use of the word is extremely crucial here. Currently, your arguments have only gone as far as saying that these people are (in your view) inappropriately encouraging children to view homosexuality and trans rights in a positive light. However, you are persistently using a term that means much more than that.

So, let's drop the other shoe: Are you accusing these people of being paedophiles who are actively planning to abduct or otherwise abuse children? If not, please consider using more representative language for your views.

[Rama Set]

I'm not sure where you got "you cannot discuss sexual orientation with children" as predominantly anti-LGBT" from. The examples I gave above are equally het oriented as well. They are examples of teachers having a "partner" or not. Regardless of whether that partner is same-sex or not.

Then I'm misunderstanding what problem you have with the law. Do you think K-3 elementary schoolers should be introduced to sexual orientation topics, despite not having hit puberty and those topics obviously making zero sense to them?

You should have a look at what age appropriate education actually constitutes on this topic because it mostly centres around consent when physically interacting with others and being open minded about other people. I’ve said it a few times but this is a huge manufactured moral panic that many on the American right are all to ready to embrace.