Talk:Florida Parental Rights in Education Act

"does not contain the word gay"

The article currently says that the act 'does not explicitly contain the phrase "Don't Say Gay"'. That's trivial; it's probably unusual for an act to contain the specific catchphrase by which it is commonly known. However, it's more important to note that the act does not actually contain the word "gay", nor does it contain any reference to any particular gender identity or sexual preference. I edited the article to make this clear, but my edit was reverted with a link to the above 'RfC on who refers to the law as "don't say gay"'. I don't believe that RfC is relevant to my edit. Can we discuss whether or not the article should point out that the act does not actually have the word "gay" nor is it specific about any particular identity/orientation? - Brian Kendig (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

my edit was reverted with a link to the above RfC Sorry about that. 9 times out of 10 when someone modifies the language to remove "Don't Say Gay" from the article, it's from the lead. I was mostly operating on autopilot at that point and only realised after that you'd made the edit not to the lead but the Provisions section.

So at first glance, I suspect nor any reference to any specific gender identity or sexual orientation is original research. The version that I restored is certainly verifiable to the three sources cited at the end of the section, whereas the text you've proposed is not. First question would be, do you have any reliable sources that make note of what you're proposing? Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I'd say that a simple reading of the text of the act would affirm non-controversially that it says nothing about any specific gender identity or sexual orientation; this neither reaches nor implies a conclusion not stated by the act itself. I don't believe that an independent source is necessary, any more than we'd need a source to confirm that "both gender identity and sexual orientation are referred to twice within the legislation ". But I don't feel as strongly about that as I do about pointing out that the act doesn't contain the word "gay" at all. Would you be okay with simply changing does not explicitly contain the phrase "Don't Say Gay" to does not contain the word "gay" (with or without the word explicitly)? - Brian Kendig (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I made an edit to change the text from does not explicitly contain the phrase "Don't Say Gay" to does not contain the word "gay,".I feel this is the minimum we need. By analogy, it shouldn't be surprising that the United States Bill of Rights does not actually contain the words "Bill of Rights," though it would be noteworthy if it didn't contain the word "rights."

However, I feel that the sentence The Parental Rights in Education Act does not contain the word "gay," though both "gender identity" and "sexual orientation" are referred to twice within the legislation is weaker than it should be. It implies that sure, it doesn't call out gay people, but it must be specific to gay people through other language, right? The fact that it does not, and that a face-value reading of it would make it equally applicable to straight orientation as to any other, bears mention here. - Brian Kendig (talk) 19:38, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

I think our description of the Act should reflect what's most common in secondary reliable sources.--Jerome Frank Disciple 22:47, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

It implies that sure, it doesn't call out gay people, but it must be specific to gay people through other language, right? Not entirely. Like any word, gay has multiple meanings, and in this context it can refer to either people who call themselves gay, or homosexuality as a whole. I suspect, but cannot prove, that where sources describe this as the don't say gay act, they are referring to the broader definition of all homosexuals. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:00, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

The act refers to teaching or discussion on "about sexual orientation or gender identity". I think the edit by Brian ('does not contain the word "gay"') is helpful as it would be surprising for a bill to contain informal language or a very specific phrase, and this fact is easily accepted by reading the text. But I disagree with saying "nor any reference to any specific gender identity or sexual orientation", at least without more commentary on that aspect backed up by a good source. There are many who simply refuse to accept the concept of gender identity exists and reject the label "cis" for what they feel is "normal" or "not a pervert" or "not mentally ill" or whatever. So even mentioning gender identity is an acceptance that there is this concept and ones gender identity could be different from one's chromosomes or sex assigned at birth. And to a slightly lesser extent these days, heterosexual orientation is viewed as "normal" and so I would assume that discussing that a boy and a girl may fall in love, get married in a church, have children and so on would not be regarded as discussing sexual orientation. Whereas discussing that two boys might fall in love, get married in a church, and so on would trigger. So I think in a way it is pretty explicitly targeting sexual orientations and gender identity other than the heteronormative, it just doesn't need to mention gay or trans to do so. Hence, trying to discuss that aspect without the help of a source, would be original research IMO. -- Colin°^Talk 07:54, 27 June 2023 (UTC)

I agree with his edit, the act doesn't mention "gay" specifically and of course it wouldn't mention "Don't Say Gay," hence readers should know that it doesn't mention the word "gay."

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 September 2023

I've just finished creating the page Parental rights movement—as an aside, I would invite input to that article—I believe it would be good to link out from this article. I know this article doesn't have a See Also section, so I hesitate to suggest the creation of one just for this. Maybe another editor could suggest an alternative? Thanks. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 12:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

 Done I've added a wikilink from "...parental rights..." in the "Organizations and other individuals" section. Marking as answered, but if you have a different suggestion, feel free to reopen. ARandomName123 (talk)^{Ping me!} 13:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

In the lede what if: "The law is most notable for its controversial sections which..." got changed to "The law, which purports to further parental rights, is most notable for its controversial sections which..."

I'm not sure if inserting this in the lede would require consensus on a hot-button article. MicrobiologyMarcus (talk) 14:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit extended-protected}} template. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:33, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Saw something interesting in another article I wanted to add in the Aftermath section, but I can't edit it with the extended protection thing:

Beginning in 2022, several Republican lawmakers vowed to oppose any future attempt to extend the copyright term due to Disney's opposition of the Florida Parental Rights in Education Act. 79.24.89.122 (talk) 22:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

References

Claims that Fox News uses the term "'Don't Say Gay' bill" in headlines

I just removed a claim that Fox News used the term "'Don't Say Gay' bill" in headlines and replaced it with a claim that Fox News affiliates have used the term in headlines. The original claim, based on the given reference, is between misleading and outright false, possibly intentionally so. The supporting reference linked to a local Fox affiliate in Cleveland[1], but the Fox affiliate explicitly notes on their website that article was from AP. The Wikipedia reference, however, claimed the website was a "Fox News" (including Wikilink); one would have click on the source to realize it was not the actual "Fox News" website.

After looking into it, the vast majority of articles from Fox News that involve the term "'Don't Say Gay' bill" are outright calling the term "false" or are otherwise attacking or attempting to dispel or disprove the term (as would be expected). The closest thing I could find to the actual Fox News website using it was the headline, "Former Florida state rep who sponsored 'Don't Say Gay' bill breaks silence after prison sentence: 'Dark days'"[2]. However, the same article states, "sponsoring a parental rights bill Democrats referred to as the "Don’t Say Gay" bill" and "The bill sparked a national firestorm as Democrats and media outlets quickly dubbed the bill "Don't Say Gay" legislation despite the word gay not appearing anywhere in the bill's text." In summary, the original reference should not be used to support the claim that Fox News has used the headline "'Don't Say Gay' bill". One could possibly argue that Fox News did use it in a headline based on the one I discussed, but I would probably consider this a half truth when considering the broader context of not only the language of the article using it, but the overwhelming number of headlines and articles from Fox News explicitly attacking the term. While I added a source from a Fox News affiliate and corrected the article to say that it is from a Fox News affiliate, I don't know if a Fox News affiliate using the term is notable for the article, or if the entire reference to "Fox News" using the term should be removed. Wikipedialuva (talk) 06:58, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 5 July 2024

References 1 through 4 on this article all link to the same Florida House of Representatives bill text PDF. If I'm correct about this being a worthy change, could these be compacted into one reference that all of the in-text citations link to? (As in WP:REPEATCITE, I would assume using named references) Nerdy314 (talk) 07:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

I just caught another instance of this with references 103 and 104 (Florida Senate bill website) if that could be fixed as well. Nerdy314 (talk) 07:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

 Done oh it's another π fan, yay! 『π』BalaM314〘talk〙 10:37, 5 July 2024 (UTC)