One of these days, they’re going to write a law that’s so poorly written, it’s going to ban them from banning the banning of banning banning thereafter.
Something tells me these kids would handle learning about gender identity and expression way better than their uptight parents.
Could be that it was intentionally written like that to preempt any claims of discrimination? I mean, I could see the effort to “own the libs” by making a “perfect” law like that.
Jojo Siwa would probably do a significantly better job teaching the young about this sort of thing than a cranky 50-something conservative teacher. Just sayin.
Can I just comment quickly on that “en l’an 2000” picture there? I find it fascinating that they could imagine, in a hundred years or so, a machine that would ingest the contents of entire books directly into the minds of half a dozen young students (by shredding them? I don’t know) but absolutely could not, under any circumstances, imagine a world where such a machine wouldn’t need to be manually cranked by a servant boy.
and First Lady Eleanor Roosevelt.
Skims wikipedia articles. Huh, I did not know that.
No discussion of “traditional marriage” and less funding to which they’d be otherwise entitled. Know-Nothings are certainly adept at scoring own goals.
:head desks hard enough to dent the desktop:
Every time I think my state is getting better, they go and pull this shit.
Guess the kids will have to get their sex ed from the usual sources, then- their parent’s playboy stash, and the internet. (the latter of which will probably work better if they are looking at good sources instead of porn.)
Banning banning Banning banning banning banning Banning banning.
Roughly translated: An official prohibition from Banning, CA, which is prohibited by another official prohibition from Banning, CA, also prohibits another official prohibition in Banning, CA.
I wonder if the cartoon was satirising education based on rote learning. If you just want to shovel factoids into children’s minds you might as well use a machine instead of employing teachers.
A moose once bit my sister…
Seems like they’re selling the new law short here - surely the prohibition against discussing “gender identity” and “gender expression” bans acknowledgement of any particular people being identified as “men” or “women” as well. I guess all textbooks shall have those words crossed out and replaced by “person” or be in violation of the law! (I could see this unintentionally making Arizona teaching materials more accurate than they currently are…)
But agender is also technically a gender identity and gender expression!
I look forward to seeing all AZ teachers embrace gender-neutral pronouns for everyone!
It would be more a way of dodging the issue rather than identifying anyone as agender. Also, you’d have to remove all depictions of people as well, as they’d mostly involve expression of gender (by means of cultural norms of clothing, hair, make-up, etc).
Time to get those lawsuits ready for all the teachers refusing to abide by the new law!
I demand that the Republican Party create a pronounless version of English. They’ve fucked around with enough definitions that I already think of Republican English as a separate language from other forms of English.
Really, I want to see how they would handle it.
In that old cartoon, I noticed that the servant boy wasn’t getting any education.
A friend’s kid in kindergarten had a friend with two moms. She wasn’t sure if he had questions, or if she should bring it up. His eventual question, “So, I don’t get it. Why are his moms light-skinned and he’s really tan?”.
Does that mean that gender neutral/unisex school uniforms (if the school mandates uniforms) is now the law?
(part of me says “Cool, so the students can pretend they are going to space camp.”)