The bill you mention sounds like history related, is the thing. The TN bill is all encompassing.
The negative parts of both bills are though. You skipped over the part where I said it barred negative reflection of homosexuals (or homosexuality in general). There's some speculation about how the wording can or should be interpreted, but as worded, it would restrict teachers from mentioning anything a homosexual ever did in a negative way. So any mention of say Jeffrey Dahmer would be prohibited because since he chopped up the young men he lured to his home, that would make *** people look bad. Basically, no negative act can be presented to students if the person involved is ***. Which would put them into a special protected category which no other group of people enjoy. It's pretty darn absurd.
Obviously, it's unclear if the prohibition would extend that far, but given the wording, most teachers are going to err on the side of not getting sued. It could theoretically mean that it would be illegal to mention any criticism of political decisions made by *** politicians (historical or current), since that would reflect badly on a *** person. It's badly written, and very broad, yet this is a clear example of the "other side" behaving just as irrationally.
I simply can't agree to any regulation that says a kid can have information about themselves withheld, but the "regular" studies can proceed. Whether they like it or not, there are homosexual kids, and they deserve to get information and counseling that any heterosexual children can get.
I think some would counter that public schools are not the best place for this either though. And the inevitable question of where the boundary line between eliminating condemnation and creating advocacy is IMO a legitimate one.