[Action80]

The blog at study.com is nothing to rely on regarding the legality of such discussions and job responsibilities.

Someone will bring an EEOC complaint in the US or a lawsuit regarding sexual harassment regarding this entire situation and probably soon.

I agree, but Tom cited it as a source so I wanted to point out that his own source paints a more nuanced picture than he would like.

That source that you are nutpicking.

Tell us all how it negates the ethics clauses in the language concerning personal life information sharing in the multiple contracts that Tom also provided.

[Rama Set]

The blog at study.com is nothing to rely on regarding the legality of such discussions and job responsibilities.

Someone will bring an EEOC complaint in the US or a lawsuit regarding sexual harassment regarding this entire situation and probably soon.

I agree, but Tom cited it as a source so I wanted to point out that his own source paints a more nuanced picture than he would like.

That source that you are nutpicking.

Tell us all how it negates the ethics clauses in the language concerning personal life information sharing in the multiple contracts that Tom also provided.

Most of them are for universities and therefore irrelevant. One of them is a piece of student journalism from a Florida High School that, without citation, talks about some code of ethics. I have no idea if they are quoting it or interpreting it correctly. If you know what document this being referred to, please share it.

Within that article it is worth noting that sharing social media accounts is not forbidden so clearly exactly what discussing a teacher’s personal life has some context that isn’t being communicated. Marital status is easily discerned on social media, so IF we are to take the high school journalism as accurate, then clearly sharing some details is either permitted explicitly or de facto permitted. I don’t see how any of what Tom posted makes a case for teacher’s in elementary or high schools sharing their marital status as inappropriate.

To boot, Rule 6A-10.081, Florida Administrative Code, Principles of Professional Conduct for the Education Profession in Florida found on fldoe.org says absolutely nothing about whether or not a teacher may divulge personal matters. It does outline ethical considerations when relating with students, which seems entirely appropriate.

[Tom Bishop]

Aww, maybe you guys are right. This drag king on twitter is upset that she can't talk to pre-schoolers about their sexuality and prevent them from feeling "unloved or ashamed for who they are". We should certainly let drag kings provide unaccredited instruction to our children about sexuality.

https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1511013923084021769

[Pete Svarrior]

Tom, for the avoidance of doubt: do you propose that some children should feel unloved or ashamed for who they are?

For super-duper-extra avoidance of doubt: this is a yes/no question. We can work out the details afterwards. An answer that doesn't include a clear "yes" or a "no" will be considered a cop-out.

[scomato]

If we are going to start discriminating against people for having a biological advantage, then let's start with stripping Michael Phelps of all of his gold medals.

[Tom Bishop]

Tom, for the avoidance of doubt: do you propose that some children should feel unloved or ashamed for who they are?

For super-duper-extra avoidance of doubt: this is a yes/no question. We can work out the details afterwards. An answer that doesn't include a clear "yes" or a "no" will be considered a cop-out.

Yes, certainly.

When a student has such a problem the answer is to inform the parents or refer them to the school psychology services, not to take it upon yourself to resolve their psychological problem. Teachers are not licensed to do that.

Most parents do not want their children to be groomed or instructed by teachers who seek to validate the child's supposed sexuality. That wasn't in the contract. The contract says that the school (at least a decent one) was accredited by a certain organization to provide a certain quality of experience and education. That quality of education the school was approved for does not include sexual validation by a drag king. This is out of scope to the agreed upon terms.

With standard Sex Ed in the fifth grade public education system the parents are aware of it, sign off on it, and those programs were accredited and standardized by an educational body who decided what to teach and how to teach it. What you lot are proposing is that random people with questionable lifestyles in the rainbow should teach children sexuality on their own unstated terms outside the scope of the accepted educational process, and without parental consent. Terrible and unjustifiable, to say the least.

[Rama Set]

What you lot are proposing is that random people with questionable lifestyles in the rainbow should teach children sexuality on their own unstated terms outside the scope of the accepted educational process, and without parental consent. Terrible and unjustifiable, to say the least.

It doesnt matter how many times you say this, it is still not true.

[stack]

What you lot are proposing is that random people with questionable lifestyles in the rainbow should teach children sexuality on their own unstated terms outside the scope of the accepted educational process, and without parental consent.

What's your definition of a "questionable lifestyle"?

[Tom Bishop]

What you lot are proposing is that random people with questionable lifestyles in the rainbow should teach children sexuality on their own unstated terms outside the scope of the accepted educational process, and without parental consent.

What's your definition of a "questionable lifestyle"?

I consider this to be pretty questionable. Teaching impressionable children that they can be a boy, a girl, a boy and a girl, or neither.

https://twitter.com/Phenomenal_Cat/status/1507090871283433488

How about running this through the accreditation board and getting mass consensus from academia before just making things up and affecting the lives of children?

[Rama Set]

Thats not a lifestyle.

[Tom Bishop]

Thats not a lifestyle.

It's teaching of a lifestyle. Plenty of people define themselves by their non-standard lifestyles. Some people do think that they have multiple sexualities and identities. Doesn't mean that we need to teach that to first graders and encourage them to choose their flavor of the rainbow.

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/article/730061

"Bigender: Someone who identifies with both male and female genders, or even a third gender"

"Non-binary: An adjective describing a person who does not identify exclusively as a man or a
woman. Non-binary people may identify as being both a man and a woman, somewhere in
between, or as falling completely outside these categories. While many also identify as
transgender, not all non-binary people do."

[stack]

Is being gay what you would consider a "non-standard" lifestyle? If so, where can I find the lifestyle standards manual you go by so I can see where the line is.

[Tumeni]

We should certainly let drag kings provide unaccredited instruction to our children about sexuality.

Shouldn't it go through a process of accreditation, then?

[Rama Set]

Thats not a lifestyle.

It's teaching of a lifestyle. Plenty of people define themselves by their non-standard lifestyles. Some people do think that they have multiple sexualities and identities. Doesn't mean that we need to teach that to first graders and encourage them to choose their flavor of the rainbow.

https://www.portlandoregon.gov/article/730061

"Bigender: Someone who identifies with both male and female genders, or even a third gender"

"Non-binary: An adjective describing a person who does not identify exclusively as a man or a
woman. Non-binary people may identify as being both a man and a woman, somewhere in
between, or as falling completely outside these categories. While many also identify as
transgender, not all non-binary people do."

So you think anyone who isn’t heterosexual, has a questionable lifestyle?

[Tumeni]

Most parents do not want their children to be groomed or instructed by teachers who seek to validate the child's supposed sexuality. That wasn't in the contract. The contract says that the school (at least a decent one) was accredited by a certain organization to provide a certain quality of experience and education. That quality of education the school was approved for does not include sexual validation by a drag king. This is out of scope to the agreed upon terms.

With standard Sex Ed in the fifth grade public education system the parents are aware of it, sign off on it, and those programs were accredited and standardized by an educational body who decided what to teach and how to teach it. What you lot are proposing is that random people with questionable lifestyles in the rainbow should teach children sexuality on their own unstated terms outside the scope of the accepted educational process, and without parental consent. Terrible and unjustifiable, to say the least.

I can call to mind a number of occasions when my teachers stepped out from the standard curriculum to, you know, actually TEACH us something. Did me no harm.

I suspect that if I told you the details, you would be perfectly happy with these digressions, as they didn't touch upon gender or sexuality.

EDIT - I seem to recall lots of things that went on in my schools under the heading "Extra-curricular activities". Stuff that wasn't on the curriculum. Not the standard stuff.  Are you suggesting that this ALL should be excised?  Or just the stuff that you're cherry-picking?

[AATW]

What you lot are proposing is that random people with questionable lifestyles in the rainbow should teach children sexuality on their own unstated terms outside the scope of the accepted educational process, and without parental consent.

As has been pointed out, this simply isn't true.

I don't believe for one minute you think that a male teacher mentioning they have a wife is "teaching kids sexuality". It's only when they mention they have a husband you have an issue.

As JSS said above, I think it's reasonable for kids to be taught about the world. Being aware that some men marry other men seems reasonable. Even if you think that should be illegal, that doesn't matter. It's a fact of the modern world. And you know what, I doubt kids would care. Bigotry about stuff like this is learned, not innate. No 6 year old is going to hear that Mr Smith has a husband and think "oh cool, I think I'll be gay". Firstly because kids that age aren't generally thinking about their sexuality at all, and secondly because sexuality isn't something one consciously chooses. But as they get older it might help them to make sense of their feelings. Better that than how confusing and frightening it must have been to grow up in an era when homosexuality was illegal. Imagine being attracted to other men and thinking you're the only one who feels that way and society telling you that feeling that way is wrong and acting on those feelings illegal.

You're conflating kids understanding the world with people grooming kids or encouraging them to feel a certain way. The former is important, the second is probably impossible and not what anyone is saying should happen.

[Tom Bishop]

What you lot are proposing is that random people with questionable lifestyles in the rainbow should teach children sexuality on their own unstated terms outside the scope of the accepted educational process, and without parental consent.

As has been pointed out, this simply isn't true.

Actually, it is true. This is the new Florida law you guys hate. The law says not to teach sexuality to K-3.

https://www.npr.org/2022/03/28/1089221657/dont-say-gay-florida-desantis

Public school teachers in Florida are banned from holding classroom instruction about sexual orientation or gender identity after Florida's Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican, signed the controversial "Parental Rights in Education" bill.

The bill, which some opponents have called "Don't Say Gay," was signed by DeSantis on Monday. It reads, "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."

Supporters of the legislation say it's meant to allow parents to determine when and in what way to introduce LGBTQ topics to their children. It also gives parents an option to sue a school district if the policy is violated.

During a press conference ahead of signing the law, DeSantis said teaching kindergarten-aged kids that "they can be whatever they want to be" was "inappropriate" for children.

Is being gay what you would consider a "non-standard" lifestyle? If so, where can I find the lifestyle standards manual you go by so I can see where the line is.

It's not appropriate to teach or encourage very young children to decide how gay they are either.

I can call to mind a number of occasions when my teachers stepped out from the standard curriculum to, you know, actually TEACH us something. Did me no harm.

Considering that you are here arguing in favor of sexual orientation and gender identity LGBTQ education for K-3, I question that.

[Tom Bishop]

No 6 year old is going to hear that Mr Smith has a husband and think "oh cool, I think I'll be gay".

Incorrect. You apparently have not met many 6 year olds. Young children are very impressionable, and generally admire and want to be like their teachers. They will believe anything you tell them. If the teacher hypes it up they'll think it's great. It is dangerous to allow the LGBTQ to promote their own ideology to children. Just because the LGBTQ discovered that they were sexually different as an adult does not mean that children need to be accosted with their ideology.

[AATW]

You apparently have not met many 6 year olds.

Have you? Why are you hanging around 6 year olds?

But yes, of course kids are impressionable. But a male teacher saying they have a husband simply tells the children that some men are married to other men. It's not "hyping it up", what kind of nonsense is that? It's simply a reality of the world we live in, and it's true whether bigots like it or not. Children need to understand the reality of the world they live in.
What was your sexuality at 6? I don't even think I consciously had one, who thinks about stuff like that at that age?
But as you get older and start feeling attracted to people then if that happens to be people of the same sex I'd suggest it's healthier to be living in a world where you're accepted rather than one where society tells you it's shameful and even acting on those feelings is illegal. No-one chooses which sex they're attracted to, I didn't "choose" to be heterosexual.

As much as you may misrepresent people, no-one here is suggesting the kids should be groomed. Simply that they should be accepted. I shudder to think how you would react if you have children and one of them turned out to be gay.

[Rushy]

The basis for this argument seems to be whether or not it's the state's job to introduce sexual topics to children or the parents'.

One side believes it is the state's job. They may also believe teachers should be able to bring up personal details about themselves routinely and that such a thing is acceptable.

The other believes it is the parents' responsibility. They may also believe that teachers should keep their personal lives to themselves.

Since these are both opinions, you'll all orbit in this argument for eternity because neither side is 'correct'. Also, none of this seems to have anything to do with "Trans atheletes" and I'm tempted to split the entire debate into a separate thread.