I think you've over-simplified the issues in the so-called "Don't Say Gay" bill. It sounds wonderful to call it the "let parents parent" bill, but this assumes we live in a world where all parents love their children, and want to do the best for them. We don't. Any gay person will tell you they know many, many people (maybe the majority of the gay people I know) whose parents were deeply abusive and harmful. If a gay child is raised by anti-gay parents, they are probably being raised to believe that they are an evil piece of garbage. Schools need to be able to deal, in some fashion, with kids who need protection from their parents, and there is a big gray area between obviously violent parents who need to have their kids taken away and parents who simply make their kids believe that they are worthless. It helps kids if some other trusted adult, like a teacher, assures them that there is nothing evil about them.
I don't pretend that I can reduce something so complex and nuanced into a title, or a piece of legislation. I wouldn't want to. That's kind of the point. And I do agree we have to be careful about making assumptions about parents... or anyone really. And assumptions abound here. Eliminating parental participation or consent makes other blanket assumptions about both parents and the ability of children to make important decisions for themselves. There are many important points to be made and discussions to be had around this, as there are with all controversial legislation. l think learning how to have those difficult discussions is where we could make the most progress (so I'm glad you are commenting - thank you). One of the big oversimplifications I've observed with regards to this bill is that the people who support it don't care about the plight of the people you describe. It's that kind of misunderstanding that threatens to polarize issues so that better solutions can never be implemented. I don't have the answers, but I do think we should take the time to understand the issues, and at the very least, the legislation that we support or oppose. But regarding a safe space for children and a way to make them all feel loved, accepted and worthy... I'm a yes.
Thanks for clarifying your ideas. I'm 100% onboard with everything you say above, and I absolutely agree that the biggest problem is the complete loss of ability to see issues as complex and nuanced; the insistence on seeing two mutually opposed, immovable and extreme positions. I certainly agree that we should all learn to find out what is really written in specific bills, and not judge it based on the bill's title or a popular name given to it in the media.
Another example: the magnificent sounding Prison Rape Elimination Act. Passed 2003. Was rape eliminated in US prisons in consequence of that legislation? Are they rape free zones? Hmm.
I think you've over-simplified the issues in the so-called "Don't Say Gay" bill. It sounds wonderful to call it the "let parents parent" bill, but this assumes we live in a world where all parents love their children, and want to do the best for them. We don't. Any gay person will tell you they know many, many people (maybe the majority of the gay people I know) whose parents were deeply abusive and harmful. If a gay child is raised by anti-gay parents, they are probably being raised to believe that they are an evil piece of garbage. Schools need to be able to deal, in some fashion, with kids who need protection from their parents, and there is a big gray area between obviously violent parents who need to have their kids taken away and parents who simply make their kids believe that they are worthless. It helps kids if some other trusted adult, like a teacher, assures them that there is nothing evil about them.
I don't pretend that I can reduce something so complex and nuanced into a title, or a piece of legislation. I wouldn't want to. That's kind of the point. And I do agree we have to be careful about making assumptions about parents... or anyone really. And assumptions abound here. Eliminating parental participation or consent makes other blanket assumptions about both parents and the ability of children to make important decisions for themselves. There are many important points to be made and discussions to be had around this, as there are with all controversial legislation. l think learning how to have those difficult discussions is where we could make the most progress (so I'm glad you are commenting - thank you). One of the big oversimplifications I've observed with regards to this bill is that the people who support it don't care about the plight of the people you describe. It's that kind of misunderstanding that threatens to polarize issues so that better solutions can never be implemented. I don't have the answers, but I do think we should take the time to understand the issues, and at the very least, the legislation that we support or oppose. But regarding a safe space for children and a way to make them all feel loved, accepted and worthy... I'm a yes.
Thanks for clarifying your ideas. I'm 100% onboard with everything you say above, and I absolutely agree that the biggest problem is the complete loss of ability to see issues as complex and nuanced; the insistence on seeing two mutually opposed, immovable and extreme positions. I certainly agree that we should all learn to find out what is really written in specific bills, and not judge it based on the bill's title or a popular name given to it in the media.
Another example: the magnificent sounding Prison Rape Elimination Act. Passed 2003. Was rape eliminated in US prisons in consequence of that legislation? Are they rape free zones? Hmm.
I took a look at it. As with most bills like this... there's a call for funding and surveillance... and it doesn't seem to be solving the problems. https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/news/2017/nov/8/five-years-after-implementation-prea-standards-remain-inadequate/
Oh wow. I never even heard of that one. Have to look it up