Peter Greene discovered an email blast from the radical rightwing group that calls itself “Moms for Liberty.” The “Moms” are outraged by a letter supposedly written by a teacher in Florida who promised to follow the letter of the “Don’t Say Gay” law and eliminate all references to gender identity from his/her/their classroom.
The teacher noted that the new law bans all references to gender identity or sexual orientation in K-3 classrooms.
To be in full compliance with the law, the teacher wrote, he/she/they will make the classroom gender-free.
Furthermore, I will be removing all books or instruction which refer to a person being a “mother” “father” “husband” or “wife” as these are gender identities that also may allude to sexual orientation. Needless to say, all books which refer to a character as “he” or “she” will also be removed from the classroom. If you have any
concerns about this policy, please feel free to contact your local congressperson.
To be in accordance with this policy, I will no longer be referring to your student with gendered pronouns. All students will be referred to as “they” or “them.” I will no longer use a gendered title such as “Mr.” or “Mrs.” or make any references to my husband/wife in the classroom. From now on I will be using the non-gendered title “Mx.”
In an earlier post, Greene had predicted that the first victim of the new law would be gendered bathrooms. If it is illegal to discuss gender identity, then schools should remove all references to gender.
Dana Goldstein, writing in the New York Times, suggested that the law would lead to the removal of any books that refer to gay men or women, in literature or history.
The language is vague and subject to interpretation. The preamble of the bill further muddles matters. It prohibits not only “instruction” around gender identity and sexual orientation, but also “classroom discussion” of these topics.
“Classroom instruction” could mean eliminating books in the classroom with L.G.B.T.Q. characters or historical figures. No “classroom discussion” is a broad phrase, and could mean that teachers with a student with gay parents should not talk about those families with the entire class.
And while the language of the bill highlights the youngest students, all grades are affected by the provision requiring gender and sexuality to be discussed in ways that are “age appropriate or developmentally appropriate.” Again, those terms are highly subjective. Parents, school staff and students are likely to clash over what this means.
As a southerner, I would strongly support using ya’ll for each needed pronoun. In the Appalachian region, we could use the appropriate yu’ns. I have waited for a long time to feel relevant with my pronouns.
Being from a semi-neutral border state in that great war to rob the south of its slaves, I may be wrong on this but I’m pretty sure it’s y’all and y’uns. If you are proposing a new way to spell them so as to properly and politically correct way to designate new meanings, I can go with that.
Your hour has come, Roy!!!
Duane: no hidden agenda. I was in a hurry and am a hrrendus speller
The plural of you has always been a sticking point for English Language learners. Each new group seems to put their own version of the plural to work. I happen to live on the border of the Appalachian region. I grew up hearing y’all, but I know people less than 20 miles east that grew up say what sounded to me like yens, a short version of you ones.
I continue to believe that y’all was an African American attempt at solving the plural problem, but that is not an academic position. I have not studied it.
I’ve always been partial to “yous” as in “yous guys” —- more than one “you”
I hear ya. I lived in New Jersey for most of my life, now in New York.
What ethnic group is responsible for this acomodation?
Roy, this doesn’t have a single source. First, from the superb source etymology.com:
Pronunciation of you and the nominative form ye gradually merged from 14c.; the distinction between them passed out of general usage by 1600. Widespread use of French in England after 12c. gave English you the same association as French vous, and it began to drive out singular nominative thou, originally as a sign of respect (similar to the “royal we”) when addressing superiors, then equals and strangers, and ultimately (by c. 1575) becoming the general form of address. Through 13c. English also retained a dual pronoun ink “you two; your two selves; each other.”
Second, the Irish language had a distinct second-person plural that English lost, so many Irish speakers of English adopted you (sing) and yous or youse (plural) in keeping with the grammar of their own tongue.
Georgia now has a bill to impose the speech restrictions on private schools, too:
https://legiscan.com/GA/text/SB613/id/2542860
The Moms for Liberty Twitter post about the letter concludes with, “Time to take a Stand.” (Not just any stand, mind you, but a capital “S” Stand.)
You already did, geniuses. This is the result. Another thing: to be consistent with their views, should the name of their organization be changed to “Parents for Liberty” or some other such properly androgynous appellation?
To answer your question: NO!
Remember that being logically consistent is not a characteristic of the xtian regressive reactionary reich wing nutjobs. They’ll do whatever they think pleases their Sky-Daddy® Lord.
being logically consistent is not a characteristic of the xtian regressive reactionary reich wing nutjobs
Nailed it, Duane!
“Moms For Liberty” is as much a misnomer as the Putin puppet’s “Truth Social”…
I am amazed that these right wing zealots can even leave their houses they are so afraid of their shadows.
LOL. Yes. CRT and trans recruiters and Socialists hiding behind every lamppost!
Well, darn, then under that vague law, we can’t refer to “Moms for Liberty” as “Moms,” but maybe we may use: they, their, them, Mx.
They for Liberty
Their for Liberty
Them for Liberty
Mx for Liberty
Or even “Confused MXs for Liberty”
No more moms, dads, et al.
MX for Libtardy!
Libtardy???
Is that a play on retard?
Clearly, Duane, you do not visit enough right-wing websites! Libtard is a favorite bit of rightwing hate speech. It’s up there with Snowflake. Both have replaced the Pinko or Red of our youth.
I value my time. I don’t visit many reichwing sites. Be that as it may, that’s commie pinko faggot.
What doesn’t get mentioned much in light of these sex-focused bills is the [expletive]show white evangelicalism is in right now in regard to dealing with abuse allegations among other things. It’s not limited to children, but also includes sexual harassment issues with adults. Issues abound in the Southern Baptist Convention, the Reformed Church (John Piper, John MacArthur, etc.) and large non-denominational churches like Hillsong.
I bring this up because this group is such an ardent supporter of what is happening on the right. I was involved in a large evangelical church for a decade. It took reactions to COVID and the 2020 race debate to get me to open my eyes and now I’ve been “church homeless” since.
According to a Pew Research poll, more white Americans adopted than shed the label of evangelicalism between 2016 and 2020. There was an increase of evangelical support for Trump in 2020.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2021/09/15/more-white-americans-adopted-than-shed-evangelical-label-during-trump-presidency-especially-his-supporters/
There’s a surprise in this next story.
https://julieroys.com/leading-candidate-sbc-president-willy-rice-under-fire-ordaining-abuser/
This stuff is so common that if someone heads a fundie megachurch, I just assume that he or she is a secret abuser.
Bingo
Thanks for the post, Florida. The Pew research also shows us the data for Catholics. 63% of white Catholics who attend church regularly voted for Trump in 2020. The American Catholic Church is highly organized for political influence (almost all states have state Catholic Conferences designed specifically to influence state legislation).
If a GOP candidate was selected, one who was less noxious about POC than Trump, Democrats should be concerned about the Catholic hispanic vote. Pro- Catholic Church PR distracts the public. It emphasizes declines in church membership. The reality is the membership number in total is high.
Most national political observers are in the northeast where Catholics largely vote Democratic. The national media writers ignore the impact of conservative Catholics in the electoral-college-rich states in the center of the country.
In Indiana, Catholics publicly take credit for initiation and passage of school choice legislation in the state. In Ky., media report the VP of EdChoice is also the associate director of the Catholic Conference of Kentucky.
The alliance of conservative protestants and Catholics (during Judge Scalia’s term and after), by design, doomed American separation of church and state.
Ryan Girdusky (formed the 1776 PAC to fund school board candidates opposed to CRT) has an interview posted at Pat Buchanan’s site that is worth reading. A sampling of respondents expressed the misunderstanding that Buchanan is evangelical when, he is conservative Catholic, as was Paul Weyrich (Koch funded). Weyrich proposed parallel schools in order to destroy public schools (Theocracy Watch).
“. . . now I’ve been “church homeless” since.”
Consider yourself lucky. Now become truly liberated and ditch the god stuff entirely.
The fools has said in his heart, “There is no dog.”
My Christianity is not going anywhere. My post was not intended to bash Christianity, but to criticize a segment of American Christianity that has a lot of political power.
Christianity is not under attack. The rights of Americans are under attack. The conservative Catholic majority on SCOTUS exempted religious schools from civil rights employment law. The overturn of Roe v. Wade will make the U.S. the only developed nation denying reproductive rights. Men like Buchanan and Robert P. George.will not stop until birth control is eliminated and same sex marriage is prohibited.
Read about Tim Reichert’s congressional campaign.
Tim Reichert’s beliefs as explained in the Huffpo article, “GOP Congressional candidate believes…” (4-1-2022) are no more enlightened than those of religious snake handlers in Appalachia.
Neither group deserves respect from an empathetic, advanced nation of citizens.
There’s an update. IThe man running for SBC president whose deacon appointee had a known inappropriate relationship with a student when he was a teacher, has withdrawn his candidacy.
https://julieroys.com/willy-rice-sbc-presidential-candidate-drops-out/
If you didn’t click on my initial Julie Roys link, the surprise is that this deacon is a faith advisor to…..Ron DeSantis.
Here’s a story about DeSantis’s office intervening in a public records request about a man possibly connected to a sex trafficking investigation.
https://www.clickorlando.com/news/local/2022/04/04/desantis-staff-delays-release-of-gaetz-associate-halsey-beshears-spending-records/
My point with the initial post was while his press secretary and supporters are calling people groomers for opposing this legislation, these things are happening right under their noses.
What Florida really needs is laws to keep Republican Politicians out of Public Bathrooms.
Especially the armed ones
Intercept identifies Moms for Liberty in a recent post that describes astroturfing rather than the purported grassroots origin. The Independent Women’s Forum , a linked group receives support from men like Charles Koch and foundations like those of Bradley, Scaife and Pope.
Jonathan Mitchell, the subject of Mother Jones’ scary article, “The Man Behind the Texas Abortion Ban Has an Even More Radical Plan to Reshape …” (4-5-2022) was a law clerk for Scalia. Fortunately, some non-mainstream media and some local media are willing to report about the political powerhouse of conservative Catholics. The Public Magazine posted 9-23-2021, “SB8 in Texas is not some abstract law, it will kill people…dangerous stronghold of Catholicism…”
And, a reporter covering San Angelo, Texas, wrote about a law banning abortions (3-5-2022). He described the first person to the City Council podium tp speak in favor of the ban was Father Hatch of the San Angelo Catholic Diocese.
After learning the MO House did not vote to raise the minimum beginning teachers’ salaries to $38,000, I wrote my MO State House representative the following.
“Why go onto the teaching profession?
There is no pay incentive; there is the air of arrogance and self-imposed entitlement on the part of parents; there is government trying to regulate insanity: CRT, school library books, human dignity, all the while whining about white hypersensitivity; and finally the blasé attitudes of some (most?) students and some (hopefully, not most) administrators.
Pitiful. And then to come into the PROFESSION making <$38,000. “Pitiful” is way too reserved for how I really feel.”
The religious right’s media offer platforms for Moms for Liberty. The conservative religious who are Republican don’t want teachers to have jobs that are independent of church leadership.
They prefer a church-enabled colonialism. The six conservative Catholic jurists on SCOTUS ruled in 2020 that religious schools were exempt from civil rights employment law.
The organizations of one American religious sect combined, make up the 3rd largest employer in the U.S. Watch for more SCOTUS decisions harming workers’ rights.
The Taplin blog describes the plan, men over women, whites over blacks, Christians over non-Christians and straights over gays.
The attacks against CRT have links to people in conservative religion and to right wing wealthy libertarians. Jefferson said, in every country, in every age, the priest aligns with the despot.
You should read the research posted at the Scielo site (March 3, 2021, “The new official contents of sex education in Mexico: laicism in the crosshairs”). The research is much broader than the title indicates.
“Laicism in the Crosshairs” is a fascinating overview of the history of the struggle for sex education in Mexico. Thanks for the reading suggestion, Linda!
Click to access 2007-2171-dsetaie-11-21-00019-en.pdf
Here it is in Spanish:
http://dialogossobreeducacion.cucsh.udg.mx/index.php/DSE/article/view/660/799
Thanks, Bob
Just so we’re clear, it’s important to note that nearly all arguments & laws purporting to be or labeled as “attacks against [what they refer to as] CRT” aren’t actually against CRT, a topic generally not covered outside of college lecture halls, & certainly never in primary school. Those that mention CRT explicitly often don’t include any definition for it, & it’s likely that the authors couldn’t provide a remotely accurate one if asked. It’s expected to be interpreted as any mention of race in an educational setting.
Since coming into popular usage, a frequency almost exclusively brought about by they who oppose whatever-it-is. the term has functioned as a poorly disguised dog-whistle applied to any mention of racism, generally including slavery & Jim Crow laws, but especially any less formalized expressions of racial discrimination occurring throughout US history. The especially tragic irony is that those are the same voices that not too long ago claimed angrily that removing monuments & public place names that honored declared enemies of the US, constituted “erasing” their history, even though there was no movement to ban such artifacts from museums, or the names & deeds being included in school curricula, though that now appears to be what they’re demanding.
We need to be careful not to fall into the trap of adopting, or even accepting, the intentionally false nomenclature of those who would legislate away an honest recounting of history. Every time “CRT” is used incorrectly, call it out, demand a description.If they’re going to demand erasure of the US’s record of racially-based actions — good & bad — make them say it out loud in so many words rather than hide behind a convenient screen of nondescript initials.
You are so right, Lenny.
If there can be no classroom discussion of sexual orientation or gender identity in the classroom, then we cannot talk about poetry since much of poetry is about love between people whose sexual orientation and gender identity are clearly revealed. The same can be said about discussion of paintings, sculptures, the Christian Bible, sports in the classroom. Come to think of it, the only safe subjects are the sciences and math, but without ever mentioning scientists since their name reveal their gender and that could lead to forbidden discussions that would surely make some kids uncomfortable and could harm them or even scar them for life.
I think the language of these laws are vague and general because their creators know, they cannot write explicitly stuff “love between two men cannot be discussed in classrooms”.