Disney

Status
Not open for further replies.

PhDcat2018

Well-known member
Jun 26, 2017
17,136
24,755
113
Nope, the bill is worded in a way that will absolutely open schools to lawsuits merely for acknowledging the existence of gay people. You're being lied to by politicians who are fabricating issues of "grooming" in order to elicit an emotional reaction in you, and you happily swallow the lies.
How is it worded that way? Ridiculous
 
  • Like
Reactions: exemjr and 80 Proof

PhDcat2018

Well-known member
Jun 26, 2017
17,136
24,755
113
Who's actually talking to young kids about sex? This is a solution to a nonexistent problem with the purpose of riling up antigay bigots, that will threaten the mere recognition of gay people's existence.
There's an actual occurrence that was the impetus of this law... but please do keep bringing up a lib talking point.
 
Last edited:

J_Dee

New member
Mar 21, 2008
4,284
4,317
0

UKWildcatT

New member
Apr 9, 2009
75,546
8,113
0
I thought I was responding to you with my previous post, but it still applies to James, so I’ll leave it there and you can look back.

Youre demanding the sexualization of children and then calling others a pervert? You’re sick and honestly too stupid to even try to convince. Go seek help you twisted f&ck.
Think if your kids T-ball coach came up to you and said “I’d really like to talk with your kid sex/gender/whatever”, you’d think “WTF” and wouldn’t let your kid near them again.

so what’s the difference if a teacher wants to? There’s no difference

why these people are obsessed with talking sex with five year olds…why?!
 

Nightwish84

New member
Dec 11, 2020
4,970
6,265
0
why these people are obsessed with talking sex with five year olds…why?!
Because everyone is apparently a pedophile. That's all we've heard from both sides the last few years. Living your best life must mean accusing others of pedophilia and claiming that the children must be saved. Ya'll are exhausting.
 

J_Dee

New member
Mar 21, 2008
4,284
4,317
0
What does that have to do specifically with bigotry or anything with regards to homosexuality?

97-101:

3. 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.

As ukcatz notes:

“Discussion” and “instruction” aren’t defined so all we can do is ask hypothetical questions. That’s the issue. No one knows what can and cannot be said.

Anyway,

It's not just homosexual topics that I think need to be avoided here. Kids at that age don't need to be taught any sort if sexual material unless by their parents.

^ This is the way.
 

80 Proof

Well-known member
Jan 3, 2003
64,597
51,206
113
You seem to be confused. You didn't provide any examples of people talking to kids about sex.
The density of your arguments and the hyperbole you are talking only makes me feel stronger about my stance. I don't want government employees discussing sexuality with my children.

I've had those discussions with them, and if something happened to me and my wife they actually would go live with a gay couple per our will. But I do not need someone else explaining sexualty to them at their age, that is a family matter.

Sorry you are so closed minded that you can't comprehend this.
 

JoeSwag

New member
Jan 30, 2022
2,040
8,078
0
The density of your arguments and the hyperbole you are talking only makes me feel stronger about my stance. I don't want government employees discussing sexuality with my children.

I've had those discussions with them, and if something happened to me and my wife they actually would go live with a gay couple per our will. But I do not need someone else explaining sexualty to them at their age, that is a family matter.

Sorry you are so closed minded that you can't comprehend this.
You’re speaking to a cult which is why logic and facts are tossed aside. You won’t find any occurrence where this guy differs from the main talking point of his political party. None.
 
Mar 13, 2004
14,745
12,925
0
The density of your arguments and the hyperbole you are talking only makes me feel stronger about my stance. I don't want government employees discussing sexuality with my children.

I've had those discussions with them, and if something happened to me and my wife they actually would go live with a gay couple per our will. But I do not need someone else explaining sexualty to them at their age, that is a family matter.

Sorry you are so closed minded that you can't comprehend this.
Babbling because you got caught bsing. You didn't fool anyone.
 
Mar 13, 2004
14,745
12,925
0
can you tell us what a woman is?
Not in a way that covers the actual reality of sex and gender. The mental frameworks we have of "male" and "female" are simplifications of a complex reality that USUALLY work. The problem is when we want to then force the less cut and dry reality into our simplified models. Linking a thread I read a few days ago that says it much better than I could:

 

PhDcat2018

Well-known member
Jun 26, 2017
17,136
24,755
113
97-101:



As ukcatz notes:



Anyway,



^ This is the way.
There's literally nothing in there that isn't clear. Don't talk to/teach young kids about it. If they ask a question, say, "hey that's a great question, but ask your parents." Then move on with the topic at hand. None of what is said is against any particular gender/orientation. None. Liberals have nothing to cry about. They're crying because of an agenda that's got nothing to di with him this law is worded. Mentally ill people desperately want to be seen as normal and will do anything to that end.
You’re speaking to a cult which is why logic and facts are tossed aside. You won’t find any occurrence where this guy differs from the main talking point of his political party. None.
He still holds onto covid too...
Not in a way that covers the actual reality of sex and gender. The mental frameworks we have of "male" and "female" are simplifications of a complex reality that USUALLY work. The problem is when we want to then force the less cut and dry reality into our simplified models. Linking a thread I read a few days ago that says it much better than I could:


Jesus. A woman is a human with a ******. It's not hard. Only mentally ill people can't figure it out...
 

thabigbluenation

New member
Jul 19, 2012
5,310
17,357
0
Not in a way that covers the actual reality of sex and gender. The mental frameworks we have of "male" and "female" are simplifications of a complex reality that USUALLY work. The problem is when we want to then force the less cut and dry reality into our simplified models. Linking a thread I read a few days ago that says it much better than I could:


well thank you. this explains who you are as well.

good job believing that womanhood is nothing more than a costume change for boys who want to dress feminine. everything else that actual girls go thru in life matters not as long as people like yourself feel better not addressing mental illness and fitting into a mob is more important that actual truth.

the rest of your responses fit in perfectly with the cult you have joined.
 

PhDcat2018

Well-known member
Jun 26, 2017
17,136
24,755
113
well thank you. this explains who you are as well.

good job believing that womanhood is nothing more than a costume change for boys who want to dress feminine. everything else that actual girls go thru in life matters not as long as people like yourself feel better not addressing mental illness and fitting into a mob is more important that actual truth.

the rest of your responses fit in perfectly with the cult you have joined.
One thing nobody says is this. "Transgendered" men being allowed to compete in athletic events as women undermines title 9.
 

wildcatwelder_rivals

Well-known member
Jul 28, 2006
11,215
15,348
113
No. Protecting young children from homosexual topics and gender confusion in an effort to preserve their innocence as long as possible is not bigoted. It’s what sane parents do.
Exactly. The far left is destroying the moral fabric of this nation, and that is a fact.

They WANT to indoctrinate our children into believing LGBQTPXZRWLIVBY, whatever, are perfectly normal, when it's obvious they are anything but. Teaching our kids in schools about this horse **** is simply wrong and should never be allowed nor tolerated.

How about this: teach ONLY what a school is actually for, reading writing, science, etc, etc, and allow parents to decide what, and when, to explain this to their own children. You tell your kids whatever the hell you want at home and I'll do the same.

And before some holier than thou lib comes flying in to exclaim "Hate, you're spreading hate", I most certainly am not. None of that behavior is in any way normal, but I don't hate them because of it, I hate what they're promoting, which is sick and perverted, and the fact they are trying to indoctrinate our kids into thinking it is.
 

Ukbrassowtipin

New member
Aug 12, 2011
82,109
89,931
0
Still no one can answer why they ideologically don't like the bill. "I must teach your kids about sex and if I cant what the hell else am i supposed to teach" is a weird hill to die on. And considering the bill is K-3rd can these ppl not wait until the following 8 grades?

It's amazing that they think there's a large constituency of ppl who want this taught to their kids. But that's why they've rolled out the propaganda "don't say gay" even tho the bill mentions that no where, doesn't say you can't say you are gay or have gay parents, or even talk to a child about it if they approach you. It's literally only about curriculum. But the left knows this because they DO want to teach your children about it.

I have to assume most teachers aren't well read considering the actual bill is public record.

And if your point is well there will be some unintended consequences...okay can you point to anything the government has ever done that doesn't?
 

UK till Death

New member
Dec 21, 2012
10,529
8,655
0
I live and work in Florida. I'm a lawyer who represents businesses. My problem with this law and a few others (the vaccine passport one, for example) passed recently by the legislature is that they run counter to the traditional "pro business, limited regulation" philosophy of the Republican party in this state. The party is seemingly no longer business-focused, but is now engrossed in these "individual liberty" initiatives that interfere with people doing their jobs. And that says nothing of the image problems it creates for our state.
You pro-groomer like disney? 🤔

Why do you want 5 year olds taught about sexuality by moronic, confused teachers?
 
  • Like
Reactions: John Henry

Ohiocatfan826

Well-known member
Oct 9, 2003
5,809
927
113
Just watched a video last night of a Gender Studies professor out in California, saying the quiet part out loud. If I can find it I will link it, but he straight out came out and said that the momentum is finally swinging in the right direction for the LGBTQ stuff and it is critical for the movement to be allowed to start to have discussions with children as early as possible while their thoughts and ideas are as malleable as possible. Because you are able to then raise them in the outcome that is desired. Just completely disgusting argument as to why they hate this bill.
 

cole854

New member
Sep 11, 2012
10,156
22,637
0
Not in a way that covers the actual reality of sex and gender. The mental frameworks we have of "male" and "female" are simplifications of a complex reality that USUALLY work. The problem is when we want to then force the less cut and dry reality into our simplified models. Linking a thread I read a few days ago that says it much better than I could:

Mental frameworks? You say that as if we have come up with our own predisposed definition of male/female. The definition is not complex nor is it up for debate.

Simplifications? Guess what .....it is that simple. There are 2 genders. 2. Not 3, 4, etc.....2.

Your entire premise on this subject is really scary.
 

Ron Mehico

New member
Jan 4, 2008
15,473
33,054
0
Not in a way that covers the actual reality of sex and gender. The mental frameworks we have of "male" and "female" are simplifications of a complex reality that USUALLY work. The problem is when we want to then force the less cut and dry reality into our simplified models. Linking a thread I read a few days ago that says it much better than I could:




I don’t really understand this response. Can you explain what you’re trying to say?
 

cole854

New member
Sep 11, 2012
10,156
22,637
0
I live and work in Florida. I'm a lawyer who represents businesses. My problem with this law and a few others (the vaccine passport one, for example) passed recently by the legislature is that they run counter to the traditional "pro business, limited regulation" philosophy of the Republican party in this state. The party is seemingly no longer business-focused, but is now engrossed in these "individual liberty" initiatives that interfere with people doing their jobs. And that says nothing of the image problems it creates for our state.

Hilarious. The Republican party is simply trying to prevent Florida from turning into California. The only image that is being created is pro-family, pro-freedom, and pro-prosperity.

Your entire post is probably due to some asshat lib getting their panties in a wad because they weren't allowed to exploit children.
 

LowerLevelSeatA

New member
Jun 2, 2005
2,794
3,119
0
Not in a way that covers the actual reality of sex and gender. The mental frameworks we have of "male" and "female" are simplifications of a complex reality that USUALLY work. The problem is when we want to then force the less cut and dry reality into our simplified models. Linking a thread I read a few days ago that says it much better than I could:


Lol..well tells us a lot about you. To borrow a quote from Cal, you people are crazy!
 

Dig Dirkler

New member
Nov 20, 2015
2,963
10,846
0
Mental frameworks? You say that as if we have come up with our own predisposed definition of male/female. The definition is not complex nor is it up for debate.

Simplifications? Guess what .....it is that simple. There are 2 genders. 2. Not 3, 4, etc.....2.

Your entire premise on this subject is really scary.
I notice when people who get gender reassignment surgery only transition to male or female and not the other 342 genders. Are those people genderphobes?
 
Mar 13, 2004
14,745
12,925
0
I don’t really understand this response. Can you explain what you’re trying to say?
That even if you want to say "it's about biological sex," biological sex is not something with clear boundaries. It's something where the large majority of people fit the category where their genitalia and other physical sex characteristics, their chromosomes, their genes, their hormones, their gene expression and hormone receptors, all align in the same direction and it's easy to say "that person is biologically male" and "that person is biologically female." But there are many different ways that a person doesn't fit neatly into "biological male" and "biological female" (I mentioned those that the thread had discussed). And to simply ask "what is the definition of a woman" is a very hard thing to do in a way that takes all of that into account. Is a person with an X and a Y chromosome (male chromosomes) and with a ****** a woman? Is a person with two X chromosomes (female chromosomes) and a penis a woman?

Going beyond what's in that thread I linked - imo the mind is a much more complex and varied thing than the body. And it makes no sense to me to insist that all minds feat neatly into one of two rigidly defined categories when we know that bodies don't always fit neatly into one of two rigidly defined categories.

We can simplify our model of what sex and gender are by modeling it as only two distinct groups, with everyone placed into one or the other, with the "sex" and "gender" labels always perfectly overlapping. But that's not particularly useful when the entire point of the conversations we're having about sex and gender are about the people who don't neatly fit those groups. I'm just saying it's a lot more complicated than people want to treat it as.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Ron Mehico

cat_in_the_hat

New member
Jan 28, 2004
5,909
4,457
0
That even if you want to say "it's about biological sex," biological sex is not something with clear boundaries. It's something where the large majority of people fit the category where their genitalia and other physical sex characteristics, their chromosomes, their genes, their hormones, their gene expression and hormone receptors, all align in the same direction and it's easy to say "that person is biologically male" and "that person is biologically female." But there are many different ways that a person doesn't fit neatly into "biological male" and "biological female" (I mentioned those that the thread had discussed). And to simply ask "what is the definition of a woman" is a very hard thing to do in a way that takes all of that into account. Is a person with an X and a Y chromosome (male chromosomes) and with a ****** a woman? Is a person with two X chromosomes (female chromosomes) and a penis a woman?

Going beyond what's in that thread I linked - imo the mind is a much more complex and varied thing than the body. And it makes no sense to me to insist that all minds feat neatly into one of two rigidly defined categories when we know that bodies doesn't always fit neatly into one of two rigidly defined categories.

We can simplify our model of what sex and gender are by modeling it as only two distinct groups, with everyone placed into one or the other, with the "sex" and "gender" labels always perfectly overlapping. But that's not particularly useful when the entire point of the conversations we're having about sex and gender are about the people who don't neatly fit those groups. I'm just saying it's a lot more complicated than people want to treat it as.
Why is that point relevant to the bill and whether or not that discussion should be had with Kindergarten age kids by teachers instead of at home with a parent?
 

cole854

New member
Sep 11, 2012
10,156
22,637
0
But that's not particularly useful when the entire point of the conversations we're having about sex and gender are about the people who don't neatly fit those groups. I'm just saying it's a lot more complicated than people want to treat it as.

They do fit neatly into those groups, and it isn't complicated at all.....there are two genders. If you want to dissect this into a mentally instable person not being able to identify what God gave them, then that is another topic altogether. Otherwise, the simplicity of this is that you are wrong.

You are the exact prototype that Gov. DeSantis doesn't want screwing up our kids heads with their ********.
 

Ron Mehico

New member
Jan 4, 2008
15,473
33,054
0
That even if you want to say "it's about biological sex," biological sex is not something with clear boundaries. It's something where the large majority of people fit the category where their genitalia and other physical sex characteristics, their chromosomes, their genes, their hormones, their gene expression and hormone receptors, all align in the same direction and it's easy to say "that person is biologically male" and "that person is biologically female." But there are many different ways that a person doesn't fit neatly into "biological male" and "biological female" (I mentioned those that the thread had discussed). And to simply ask "what is the definition of a woman" is a very hard thing to do in a way that takes all of that into account. Is a person with an X and a Y chromosome (male chromosomes) and with a ****** a woman? Is a person with two X chromosomes (female chromosomes) and a penis a woman?

Going beyond what's in that thread I linked - imo the mind is a much more complex and varied thing than the body. And it makes no sense to me to insist that all minds feat neatly into one of two rigidly defined categories when we know that bodies doesn't always fit neatly into one of two rigidly defined categories.

We can simplify our model of what sex and gender are by modeling it as only two distinct groups, with everyone placed into one or the other, with the "sex" and "gender" labels always perfectly overlapping. But that's not particularly useful when the entire point of the conversations we're having about sex and gender are about the people who don't neatly fit those groups. I'm just saying it's a lot more complicated than people want to treat it as.

A lot to unpack there, thanks for sharing. Gotta say the transgender discussion has me feeling old, as it’s the one I can’t wrap my mind around. I like to think of myself as pretty open minded and moderate but I’m pretty confused by it. I’m finding it difficult for me to not view as a psychological disorder. And I’m not trying to say it negatively, I feel for the people and can’t imagine how difficult it is for them on a daily basis, but it just seems like something is off. To feel like you’re trapped in a body that doesn’t represent your mind just seems like something went haywire and sounds like hell honestly. I remember like five years ago there was this Rachel woman (think her last name started with a D) that was white but was pretending she was black. Remember her? Anyway everyone made fun of her and called her crazy but isn’t that sort of the same thing but swapping out race for gender? Either way thanks for answering, think this is something that’ll probably take me a while to understand or form a solid opinion on.
 
Mar 13, 2004
14,745
12,925
0
A lot to unpack there, thanks for sharing. Gotta say the transgender discussion has me feeling old, as it’s the one I can’t wrap my mind around. I like to think of myself as pretty open minded and moderate but I’m pretty confused by it. I’m finding it difficult for me to not view as a psychological disorder. And I’m not trying to say it negatively, I feel for the people and can’t imagine how difficult it is for them on a daily basis, but it just seems like something is off. To feel like you’re trapped in a body that doesn’t represent your mind just seems like something went haywire and sounds like hell honestly. I remember like five years ago there was this Rachel woman (think her last name started with a D) that was white but was pretending she was black. Remember her? Anyway everyone made fun of her and called her crazy but isn’t that sort of the same thing but swapping out race for gender? Either way thanks for answering, think this is something that’ll probably take me a while to understand or form a solid opinion on.
As a straight cisgendered person I have a hard time understanding it too, as in putting myself in that headspace. I don't get it on an internal level. But I choose to accept what the people experiencing it and the medical experts say about it (and just acknowledge that it's a phenomenon that's existed in cultures across different time periods and traditions). And I just acknowledge that all that complexity of nature can lead to situations I don't fully understand and don't fit neat boxes we use to simplify things for our understanding.
 

John Henry

Well-known member
Aug 18, 2007
35,502
172,357
113
I’m actually a republican lawyer, but I am well educated and live in the real world. If I read that some teacher somewhere in our large state taught some inappropriate information to kids (or “groomed” them) I don’t automatically think that a state law should be passed to deal with that isolated incident.

This is obviously a “red meat” law designed to rile up people like Shawnee Cat. It is copying what seemed to work in the. VA gubernatorial election.
You are a Republican lawyer. Are you a Jeb Bush / Charlie Crist republican? This bill may be "red meat" in your opinion but not to the parents I know. And I am a parent. Floridians have long stopped worrying about national image. With 21 million people and thousands coming every day the national reputation is live and well.

As far as the business community they rank way down on the "likeable scale" and their WOKENESS is hurting them more than a parental rights bill. Florida welcomes business but not the kind Disney is promoting. They can keep that in California.

This is not a controversial bill in the State of Florida. This poll of registered voter Democrats has the national Democrats shaking in their boots. I have seen it as high as 55% but this one is 52% Democrats in favor of the legislation. Notice even this pollster's headline is a false narrative.

New Poll: 52% of Florida Democrat Voters Back 'Don't Say Gay' Bill​

https://floridianpress.com/2022/03/new-poll-52-of-florida-democrat-voters-back-dont-say-gay-bill/

"To many Americans' surprise, the majority of Florida Democrats either, "somewhat (20%)," or, "definitely (32%)," oppose teaching Kindergarteners through third graders about sexual orientation. Only 12% were unsure of their thoughts on the bill."

As Floridians why don't we concern our self with the real issues of education our children and celebrate the greatness of Florida public school system. Florida ranks third in the nation among states in public education. Florida has some of the highest salaries for teacher. Gov DeSantis gave bonuses to all teachers for their excellent work during COVID. The nation shut down school and Florida schools stayed open which put liberal / blue states schools in the rear view mirror. Those states focus on a pro-gay / transgender agenda and look at them. Florida teaches basic core subjects and it pays off in smarter and better prepared students to advance to higher education in our highly ranked Universities.

I can't see how anyone can be against a bill to protect children and parental rights. The bill is what it is and says it is. It protects parents and students who do not want to discuss sex in K to 3rd grade. How could that be controversial to an objective parent. Let mama and daddy be a parent and instruct that to their child.

 

Beatle Bum

Well-known member
Sep 1, 2002
39,249
57,879
113
Can you blame them? First, they had to SAVE THE CHILDREN from the severe abuses of masks and now they must SAVE THE CHILDREN from the trans community/the media/libs/teachers/woke culture/GROOMING/etc. There's a segment of the population who has made it their make believe job to be the guardians of the country. I didn't hear this much about grooming and pedophilia when the Catholic Church was busy doing their daily rapings. It's just silly to me, all of it; both sides. Just silly. The left's reaction, the right's reaction. Silly. And you know what? We'll move on to another bit of silliness next month.
^^^ under the definition of hypocritical post
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tannerdad

Beatle Bum

Well-known member
Sep 1, 2002
39,249
57,879
113
Because everyone is apparently a pedophile. That's all we've heard from both sides the last few years. Living your best life must mean accusing others of pedophilia and claiming that the children must be saved. Ya'll are exhausting.
^^^ rofl that someone actually posted this crap. Even anonymously that is some dippy shat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 80 Proof

IdaCat

Well-known member
May 8, 2004
68,840
33,164
113
So this gender issue is confusing and nobody including our loudest mouth radical leftist understands it (admittedly). Yet it still must be taught to young children in schools by left leaning teachers because.....

A fraction of a percent of the population suffers from gender dysphoria, yet the normalization and promotion effort is off the charts. We've already seen the minds of recent generations twisted and confused by this LGBTASDFJKL; nonsense.

There is a societal price to pay for this ****. Yet, the irrational left never thinks past the superficial depth of their bleeding heart feelings about anything. Democrat leaders understand this and use it to divide and maintain a base. Period. It's all they have, and it's disgusting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.