Ailitardif, Star Breaker wrote:
Your words are nice, but let me remind you:
The legislation, dubbed the "don't say ***" bill, states teachers cannot "provide any instruction or material that discusses sexual orientation other than heterosexuality."
See? It says that teachers can only provide instruction or material that is heterosexual.
The quote is unattributed in the article though. They also put quotes around the nickname "don't say ***", which I'm sure doesn't appear in the actual proposed law, so unlike you, I'm not going to make assumptions either way. If that is the case, then it's a poorly worded law. Of course, according to the article, it's also unnecessary since apparently TN law currently already forbids such discussions anyway.
Then, they claim it is "neutral". Again, neutral would ban all discussions of sexual orientation at those grade levels. This specifically targets homosexuality. They are sending a clear message here.
And yet, the quote from the writer of the bill itself says that: "We should leave it to families to decide when it is appropriate to talk with children about sexuality - specifically before the eighth grade,". So it's it about discussing "sexuality" or "homosexuality"? Do you see how someone might interpret a ban on discussion of the social aspects of sexuality (which would include discussion about homosexuality) as a ban on discussion of homosexuality? After all, only when discussing those social aspects would the subject of homosexuality ever come up, right?
I'll point out that the flip side of this issue is relevant and valid: Can't we also say that *** rights groups demanding discussion about social aspects of sexuality (including homosexuality) essentially insisting that discussion of their group be added to curriculum? And doesn't that get us back into the problem of "any group can do this for any aspect of sexuality, not just *** people"? I think it does and I think that the correct response is to not discuss said aspects at all at that grade level.
Realize as well, that I'm fully not discounting the possibility that said law is just a stupid poorly written knee-jerk reaction and contains exactly the sort of targeted language which would make it discriminatory. I'm not defending this law, but pointing out that there are more aspects to this issue than just "everyone must discuss homosexuality in health class or we're discriminating against gays".
I take your point here, I meant sexual orientation, not sexual identity. My apologies.
My point isn't about the label used though. My point is that a kid with a strong foot fetish would feel just as left out of a discussion about various social aspects of sexuality if they only included heterosexual and homosexual interactions as a homosexual might feel if said discussion only included heterosexual interactions. I'm asking you where the end point of this logic is. Because if there isn't one, then a slippery slope response is non-fallacious and should be considered. And I could take that slippery slope pretty darn far in this case.