For what it's worth, I think that the critical position on this bill is basically extreme skepticism about what the parties initiating legal proceedings are going to consider "instruction ... on sexual orientation and gender identity". Because that's a very vague passage, and I'm not confident that bigots won't cause a large chilling effect on schools by suing over teachers mentioning that gay/trans people exist, even if these lawsuits are eventually lost by said bigots.
> Of course not. ... The teacher is just stating a fact.
A lot of "classroom instruction" is stating facts. You're instructing the children about what these facts are. The law seems very vague on where this line is going to fall.
(The other issue is the extreme lack of consideration of the possibility that parental-abuse is the problem you're now required to inform the parents their child has complained about in the other sections of the bill...)
> Of course not. ... The teacher is just stating a fact.
A lot of "classroom instruction" is stating facts. You're instructing the children about what these facts are. The law seems very vague on where this line is going to fall.
(The other issue is the extreme lack of consideration of the possibility that parental-abuse is the problem you're now required to inform the parents their child has complained about in the other sections of the bill...)