Poll of the Day > #WOKEAlert: L.A. Officials to Ban Travel to TX and FL over LGBTQ....Laws

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/los-angeles-county-bans-official-155008804.html

Think they are right to do so? (Poll Question)

Ban skittles

Good. How many states are legalizing hunting down trans kids now?

So they're mad because sexuality and gender shouldn't be talked about from Kindergarten to 3rd grade.... Some parents need to stop treating their kids like a pet they put on the pedestal.

wOkE aLeRt

This measure confuses me. Can one simply not drive to another county and then access an airport that does allow travel to Florida and/or Texas?

EclairReturns posted...

This measure confuses me. Can one simply not drive to another county and then access an airport that does allow travel to Florida and/or Texas?

OFFICIALS. Not civilians.

I feel this is a do-nothing measure, since the rightoids in Texas and Florida probably blame California for 'wokeness' in the first place

EclairReturns posted...

This measure confuses me. Can one simply not drive to another county and then access an airport that does allow travel to Florida and/or Texas?

Ontario airport is much better than LAX.

I appreciate that they're making their stance known against these pathetic policies.

Krazy_Kirby posted...

Ontario airport is much better than LAX.

I'm not sure driving to Ontario from LA is a reasonable workaround for having issues with LAX.

adjl posted...

I'm not sure driving to Ontario from LA is a reasonable workaround for having issues with LAX.

only around an hour's drive

Right, I forgot that there's an Ontario, CA. I did think it was kind of weird that you were implying there was only one airport in the entire province (or lumping them all together). My mistake, carry on.

The 3 joke states all in 1 headline!

I don't really understand how that accomplishes anything.

ReturnOfFa posted...

Good. How many states are legalizing hunting down trans kids now?

Zero. The answer to your question is zero states.

I'm not really sure what kind of good that would do? There are probably more effective ways of protesting anti- LGBT laws, considering those people can fly from other air ports, drive, or use other travel options.

Lil_Bit83 posted...

I'm not really sure what kind of good that would do? There are probably more effective ways of protesting anti- LGBT laws, considering those people can fly from other air ports, drive, or use other travel options.

It's for county officials for county business. It's basically LA county declaring they're cutting business ties with FL and TX.

Do Los Angeles County officials find it so crucial that kids talk about who they wanna have sex with?

Texas and Florida - " What's the catch? :) "

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

Do Los Angeles County officials find it so crucial that kids talk about who they wanna have sex with?

Do you really understand the issue this poorly, or are you just being disingenuous to avoid confronting it?

adjl posted...

Do you really understand the issue this poorly, or are you just being disingenuous to avoid confronting it?

I really am trying to understand. This so-called "Don't Say Gay" bill is really a "Don't Talk To Kids About Sex Until At Least 4th Grade" bill. Because sex is a mature topic I thought. How an 8 year old feels "sexually" is not a question many, if any, should ask.

But for some reason people have a problem with that. And I don't understand.

Same with Texas. Is it a law saying your little man can't wear lipstick and a skirt? I can't find anything saying it is. It's more of a "Don't subject them to radical and irreversible hormone therapy" law. But people don't like that either. These common sense things that, up until very very recently, were unthinkable to do with children.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/4/7/8/AAaNf_AADH0u.jpg

You can't fight oppression with oppression. People should still be free to travel where they want.

LA should just ban travel everywhere. Go full-on bubble city.

The_Viscount posted...

LA should just ban travel everywhere. Go full-on bubble city.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/6/0/8/AAaNf_AABPAY.jpg

HelIWithoutSin posted...

It's for county officials for county business. It's basically LA county declaring they're cutting business ties with FL and TX.

What kind of business would city officials be doing with entire states?

Revelation34 posted...

What kind of business would city officials be doing with entire states?

Try reading a bit slower next time. Maybe move your lips along with the words.

HelIWithoutSin posted...

Try reading a bit slower next time. Maybe move your lips along with the words.

So none at all.

Revelation34 posted...

So none at all.

You should try asking a question that actually addresses what I said instead of coming up with a stupid dumb ass disingenuous one.

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

I really am trying to understand. This so-called "Don't Say Gay" bill is really a "Don't Talk To Kids About Sex Until At Least 4th Grade" bill. Because sex is a mature topic I thought. How an 8 year old feels "sexually" is not a question many, if any, should ask.

But for some reason people have a problem with that. And I don't understand.

Same with Texas. Is it a law saying your little man can't wear lipstick and a skirt? I can't find anything saying it is. It's more of a "Don't subject them to radical and irreversible hormone therapy" law. But people don't like that either. These common sense things that, up until very very recently, were unthinkable to do with children.

The bill in question is a push back against recent sex ed initiatives that introduce some degree of sex ed to earlier grades. The immediate knee-jerk reaction to that is "they're teaching my children how to have sex!", but that's not an accurate impression at all. That sex ed consists of things that are appropriate and applicable for that age, like consent (namely, "don't touch people that don't want to be touched, and if somebody touches you in a way that you don't want to be touched, you should tell somebody," the latter of which is crucial for intervening in sexual abuse), a basic enough understanding of anatomy to know when something's wrong, and the fundamental concepts of relationships and gender identity. As much as young children aren't in a position where they need to know any of the details of sex, there are absolutely aspects that are relevant at a younger age, as well as fundamentals that are much easier to build on once proper sex ed rolls around if a foundation is established (like consent). Incorporating those principles into curricula is generally a very good thing in terms of the sexual health of the adults those kids eventually grow into.

The issue in FL is that the bill in question is specifically prohibiting mention of homosexual relationships or gender identity. People in favour of the bill cling to some hyperbolic notion of kids being shown gay porn and forced to cross-dress, but the simple reality is that it's just a matter of teaching them that gay and trans people exist and are no less legitimate than everyone else. Naturally, people that believe that gay and trans people are no less legitimate than everyone else and deserve to be recognized accordingly have an issue with those that want to hide this information from children. This is especially true where the primary driving force behind such bills is parents being afraid that their kids will "turn gay/trans" if they are ever allowed to learn that that's an option, and that's simply not how any of this works. Being taught that it's a legitimate option just means those that are gay/trans are going to feel more comfortable coming out instead of remaining closeted indefinitely (and all the horrible health implications that come with that).

It's telling how many of the bill's proponents say something along the lines of "I should be able to teach this subject to my children how I want instead of having some teacher impose their agenda," while never actually saying how they want to teach it or what agenda they're objecting to. They know they'd lose credibility if they actually admitted that they want their kids to hate gay people as much as they do and are opposed to them being taught otherwise, or how deeply they fear that their kid won't be straight/cis unless that's the only option they're ever given, so they don't admit that. They fall back on broader, pathos-ridden appeals to the principles of parental autonomy and freedom from government overreach to avoid having to defend the homophobia they really feel. The bill is a blatant homophobic/transphobic attack, drafted not because it will actually benefit children (it will in fact do the exact opposite), but to appeal to a voting demographic that's upset at the extent to which modern culture isn't tolerating their homophobia/transphobia.

it goes against a lot of peoples values tho, it's not something that should be brought up in elementary school
should only fans be brought up in school?
adult shops?

RoboXgp89 posted...

it goes against a lot of peoples values tho,

Those "values" consist entirely of hating people for stupid reasons. There's no reason to respect them or those that hold them. They should be excised from society like the festering boils they are, not pandered to by governments that treat that pestilence as a useful source of votes.

RoboXgp89 posted...

it's not something that should be brought up in elementary school

Why not? What parts of what I outlined above do you feel are not beneficial for kids to learn, or can be expected to cause enough harm to outweigh the potential benefits?

RoboXgp89 posted...

should only fans be brought up in school?
adult shops?

Potentially later. Those pertain to specific sexual acts, which means they wouldn't be pertinent until more explicit sex ed that discusses specific sexual acts. Even then, they'd be little more than passing mentions in the context of discussing sex work (which I'm not sure how to work into a sex ed curriculum, so it probably doesn't actually need to be there) and masturbation (in the context of mentioning that sex toys exist, which is about all that needs to be said on the matter), respectively. Adult shops may also come up in the context of discussing birth control, but in practice I think most people just buy condoms from drug stores and other stores with pharmacy sections (like grocery stores), and most other methods are accessed through doctors, so that's not a pressing piece of information.

Just mandating a middle man.

adjl posted...

The bill in question is a push back against recent sex ed initiatives that introduce some degree of sex ed to earlier grades. The immediate knee-jerk reaction to that is "they're teaching my children how to have sex!", but that's not an accurate impression at all. That sex ed consists of things that are appropriate and applicable for that age, like consent (namely, "don't touch people that don't want to be touched, and if somebody touches you in a way that you don't want to be touched, you should tell somebody," the latter of which is crucial for intervening in sexual abuse), a basic enough understanding of anatomy to know when something's wrong, and the fundamental concepts of relationships and gender identity. As much as young children aren't in a position where they need to know any of the details of sex, there are absolutely aspects that are relevant at a younger age, as well as fundamentals that are much easier to build on once proper sex ed rolls around if a foundation is established (like consent). Incorporating those principles into curricula is generally a very good thing in terms of the sexual health of the adults those kids eventually grow into.

The issue in FL is that the bill in question is specifically prohibiting mention of homosexual relationships or gender identity. People in favour of the bill cling to some hyperbolic notion of kids being shown gay porn and forced to cross-dress, but the simple reality is that it's just a matter of teaching them that gay and trans people exist and are no less legitimate than everyone else. Naturally, people that believe that gay and trans people are no less legitimate than everyone else and deserve to be recognized accordingly have an issue with those that want to hide this information from children. This is especially true where the primary driving force behind such bills is parents being afraid that their kids will "turn gay/trans" if they are ever allowed to learn that that's an option, and that's simply not how any of this works. Being taught that it's a legitimate option just means those that are gay/trans are going to feel more comfortable coming out instead of remaining closeted indefinitely (and all the horrible health implications that come with that).

It's telling how many of the bill's proponents say something along the lines of "I should be able to teach this subject to my children how I want instead of having some teacher impose their agenda," while never actually saying how they want to teach it or what agenda they're objecting to. They know they'd lose credibility if they actually admitted that they want their kids to hate gay people as much as they do and are opposed to them being taught otherwise, or how deeply they fear that their kid won't be straight/cis unless that's the only option they're ever given, so they don't admit that. They fall back on broader, pathos-ridden appeals to the principles of parental autonomy and freedom from government overreach to avoid having to defend the homophobia they really feel. The bill is a blatant homophobic/transphobic attack, drafted not because it will actually benefit children (it will in fact do the exact opposite), but to appeal to a voting demographic that's upset at the extent to which modern culture isn't tolerating their homophobia/transphobia.

But here's the thing: Maybe you're going too far with what you think small children should be exposed to. This is not about "Oh no, they're gonna turn my kid gay and make him watch gay porn." To think that ignores just how much people also hate heterosexual sex ed.

You wanna teach kids about "bad touch?" That's... fine, I guess. Sonic Sez did it, going no further than that I guess is okay. Maybe. But the rest is at best unnecessary, and at worst not even based in anything objective/factual. Sonic didn't need to say "If someone touches your dick and you don't want them to, that's bad." Because that's too far. Kids don't need to know it yet. I don't have any kids, but if any teacher says the word "penis" to my hypothetical child, I'm coming down there. And I intend to exploit any and all wacky Florida laws that let me hurt that teacher.

Now, I can say "penis" to my hypothetical child. Because we have that trust. You should only discuss genitals with those you would actually show those genitals to. So as far as "what curriculum would I homeschool my hypothetical kid with," yeah I think I have some idea. But even I as his hypothetical father wouldn't go as far as these curriculums are going. Especially at goddamned kindergarten. How the fuck did it come to that shit???

As always, adjl is spot on. I always found it absurd and deplorable that sexual education in school is so inadequate, and I live in a society far more advanced than fucking Texas and Florida in that regard. I was lucky to have had parents who taught me about sex before I was even old enough to go to school. My father taught me about how children are made, answering all of my questions regarding spermatozoids, egg cells, genitalia, etc. My mother focused her teachings on consent and sexual abuse prevention.

I'm obviously going to follow in their footsteps and combine both approaches when educating my children. I remember when we had our first and only sex education class in primary school. It was in first grade (age 6-7) and it lasted only one hour. It was basically the same shit my father told me years prior, but with slightly less details because it had to be condensed into one hour. And there was zero mention on consent and sexual abuse, literally nothing. The class also required parental consent. Fucking seriously?

But that wasn't my last sexual education class. After six grades of primary school are five grades of secondary school. In the first grade (age 12-13), they gave us another hour of sexual education, but this time it was entirely about sexually transmitted diseases, condoms, and unwanted pregnancy prevention. That's it, still litterally nothing about consent. At least this time parental consent wasn't required for students aged 13. And the class was highly inadequate. They didn't say shit about oral sex and how it can transmit diseases. Most adults don't even know that blowjobs can give STDs. Things like gonorrhea also affect the throat. It doesn't help that pornography almost never uses condoms for oral sex, even in scenes where it's then used for vaginal penetration.

And that also wasn't my last sexual education in school. The third one lasted a full semester in a college for general and professional education. Where I live, it's the step between secondary school and the university, although the latter isn't required if you get professional education, which lasts 3 years, versus general education which lasts 2 years and is much easier. Anyway, there's an optional sexual education class for those aged 18 and above. I took it. For once, nothing was censored. It was basically an entry point or teaser for what to expect when getting a bachelor's degree in sexology. For me, it was just something to get extra credits. I dropped out early, however, because I was getting burned out of school and needed more free time to vent. I can't really give my opinion on it because of it, but it appeared to be much more adequate than the crap they teach in the first grade of primary and secondary schools. However, it's clear the vast majority of people didn't take that class and that it was already too little, too late.

I learned much more about sex outside of school. The education system is severely lacking and inadequate in many areas, and sexual education gets it even worse. Sexual misconduct wouldn't be so widespread if the school system was properly doing its job. Now that we're in the Internet Age, this problem has only worsened because most people nowadays get their sexual education from pornography. Remember that this is a medium that encourages us to call women sluts, perform unprotected sex, humiliate women by ejaculating on their face, disregard consent, etc. For starters, there should be a law that bans people from titling their video "dude destroys slut", instead it should read "dude fucks woman". There should also be legal warnings about consent at the start of videos depicting rape. It's fine if it's staged and faked by consensual adults, but make sure to tell your audience first. But all of this wouldn't be much of a problem if we tackled the root cause: sexual education in schools.

Accrovideogames posted...

As always, adjl is spot on. I always found it absurd and deplorable that sexual education in school is so inadequate, and I live in a society far more advanced than fucking Texas and Florida in that regard. I was lucky to have had parents who taught me about sex before I was even old enough to go to school. My father taught me about how children are made, answering all of my questions regarding spermatozoids, egg cells, genitalia, etc. My mother focused her teachings on consent and sexual abuse prevention.

I'm obviously going to follow in their footsteps and combine both approaches when educating my children. I remember when we had our first and only sex education class in primary school. It was in first grade (age 6-7) and it lasted only one hour. It was basically the same shit my father told me years prior, but with slightly less details because it had to be condensed into one hour. And there was zero mention on consent and sexual abuse, literally nothing. The class also required parental consent. Fucking seriously?

But that wasn't my last sexual education class. After six grades of primary school are five grades of secondary school. In the first grade (age 12-13), they gave us another hour of sexual education, but this time it was entirely about sexually transmitted diseases, condoms, and unwanted pregnancy prevention. That's it, still litterally nothing about consent. At least this time parental consent wasn't required for students aged 13. And the class was highly inadequate. They didn't say shit about oral sex and how it can transmit diseases. Most adults don't even know that blowjobs can give STDs. Things like gonorrhea also affect the throat. It doesn't help that pornography almost never uses condoms for oral sex, even in scenes where it's then used for vaginal penetration.

And that also wasn't my last sexual education in school. The third one lasted a full semester in a college for general and professional education. Where I live, it's the step between secondary school and the university, although the latter isn't required if you get professional education, which lasts 3 years, versus general education which lasts 2 years and is much easier. Anyway, there's an optional sexual education class for those aged 18 and above. I took it. For once, nothing was censored. It was basically an entry point or teaser for what to expect when getting a bachelor's degree in sexology. For me, it was just something to get extra credits. I dropped out early, however, because I was getting burned out of school and needed more free time to vent. I can't really give my opinion on it because of it, but it appeared to be much more adequate than the crap they teach in the first grade of primary and secondary schools. However, it's clear the vast majority of people didn't take that class and that it was already too little, too late.

I learned much more about sex outside of school. The education system is severely lacking and inadequate in many areas, and sexual education gets it even worse. Sexual misconduct wouldn't be so widespread if the school system was properly doing its job. Now that we're in the Internet Age, this problem has only worsened because most people nowadays get their sexual education from pornography. Remember that this is a medium that encourages us to call women sluts, perform unprotected sex, humiliate women by ejaculating on their face, disregard consent, etc. For starters, there should be a law that bans people from titling their video "dude destroys slut", instead it should read "dude fucks woman". There should also be legal warnings about consent at the start of videos depicting rape. It's fine if it's staged and faked by consensual adults, but make sure to tell your audience first. But all of this wouldn't be much of a problem if we tackled the root cause: sexual education in schools.

School is not for "ethics." School is for facts. You should not need to go to school to learn not to hurt people. That's what your parents are supposed to teach you.

You can't even look up the word rainbow or rosebud on google to get the literal answer, but you guys think that parent's shouldn't homeschool their kids if what they're learning in school doesn't reflect on their values.

Are those same people wrong for not wanting gay men to teach their kids sex education?
Is it ok to downplay gay sex as a harmless pass time?

ItsKaljinyuTime posted...

Now, I can say "penis" to my hypothetical child. Because we have that trust. You should only discuss genitals with those you would actually show those genitals to.

Did you really write those sentences in that order, look them over, and say to yourself "yes, this sounds right. It doesn't make me sound like I'm going to abuse my child's trust and show them my dick."

it really just sounds like he wants it to be okay to show his dick to a child

RoboXgp89 posted...

parent's shouldn't homeschool their kids if what they're learning in school doesn't reflect on their values.

When someone says they don't want their kids learning something "against their values," what they really mean is that they want their kids to remain as close minded and bigoted as they are.

RoboXgp89 posted...

Are those same people wrong for not wanting gay men to teach their kids sex education?

Absolutely.

RoboXgp89 posted...

Is it ok to downplay gay sex as a harmless pass time?

Treating gay sex differently than hetero sex isn't okay.

https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/a/user_image/9/0/9/AAaNf_AACkxd.jpg

Zareth posted...

Did you really write those sentences in that order, look them over, and say to yourself "yes, this sounds right. It doesn't make me sound like I'm going to abuse my child's trust and show them my dick."

That's not what that means. My kid can discuss penises with me because I have seen my kid's penis. No one else will ever see my kid's penis, save for a doctor or a sexual partner. So only people from those groups can discuss it with him besides me.

HelIWithoutSin posted...

It's for county officials for county business. It's basically LA county declaring they're cutting business ties with FL and TX.

Wait this isn't new. Didn't they state this last year? The key point is COUNTY BUSINESS. (Also, LA county is 12 million people.)

moog posted...

Wait this isn't new. Didn't they state this last year? The key point is COUNTY BUSINESS. (Also, LA county is 12 million people.)

Yes, last year or the year before but with other states.

Lokarin posted...

I feel this is a do-nothing measure, since the rightoids in Texas and Florida probably blame California for 'wokeness' in the first place

Except everyone in Texas is really backwards. It comes from being a republican and that causes you to not think right. Your brain stops working correctly.

RoboXgp89 posted...

should only fans be brought up in school?
adult shops?

You know what? If kids pass by them ON their way to Schools or surfing the Internet (I'm pretty sure Onlyfans get mention on 'Mainstream' Sites on Occasion, who should explain what they are to them?