Teaching happens the entire time kids are at school even when just talking to their teachers so a teacher mentioning their family, their kids, their spouse, changing their last name because they got married, changing from Miss to Mrs, wearing a wedding ring are all expressions of human sexuality.
Sexuality \Sex`ual"ity\, n.
The quality or state of being distinguished by sex.
--Lindley.
[1913 Webster]
They wrote the law so they could punish those they don't like and ignore violations by those they support.
Teaching happens in every interaction a child has in life.
If the purpose of schools is to undo the instillment of parents' values (or lack of them), we should at least be honest about it. That's the assumption behind most debates of this type.
If the purpose of schools is to teach specialized skills that most parents don't have, then we should cut the crap so that kids can learn them.
If the purpose of schools is to babysit kids so that their parents can be used as human batteries for Nestle and Kroger, then God help us.
>Teaching happens in every interaction a child has in life.
Which means that having a law that says teaching human sexuality can't happen is impossible to do without turning the teachers into uncaring robot like beings.
They could have banned the teaching of sexually explicate material but they chose not to.
> Which means that having a law that says teaching human sexuality can't happen is impossible to do without turning the teachers into uncaring robot like beings.
How archetypally liberal to define the difference between humans and “uncaring robot like beings” in terms of being able to talk about “human sexuality.” It’s really an obsession isn’t it.
What conservatives want (and can't say) is to prevent schools from telling young children that families without two opposite-sex parents are normal, when their parents disagree with that. That's fundamentally a value-judgment that doesn't have a black-and-white answer, but if it's interfering with math class, they have a point.
A same sex teacher having a wedding ring on or mentioning their spouse during math class would be teaching the kids about same sex relationships. It it was interfering with classes they would be showing examples of it but, to my knowledge and research, they haven't shown this.
You should read the actual text of the law. It's directed to "instruction" on "sexual orientation" or "gender identity." It's meant to prevent an off-hand mention of someone's same-sex spouse from turning into a discussion of sexual attraction and sexual orientation.
All activities in the classroom typically fall under the category of instruction not just the formal segments. This law is one of those laws meant to be used against the wrong people while ignoring when the correct people do the same sort of things.
Teachers by definition act in loco parentis; if parents disagree with other adults about values, that's a separate issue, but teachers shouldn't be overriding kids' parents on ideology.
> Teaching happens the entire time kids are at school even when just talking to their teachers so a teacher mentioning their family, their kids, their spouse, changing their last name because they got married, changing from Miss to Mrs, wearing a wedding ring are all expressions of human sexuality.
But that's exactly the problem. Parents want to insulate their young children from discussions of "human sexuality." We have strong social conventions to be able to talk about things kids are exposed to--weddings, etc.--without expressly talking about sexuality. Many parents, however, no longer trust teachers to adhere to these social conventions.
That isn't how the law is written. They could have, perhaps, actually written it that way but they didn't. I will leave it to the reader to infer their true intentions.
Sexuality \Sex`ual"ity\, n.
They wrote the law so they could punish those they don't like and ignore violations by those they support.