Why is a law needed?

Florida passes “Anti-groomer Law”

The law prohibits teachers from discussing gender dysphoria and homosexuality with children Kindergarten to 3rd grade.

Who the hell thought that was appropriate to discuss with 5 to 9 year olds in the first place? If parents decide to broach that subject at that age with their own child who is perhaps showing some signs of confusion, that is one thing, but schools teaching about these issues at that age without the parent’s knowledge to all children was so obviously wrong that in saner times no one would have even considered doing it.

Of course, the Biden administration says it’s hateful and threatens to block funds.

The campaign commercials write themselves.

77 thoughts on “Why is a law needed?

  1. “Who the hell thought that was appropriate to discuss with 5 to 9 year olds in the first place?”

    Uh, that would be nobody. Just more desperate culture war bullshit from the Putin party.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Anti-groomer? Such culture war bullshit.

    This is the first time I have heard that FL law referred to in that manner. It leads one to believe, especially if they are already so inclined, to believe that teachers are grooming children to homosexuality or to become part of the LGTBQ+ community.

    So if a first grader is part of a non-traditional family (2 moms/dads, instead of the nuclear option), that child will be alone when his/her friends ask her “Why?”. The teacher now has his/her hands tied and cannot help explain that the family is still a family, just not the same as the one the asking child lives with.

    To say discussions at those grade levels should be banned based on my hypothetical situation above is wrongheaded and leaves the youngest of the schoolchildren vulnerable to bullying and ridicule. -IMO

    Liked by 1 person

    1. The ‘Anti-Groomer’ tag was in response to the MSM calling it the ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill. Neither is really apt. It should be the Age Appropriate Parental Choice bill.

      If a classroom has an affected child, the proper choice would be to send a letter to parents notifying them and suggesting that they explain it to their child in a kind and understanding manner.

      We’re talking about children at an age where they don’t know where babies come from. What to tell the children should be based on their individual level of understanding as determined by the parent.


      1. The proper choice?

        So, let’s single out this “affected child” by sending a letter to every parent with a child in the school describing their family situation? What could possibly go wrong? So much better than having a trained professional give an age-appropriate answer when Timmy should happen to ask – “Teacher, why does Billy have two Mommies?”

        Do you really think there is a problem to be solved by this law? Or are you honest enough to simply admit the truth – it is culture war nonsense?

        Liked by 1 person

        1. No, it’s a parental rights issue.

          We’re talking about 5 to 9 year old children.

          “Teacher, why does Billy have two mommies?”

          ‘It’s OK, your Mommie can explain it to you better. I’ll let her know you asked.”

          Is there a problem? Sadly, yes. There are advocates who think they have to tell every child way more than they need to know. How do I know? Because they’re so pissed at being told thay can’t.


          1. “‘It’s OK, your Mommie can explain it to you better. I’ll let her know you asked.””

            And then “Mommie Dearest” is a homophobe and teaches her child to hate and then the cycle continues.

            “You Have to be Taught to Hate” Rodgers and Hammerstein.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. OOH OOH do that too. Call concerned mothers homophobes, and while you’re at it, call them racists too.

            That will surely win them over.


          3. Concerned mothers? No, homophobic mothers, if that is what they are. If you read my entire post you would see that I specifically called out the homophobe, not the concerned.


          4. You presume incorrectly about my presmuption.

            And if you believe that there are NO homophobic mothers out there, then you are just delusional.


          5. Please then explain why you want universal authority for teachers because a small number might be intolerant. It appears to me I am exactly right about your presumption.


          6. Not authority, autonomy. Free speech and the like.

            The entire premise of this bill is to prevent something that is so rare in occurrence, it just has to be happening everywhere. The left is so often accused of starting culture wars, when this law proves, without a shadow of a doubt, the RIGHT, which just KNOWS they are always right, has to come to the defense of those who are NOT being threatened by anything.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. “OOH OOH do that too. Call concerned mothers homophobes”

            My oh my do you work really hard at not understanding the point made.

            If we send out letters to every parent of every “affected child” there is a better than even chance that some of those letters will go to homophobe parents. That is just one of the reasons why your idea of criminalizing a teacher giving age-appropriate responses to concerns children raise is a bad idea.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. “No, it’s a parental rights issue.”

          No, it is not.

          There is no “issue” that requires legislation. It is culture war bullshit, but I did not expect you to respond honestly. Why would I do that?

          Liked by 1 person

        3. You can have some “trained professional”, teachers aren’t trained in this BTW, explain it to your child but I guarantee a vast majority of parents will not accept that cop out nor remotely agree to it.


          1. Uh, what cop out?

            Let’s say a six year old child in a school – Timmy – is being raised by two Moms. Under this Tabor proposal “the proper” way to deal with this is to send a letter to the parents of every student in the school – typically hundreds of such parents – to let them know that Timmy has two Moms and that they should talk to their child about it. Of course, this letter cannot tell them what to say.

            Or, IF the subject ever came up in school, let the teacher deal with it in an age-appropriate way. You may not think much of teachers but on the average they are more intelligent, more empathetic, and better educated than parents – on the average.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. I doubt it. Don’t forget that there are a lot of smart, involved parents, and even were it true. there is the matter of standing.

            If a teacher is wrong and messes up a child, that child is no longer his or her problem after June. The parent has to deal with the damage for decades.

            The parents must deal with the consequences, so they make the call, your eleitist presumptions notwitstanding.


          3. “ If a teacher is wrong and messes up a child, that child is no longer his or her problem after June.”

            Epidemic of sexual recruiting going on in Florida schools? I did not know.

            Look, it is election year. McConnell has said the GOP agenda will be a secret until they win control of Congress. Which is essentially saying, they have none. Healthcare, inflation, energy, jobs, education, war in Europe can all take a back seat to the rumors that teachers are teaching 5 years old to dress up in Mom’s or Dad’s clothes somewhere, somehow.

            So they create issues around gays and race. Guns to come soon. Maybe some God stuff, too.


            Liked by 2 people

          4. Teachers aren’t trained in what? Indoctrination? True, and they don’t. But there are people such as yourself that believe they are. Why? Not sure, but it projecting YOUR homophobia on others is hateful and dangerous.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. …”the proper choice would be to send a letter to parents notifying them and suggesting that they explain it to their child in a kind and understanding manner.”

        That would work as long as the parents are not homophobic fundamentalists who will tell their children to stay away from that child because he or she is going to hell because of two mommies/two daddies.

        Bigotry can only be stopped through education and understanding. This bill is NOT in that vein.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. …” response to the MSM calling it the ‘Don’t Say Gay’”…

        It was OPPONENTS of the law that dubbed it that, the media used it.

        Remember Obamacare is ACTUALLY The Affordable Care Act. Yet ALL of the media, regardless of lean, uses that.


  3. RE: “Of course, the Biden administration says it’s hateful and threatens to block funds.”

    On what basis, I wonder? The story suggests that a Federal challenge to the law would have to start with a 5-9 year old claiming a gender or sexual orientation identity who then also claims discrimination.


  4. God, guns and gays. It is GOP platform building time again.

    Which might explain the love of Putin by some bigwigs on the right. Putin has railed against the decadence of the West. Gay rights, marriage, religious diversity, etc.

    Of course murder and stealing are against “traditional values” too, but whose watching.

    Step right up and place your bets to see if you can follow the Queen in 3 card monte. If you can’t, then keep trying. It’s bound to be in there somewhere.

    Liked by 2 people

      1. Speaking of gross mis-characterization (and classic propaganda, for that matter).

        “If you’re against the Anti-Grooming Bill, you are probably a groomer or at least you don’t denounce the grooming of 4-8 year old children. Silence is complicity. This is how it works, Democrats, and I didn’t make the rules.” DeSantis’ press secretary,

        Grooming? Really. Does that include a wash, dry and brush with perhaps trimming the nails. WTF folks, do people still believe that sexual attraction can be taught and conversions from hetero to homo is just a matter of some studies and guidance.

        Accusing teachers and politicians of being “groomers” for sexual proclivities is just plain demagoguery at the basest levels. Did these “groomers” also work at a DC pizza shop? Why not ban pizza sold without an affidavit of age appropriateness and a note from the parents.

        God and guns are coming soon at a GOP headquarters near you!

        Liked by 2 people

        1. But you had no objection when Ghislane Maxwell was convicted in the press of grooming young women for Jeffery Epstein.

          It’s not the term I would use, but then the term I might use for suggesting to young children that they are not what they are and seeking to confuse them at a suggestable stage in their lives might be considerably less generous.


          1. That is not what is happening. Claiming that ANY discussion of gender is considered “grooming” is hysterical nonsense. And ANY term that you come up with would be based on biased HYSTERIA. Like CRT on steroids.

            And your comparison to Maxwell’s ACTUAL grooming with teachers being able to discuss with their students topics that are brought up BY THE STUDENT is ridiculous.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Tell you what, Ya’ll run on that this fall, OK

            I’m not saying that people are trying to seduce children, but they are so desperate to normalize their delusions that they oversell the idea and that can harm kids at a suggestable stage where they are eager to please their teachers.

            It’s just not a topic anyone but parents should try to explain. And if you think teachers should be able to overrule the parents, run on that too.


          3. You recall that debate about what Loudon County school board was accused of regarding transgender students? The lie was that the parents could not be told. Kerry D. wrote a whole rant on that one line.

            A reading of the actually policy was that OTHER parents should not be told, but nothing about the child’s own parents being kept in the dark.

            That lie was the basis for a campaign.

            Have you guys no shame? Asking for a friend.

            Liked by 2 people

          4. “Ya’ll run on that this fall,”

            The GOP will already be doing that.

            …”normalize their delusions”

            That sounds like a Mr. Smith comment. As a man of medicine you know damned well that gender dysphoria is real, that children can and do experience it, and that trying to suppress is is dangerous and not medically ethical.

            And as more and more parents expect their children to be babysat BY teachers, it is akin to Congress giving up the power to declare war. If the parents aren’t involved, what is the teacher to do? Ignore the problem and HOPE beyond hope that the concerns sent home are addressed in a compassionate and understanding manner?

            Not allowing teachers to address issues in their classrooms is a problem and parents don’t try to solve it. They just scream yell and threaten because they have some delusional belief that their children are being indoctrinated. Be it into the LGTBQ+ community or communism.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. “As a man of medicine you know damned well that gender dysphoria is real, that children can and do experience it, and that trying to suppress is is dangerous and not medically ethical.”

            Gender dysphoria is real AND a delusion.

            The suicide rate regardless of what choices are made remain very high.

            Prior to puberty, it is foolish to support that delusion, as a great deal changes when the hormones assert themselves.

            In any case, teachers have no special authority to make such choices. Their role if they see a problem is to inform the parents and then follow the parent’s decisions.


          6. And if the parents’ decision is to bully the other child, what then is the teacher to do?

            How can it be real AND a delusion? That makes ZERO sense in the common sense world I live in.

            And your suicide rate claim has been debunked before so no need for me to do it again.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. I didn’t object to Maxwell? Really?

            When and how?

            I think most of my comments on the whole Epstein fiasco were concerning Trump’s high regard, admiration and praise for his pedophile buddy. A man whom he knew was a pedophile by his own admission of Epstein liking girls on the “younger side”.

            My objection is the blanket “if you don’t object, you are a groomer” assertion. By associating the lack of support for a vague bill, you are a pedophile.

            If you didn’t object to Trump’s grab em by the genitals (as in, “men will be men”), then you are a sexual predator. Or object to his admiration of Epstein as a great guy, then you are a pedophile.

            But it is the modern Republican Party, after all.

            PS: I am not proposing “grooming” except for my dog.

            Liked by 2 people

          8. The problem with your statement is that Maxwell WAS grooming those teenage girls for exploitation by Epstein and his “friends”. The press’ use of the word “grooming” was appropriate and accurate.

            And there is a VERY big difference between what Maxwell is doing and what this hysterical bill is talking about.

            Liked by 1 person

          9. Why did you dodge the statement by Desantis’ press sec’y? Too painful to acknowledge that the all knowing DeSantis is a demagogue, offering a solution to a problem that is so miniscule as to even show up on the radar until he goes after the Gay part of Gods, Gays and Guns?

            Liked by 1 person

          10. They represent them. If she is so far off the mark, she should be fired.

            It seems pretty obvious to the clear minded that she was voicing the Governor’s feelings. It’s her J-O-B. Giving her a pass, is akin to giving her boss a pass. Unless he fires her and says that his spokesperson doesn’t speak for him. That shows the idiocy of her statement.. on HIS behalf.

            Liked by 1 person

  5. Why is a law needed? From the ignorant remarks from our lefties it should be obvious but it still baffles me that these loony lefties wish, and think they have a right, to turn other people’s children into cross dressing queer ass puff balls in the first place. It is just a disgusting situation that normal people shouldn’t have to fight.


    1. …”, to turn other people’s children into cross dressing queer ass puff balls in the first place. It is just a disgusting situation that normal people shouldn’t have to fight.”

      And there it is. The full on HATE and BIGOTRY of our least favorite “Rightie”.

      If you truly believe that is happening in ANY school in any city in the country, feel free to take you fake, man-affirming, assault-style rife to whichever school you think it is happening in and shoot it up.

      “Pizzagate 2.0”.


      1. The complaint that started this bill going was a Florida mother, who was herself a mental health professional, was angered when her daughter, who dressed in an androgenous style, was called into guidance counselling to be queried on which bathroom she chose to use and what pronouns she preferred. The school did not report the meeting to the mother and having heard about it from her daughter, was refused answers by the school about the scope and outcome of the meeting.

        Keeping secrets from parents in unacceptable.


        1. And what was the age of this androgenous dresser? Since children K – 3 are dressed by their parents, I suspect that she was much older. And therefore, nothing to do with this bill. You found the link – how old?

          “Keeping secrets from parents in unacceptable.”
          Sound so truthy and right, but is it?
          Does it not depend on what that secret is?
          Can a student not say to a guidance counselor or school psychologist – “I want to tell you something, but you must promise not to tell my mother?”

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Early teen IIRC

            As I wrote, that was the incident that started the effort. The original version was K – 8 but it was trimmed to younger children in the legislature.


        2. “ In debate on the Senate floor, (Senate sponsor) Baxley spoke about what led him to propose the legislation. In conversation, he said that he had recently been concerned about the rising number of students coming out as LGBTQ+ while still in school.

          “Why is everybody now all about coming out when you are in school?” he said. “There really is a dynamic of concern about how much of this are genuine type of experiences and how many of them are just kids trying on different kinds of things they hear about and different kinds of identities and experimenting.

          “That’s what kids do, you know,” he continued. “Maybe they’re in this club or they’re in that club or they’re onto this. And they’re trying on these different identities of life trying to see where they fit in. I said am I crazy or what? All of a sudden we’re having all these issues come up about this topic of their sexuality and gender. I don’t understand why that’s such a big wave right now.”

          To that point, the bill seeks to ban not only conversations about sexual orientation but gender identity through grade 3. The reason: to stop students from experimenting to see whether or not they may be a part of the LGBTQ+ community.

          Baxley was not able to provide any current examples that show the necessity of the law. Though he mentioned school clubs might be the source of the increase, the legislation does not preclude students from discussing gender identity and sexual orientation in after-school clubs. Baxley confirmed this on the floor.”


          So where is the story about the mother? Even the sponsor of the bill didn’t mention it in debate.

          Liked by 2 people

  6. So where is this all taking place? Do you have evidence that anyone is turning children into cross dressers, queer or puff balls? Or are you just guessing based on the right wing obsession with all things sexual.

    Just about every civilization and society in recorded history have had a small percentage of same sex attraction and activities. Some societies were more accepting than others, but the gay and lesbians were still there.

    So I would argue that the norm is a minority of same sex attraction.

    Why? We are still researching, but the answers are not easy.

    Converting people from one sexual attraction to another is not real. Yet, do we need to have a minority we can beat up on to make the rest of us content? Evidently, for some, that is true.

    Pedophilia is a crime, as it should be. Sex with minors can’t be consensual by law. Unless there is parental consent in some states that allow children to get married as in religious sects. But I disagree with that. A 14 year old can’t truly consent just because he or she is in a sect. She is still 14.

    Still, there are a lot more underage marriages than forced conversions or “grooming”.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. The law is specific to children K-3, 4 to 9 years old.

      Not 14,

      There is no justification for confusing a child who has not reached puberty.

      Playing dress up as a child is not gender dysphoria, they aren’t capable of that yet.

      Such discussions are inappropriate until after puberty.

      Discussions about same sex parents are appropriate IF THE CHILD ASKS questions and should be answered by the parents or someone they designate, and even then should be limited to tolerance and not the underlying sexuality.


      1. I ask again, where is this secret sex education of young children taking place?

        I mentioned the lie in Virginia on which an entire campaign rested. Is that the same issue in Florida?

        Liked by 2 people

        1. RE: “I ask again, where is this secret sex education of young children taking place?”

          Not the right question. The better question is what motivated the legislative proposal. You could, of course, research that and share your findings. That would be more helpful than asking rhetorical questions.


          1. Good luck with that, if you search, Google and Bing will return hundreds of copies of the same criticism printed in hundreds of places, but nothing about the origin of the effort.

            But that isn’t the point. The claymore mines in crime is not really a problem, but we still restict their use.


          2. Rhetorical questions? The state of Florida is passing legislation to regulate education. You and Don are defending it. Fine. Now tell us why it was a problem. Or is it just creating an. issue out of whole cloth.

            Kind of like TASS is doing about Ukraine.

            Have teachers been “grooming” children to be transgender? Simple.

            I could not find any examples of this.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. “. . . nothing about the origin of the effort.”

            Why do you suppose that is? Two possibilities.

            1. Teachers have been caught “grooming” six year-olds but a conspiracy of leftists and perverts has suppressed any record of it, or
            2. There is nothing to report.

            Hmmm. That is a tough one.

            Liked by 1 person

      2. “Playing dress up as a child is not gender dysphoria, they aren’t capable of that yet.”

        No, it is not. But it is recognized by the “Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5)” as an early diagnostic symptom.

        What does “not capable of that yet” mean? A child with gender dysphoria may not be able to put into words what is going on but that does not mean that it is not going on.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. Uh, only for certain decisions that must be made before the parents can be consulted, like giving emergency medical consent if the child is injured and the parents cannot be reached.

          All decisions made must be reported to the parents as soon as practical.


          1. Obviously. You are so blinded by the need for this law that you can’t see that bullying is an issue in schools and it occurs at ALL grade levels. By not having any idea what I am talking about you prove that you believe that bullying is a non-issue and that there is no need for teachers to involve themselves in it.


      3. “There is no justification for confusing a child who has not reached puberty.”

        There is also no justification for a teacher, legally considered to be in loco parentis while students are in the classroom, to ignore an issue concerning the students.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. In loco parentis only applies to limited emergent situations when the parent is unavailable or impractical to consult.

          It does not empower a teacher to act contrary to the parent’s authority as soon as they are out of sight.


          1. Is a bullied child not afforded protections by teachers just because the REASON for the bullying? How many compliant have there been by the parents of bullied students for the school or teacher NOT taking appropriate actions around the country?

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Bullying occurs for many different reasons. One of them is when a young student has two mommies or daddies and is picked on by other students who are from “perfect nuclear families”. It is very relevant in that this law would prevent a teacher form intervening in a bullying situation.


  7. I see a confusion in the post and in some of the discussion: Gender dysphoria and transgenderism are two different things. The first is a disease; the second is a disease symptom.

    Children 5-9 years old are probably incapable of either from what little I know on the subject. For this reason, it is valid as a matter of pedagogy (the art or science of teaching) to simply avoid the subject for that age group.


    1. …” are probably incapable of either from what little I know on the subject. ”

      Maybe you should have realized “what little you know” and refrained from making this comment.


      1. “Editorials are not fact.”

        Yet they have been used repeatedly in this forum.

        In what way is it deceptive? Just because you disagree with one’s opinion does not make it automatically deceptive.

        And how is Ms. Filipovic one that children must be protected from? What has she done to jeopardize the health and/or well-being of a child? Or are you just throwing fertilizer at someone you disagree with?

        Ad hominem is an understatement.

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s