DVDizzy Forum

Disney Duster wrote:So, it doesn't allow classroom discussion of gay or transgender anything. So I guess students in private could talk about such things? Sotiris, do you know? But in the classroom, a kid would have to shut up about liking a same gender person or wanting to be the opposite gender they were assigned at birth or anything about having seen other people who do such things! And a teacher couldn't even say in the classroom they were gay and had a same-sex partner or were the opposite gender than what they were assigned at birth!

Here's what the bill says about that verbatim:

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.

Here's what the bill's sponsors said about it.

The bill’s sponsors have emphatically stated that the bill would not prohibit students from talking about their LGBTQ families or bar classroom discussions about LGBTQ history, including events like the 2016 deadly attack on the Pulse nightclub, a gay club in Orlando.

Source: https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-pol ... -rcna19929

State representatives asked the bill’s sponsor, Joe Harding, specific hypothetical scenarios about what would and would not be allowed in the classroom if the measure became law. What would not be allowed? No classroom instruction about sexual orientation or gender identity would be allowed for kids from kindergarten to third grade.

According to Representative Harding, a book in a library about sexual orientation or gender identity would still be allowed. “Just because a book is available to a student doesn’t mean it’s part of the instruction,” said Harding.

A conversation about a student’s family? Representative Dianne Hart asked Harding, “would an instructor be allowed to talk about him having two fathers?” “Having a conversation on the family is not an instruction. I think it’s just important to point to the difference in conversation and instruction,” said Harding.

What about discussing a student’s essay, even if they wrote about their gay parents? Representative Andrew Learned, “what if that paper wins an award in the class, could the teacher highlight that because that would make it somewhat instructional?” “I would disagree. Highlighting a paper is not instructional,” said Harding. He said the same goes for school-wide assemblies.

Source: https://www.winknews.com/2022/02/21/flo ... -gay-bill/

What the sponsors say the bill will do is not what they wrote. The language of the bill is purposefully vague. What qualifies as “classroom instruction” and who defines what is “age appropriate”? Ultimately, the courts which leaves teachers and schools open to litigation. There are a lot of people out there who would object to a teacher referencing their same sex partner in a classroom setting in any fashion, and they might argue that it is a form of instruction or indoctrination. There are people who believe the reality of LGBT’s existence is not age appropriate for children. They could sue school systems by using this soon-to-be law— whether they would win the case or not is another question because again, the language is so intentionally vague. But it creates unnecessary stress for educators everywhere and could discourage educators from being openly queer in any way.

Not to mention the bill “fixes” a problem that doesn’t really exist. There are not legions of teachers out there teaching sex ed to small children to “groom” them. There is not an epidemic of cis-children transitioning because they are confused about their gender identity. No, it is just an excuse to rally the base by scapegoating a minority class. After all, Florida has a nasty history with gay politics and the attacks being leveled at the LGBT community today from the Republican party are identical to the ones hurled at our community during the days of Anita Bryant. That’s why it is so important for LGBT people and their allies to take a stand against this kind of legislation and these kinds of attacks that demonize the LGBT community with baseless accusations as “groomers” and worse. It is a scary and stressful time to be an LGBT person because of the heinous attacks coming from the right.

Disney isn’t perfect, and it took them too long to come around, but I’m glad they are standing with the LGBT community. They are doing much more than the other big theme park in Orlando (Universal). I look forward to watching the courts put the kibosh on the legislation to dissolve Reedy Creek, as well.

I like and agree with a lot of what you said actually, Jules.

Well, carolinakid, I read the three points of the bill from that article, which I think was all the bill? Anyway, it's true I didn't like another person of the same sex my age until 3rd or 4th grade (I can't remember which), but I did have a crush on Pinocchio when I was little, probably starting at least at 5. I had a Pinoke plush I cuddled with at night. Anyway, the point of how bad this bill is is that it's hatred for anything gay when stuff as innocent as two parents of the same sex or stories of, like, a prince falling in love with a prince, are not allowed. It's the principal of the thing. No hatred or bias against LGBT people should ever be allowed. A story about gay romance should be allowed just as much as any straight story! The mere mention of gay love should be allowed in a classroom as much as discussion of straight love! And aw, thank you for what you said about my sensitivity.

Thank you Sotiris!

{I don't know if the Reedy Creek issue should get a new thread or not since it is retaliation for speaking out against Don't Say Gay.}

Three Florida Taxpayers Sue Gov. Ron DeSantis Over Reedy Creek's Dissolve
https://wesh.com/article/lawsuit-ron-de ... e/39910353

I'm glad and hope there are more lawsuits because taxpayers will be on the hook for the portion Disney was paying. I hate DeSantis so much. And lots of articles mention him as being a frontrunner for running for president. We don't need more hatred. We can't take that.

Isn’t this called irony?

We don’t need more hatred ...yet I hate De Santis so much...

There is a difference between attacking someone as DeSantis is doing and defending one's self as the LGBT community and its allies are doing. Only aggressors try to blur the lines and pretend those are the same thing.

DeSantis is prejudiced for no reason against people. I don't randomly go around hating people but he is ruining this state and ruining people's lives, and if he wins on a national scale, I'm fearful for even more people's lives.

Me hating him for his damaging prejudice is very different from him hating people just living their lives.

*edit* Disney Comms Boss Out As DeSantis Feud Intensifies, Florida Governor Mourns For Modern Animation
https://www.cartoonbrew.com/politics/di ... 15733.html

Disney is mentioned as well:
U.S. Senators Don’t Want Kids Watching ‘Hyper-Sexualized’ Cartoons Like ‘Loud House,’ ‘She-Ra’
https://www.cartoonbrew.com/politics/tv ... 16079.html

Hi guys. I don't mean to bother you repeating myself (or yourselves), but there's something I'm hoping someone can clarify for me.

So, based on Sotiris' quoted text on the previous page, I take it the bill forbids LGBT instruction as part of the curriculum for kindergarten aged children and up to 3rd grade (age 7/8, I guess?) But, it doesn't outlaw the discussion of LGBT issues if the need arises - especially since sometimes you really cannot avoid the subject in 2022 (unlike 1996, when I was 7 ) And, as I understand it, nobody will get into hot water for uttering the words "gay", "lesbian" or "transgender."

If the above is correct, then as a gay man myself, I have absolutely no problem with the bill.

However, I also read what UmbrellaFish wrote.

From this I get the impression that the bill was worded vaguely, which may give rise to misinterpretation. Also, based on your accounts of Florida being very anti-gay, it alludes to the fact that the bill is vague not because it was ineptly written, but on purpose. If there is very real malice being projected towards LGBT individuals in Florida, I suppose this is bad news because people can intentionally "misinterpret" the bill to get you in trouble. While theoretically the bill says what it says and eventually you should emerge victorious in court, it is all hassle nobody needs, which means to avoid that hassle you may end up censoring yourself even though legally you don't need to.

Is that it?

If so, I don't like it at all.

What I would want is a VERY CLEAR bill with no grey areas that would serve as a good compromise between liberal and conservative ideologies, which this bill should be if well-written.

I can intuit you don't read what I post and that's fine, I have used the Block function myself and it is a useful tool. That said, I will always use my voice to counter what I consider to be dangerous rhetoric, regardless of whether there is an acknowledgment or not.

The problem with BothSides-ing this issue as you are, Jules, is that "liberals" aren't signing laws requiring sex or sex change operations be shown or taught to children in classrooms. There is no equivalence here, there are no "two sides," this is one side inventing an issue in order to stigmatize LGBT nationwide and encourage "pedophile" rhetoric in usage towards issues involving them, in order to get brownie points at the ballot box from homophobes and extremists who are happy to see anti-gay sentiment being expressed via a microphone. Thinking you can find a middle ground with empowered homophobia rings hollow because being tolerant of intolerance is illogical.

I don't consider it a "liberal" position to be against the demonization of myself and other people like me. I'm sorry that you do, but my consolation is you aren't an American and have no power to wield for harm here.

blackcauldron85 wrote:Disney is mentioned as well:
U.S. Senators Don’t Want Kids Watching ‘Hyper-Sexualized’ Cartoons Like ‘Loud House,’ ‘She-Ra’
https://www.cartoonbrew.com/politics/tv ... 16079.html

She-Ra "sexualized." They want LGBT to be non-existent, that's all. There's nothing "sexual" about these shows--any more than there's something "sexual" about the mention of a LGBT character in a children's book. If anything was hyper-sexualized, it was old-school animation with characters like Jessica Rabbit, Betty Boop, etc. But the existence of heterosexuality isn't considered "sexual" to these people.

Google New Jersey Sex Education Guidelines 2022.

Some highlights:

By grade 2
Gender Identity is presented

By grade 5
Masturbation

By grade 8
Understanding the different types of intercourse

carolinakid wrote: By grade 2
Gender Intentity is presented

Grade 5 and above are puberty levels and therefore irrelevant. Although I can't help but wonder if you think the teacher is showing the children how masturbation is done first-hand or something. Did you have sex education classes in school that showed you videos of sex growing up? No, because you can be talked to about something in an age-appropriate manner without being "shown" it.

My question to you would be what do you think "gender identity is presented" means? Kids shown videos of sexual acts? Kids being allowed to try out hormone therapy as made available by their teachers? Pure fearmongering. No, it's more likely a discussion of gender in general and how a fellow student who is different than you may be expressing themselves in ways that you may not be familiar with, but that they shouldn't be bullied--because we live in a world where we will be confronted by people who are different than we are in public spaces and have to learn to deal with it.

Divinity, I read everything you write. I have never even used the block function because I find it rather stupid. (Why anybody would want to make the posts of "undesirable" members invisible is beyond me. If I had an issue with somebody, I would want to know if they're posting unsavoury material, especially if it concerns me.)

If you said something earlier and it looks like I ignored it, then forgive me. I did not do it out of spite - as you seem to think - but because I forgot it. I read the posts on the previous page about five days ago, so I cannot remember everything.

If I "ignored" you then I also ignored Duster - who has addressed me directly on this thread at least twice - but I haven't fully "acknowledged" him either. I cannot keep up with everything, and have real life stuff to take care of outside of this forum.

Nevertheless, I love Duster. I'm not entirely sure what you think of me, or what you think that I think of you - but rest assured I don't hold you in disdain, or anything of the sort. You're hardly a favourite of mine, and I was mad at you on other occasions. (Mad enough that I talked very bitterly of you in pms to some other members on this site.) Still, I eventually cool down, the bitterness fades and it's all water under the bridge for me.

I don't understand your passive aggression when you don't agree with something I believe in. I'm always putting stuff behind me, but you keep dredging that same stuff up! It really doesn't help, you know.

Actually, it's really annoying. Would it hurt you to be a bit more pleasant?

And before you say that your post above has nothing to do with previous exchanges we've shared, I'm pretty sure the tone of your writing would be very different if you considered us to be on "good terms."

I'm still not really sure what bothers you so much about me. Feel free to specify, as long as you don't insult me. In turn I can either verify what you say or make my counter-argument. I am autistic, and it would help immensely if you'd be clear as crystal instead of dropping cryptic hints.

As for the topic at hand, please don't blow things out of proportion or put words in my mouth.

Naturally, as a Maltese citizen I am unfamiliar with the finer dynamics of the situation over there. I don't feel guilty about that, because I hardly think I am under an obligation to know the political situation in the USA inside out. Likewise, I do not expect you to fully comprehend the political nuances of my home country. That's fine.

I asked for clarification on the bill, and I reiterate that provided what I wrote above is accurate, then I think it is fine. I am talking about the bill divorced of context.

Since I do not live in the USA I am unaware of specific groups who aim to "stigmatise" LGBT individuals or intentionally bring forth confusion re LGBT and sex offenders targeting children. Again, I was only talking about the bill, which on paper doesn't seem to equate being gay with child rape. And where did I say that liberals are signing laws for young children to be taught about about sex change operations? That was never part of my argument.

Furthermore, you must understand that somebody having reservations about LGBT individuals doesn't make them homophobes or transphobes. I believe that in democratic countries exercising free speech you should be allowed to question things without fear of being "cancelled" or losing your job.

Curbing hate speech is important. For example, I would have no qualms about getting the scary Westboro Baptist Church cult to shut up. They damage and brainwash people.

However, just because someone has negative feelings of your particular minority group doesn't make them evil. It doesn't define them. Actually, I think they should be given the space to speak up without being vilified, so that a healthy discussion can ensue. If not, they will certainly speak up among like-minded individuals, and may be at risk of becoming radicalised.

Houston, we have a problem!

I believe that overly-aggressive LGBT campaigning in Western countries may not at all be promoting tolerance, but actually catalysing the incidence of hate among TRUE homophobes.

If the above scandalises you, then so be it. I do not appreciate insinuations that I am a conservative nutter. I most certainly am not, though I am not ashamed to admit I have conservative leanings. I was raised Roman Catholic in a religiously conservative country, so that is hardly surprising. I have long drifted off from my faith, but I have not rejected the values I was brought up with. As far as I know, that is not a crime. I am bound to have pretty different ideas to many of you here, but I would not dream of liking any of you less simply because our political ideologies or values differ.

Having different viewpoints is what makes us interesting.

So Divinity, please remember that I am Julian Carter from Malta - a democratic and western nation like the US - and not Vladimir Putin from Russia, or Viktor Orban from Hungary. Now those are some scary dudes with the power to oppress!

And careful what you say. I just might immigrate to the USA one day.

But if I do, fret not. I'd sooner gouge my eyes out than vote for Trump!

Jules wrote:Divinity, I read everything you write. I have never even used the block function because I find it rather stupid. (Why anybody would want to make the posts of "undesirable" members invisible is beyond me. If I had an issue with somebody, I would want to know if they're posting unsavoury material, especially if it concerns me.)

I think it's useful in some cases, but won't expound for reasons. I only assumed that because you mentioned what two others said about the bill even though I posted a link last page is all, one that was smeared as supposedly "biased" because it wasn't a hard right news source.

I'm always putting stuff behind me, but you keep dredging that same stuff up! It really doesn't help, you know.

I wasn't bringing up anything from the past here. My tone is as neutral and robotic as I can manage. I only use a "friendly tone" with people I feel are receptive to it, my post wasn't personal at all (except in so far that LGBT issues can't help but be "personal" for a gay person).

Feel free to specify, as long as you don't insult me.

As for the topic at hand, please don't blow things out of proportion or put words in my mouth.

And don't insult me either. I don't think I blew anything out of proportion; you've equated the two sides several times in this thread even though I didn't respond prior, and I consider that a false statement. Someone defending themselves and someone attacking a person without cause are not the same thing in my eyes.

Again, I was only talking about the bill, which on paper doesn't seem to equate being gay with child rape.

And the reason I responded to this post of yours rather than the others is you said here you would like there to be a middle ground between the two parties' policies. There was no liberal policy in place in Florida mandating children to be taught anything before this bill was created by conservatives to supposedly stop something that wasn't happening in the first place.

Furthermore, you must understand that somebody having reservations about LGBT individuals doesn't make them homophobes or transphobes. I believe that in democratic countries exercising free speech you should be allowed to question things without fear of being "cancelled" or losing your job.

I agree about that to an extent--dependent on exactly what the subject is. IMO, the Don't Say Gay bill was built specifically around inserting homophobia into the national conversation. As for "cancelled," again, it depends on the situation or what is said. Some things do deserve consequences, imo.

However, just because someone has negative feelings of your particular minority group doesn't make them evil. It doesn't define them.

That's where we differ--I think the actions are evil. I wouldn't say it defines someone or sends somebody to Hell or anything (EDIT: TMI, but I just wanted to be clear so as not to lead astray that I meant that, as far as my faith goes, if you believe Jesus died for your sins and you repent for your sins as you make them, you won't. There is only one unforgivable.), we're all guilty of judging people at one time or another, but there's a difference between having momentary judgmental thoughts and then trying to correct yourself, and attacking whole communities you see as inferior to you via governmental power that will harm thousands or millions of lives (as the case may be) for years and years and years. Quite a different scope. The latter actions are undeniably evil to me.

I most certainly am not, though I am not ashamed to admit I have conservative leanings. I was raised Roman Catholic in a religiously conservative country, so that is hardly surprising. I have long drifted off from my faith, but I have not rejected the values I was brought up with. As far as I know, that is not a crime.

Likewise, I'm not the least bit ashamed to be a liberal, despite the derisiveness. Not that I consider this to be a "liberal issue" so much as a "LGBT issue," hence the thread title. I grew up in the Bible Belt in the U.S. which is hard right territory and I have no shame in saying I'm a Christian either, and still emphatically reject what I consider the largely hateful ideology of the majority of people I grew up around.

Aw, I love you, too, Jules! And you really show your smarts here! That said, I find Divinity very smart, too, and to me it felt he was attacking the evil people behind the bill, not that he finds you evil and was attacking you. Maybe just some things you said.

I must say, I find the bill evil because no one should be forced to keep something as innocent as mere LGBT people out of the curriculum. Like there could never be stories where a man likes a man or a woman marries a woman just as innocently as the prince kisses the princess awake.

Thank you for your replies, Divinity and Duster.

I'll have to get back here to reply individually, since there's a lot to talk about! It might take me a while, but I won't forget.

Thank you for your patience.

Disney Duster wrote:That said, I find Divinity very smart, too.

That's nice. I think you're a nice person in general. I'd miss talking to you now and again if this site ever went away. I suppose because we've both been here since practically the same time, there is a lot of history that would just go poof without this site.

Wow, Divinity, that is one of the sweetest and nicest things ever said to me. I feel the same way about you, that I would really miss being able to talk to you. Can I PM you my email so we can always be in contact? When did you come here by the way? I think I joined in 2005 a few months before Cinderella came to DVD.

Jules, thank you, I patiently wait for your response!

Disney Duster wrote:When did you come here by the way? I think I joined in 2005 a few months before Cinderella came to DVD.

I don't remember a specific reason for joining other than I was a Disney fan and I liked looking around for info about their new movies online. I must've started to collect the animated films on DVD a year or two before joining here (at least I know I had TLK, B&tB, SW, and Aladdin Platinum DVDs already before Cinderella's Platinum). It was fun finding out stuff about the upcoming films, all the different DVD releases (bonus features, restorations, etc.), and play Disney-related games. So I was on DVDizzy through High School, university, and beyond.

Oh! So that's the story behind you joining! I was here mostly to talk about the old movies I loved and the new DVDs for them. I didn't look forward to their new movies, that's for sure. Lol. I had gotten Snow White when it first came out, and bought a DVD player just for that with my allowance. That was a bright spot in horrible middle school times, lol. I still only collected the films I liked on DVD back then, not every Disney movie, not even every DAC. That was just how I rolled, and still roll.