Washington Post Columnist Makes the Most Braindead Argument Against Florida Parental Rights Law – Opinion

When Florida’s legislature was considering the Parental Rights in Education bill earlier this year, progressives exploded in outrage over the notion that a teacher should not be allowed to instruct small kids on matters pertaining to sexuality and gender identity. Some of the most vile complaints were made by high-profile Democrats against the bill, which was then signed into law. Ron DeSantis. They even went so far as to deceptively label the legislation as the “Don’t Say Gay Bill” because they believe the American public is stupid enough to believe the legislation was specifically designed to target members of the LGTBQ community.

But Washington PostKate Cohen (a contributor columnist) won the award for her recent op-ed, in which she claimed that the law that allows parents to sue school districts or schools where they instruct their children on sexuality should also apply against teaching heterosexuality, as well as discussions about girls and boys. But she completely ignored her argument and misinterpreted the law to show how it was supposed to be applied.

Cohen began by writing about a father who had complained about a book that was about a transgender boy. She wrote:

Under the new law, she could sue the school for exposing her child to that book, but not — it’s worth pointing out — because it’s about a transgender boy. Although this and similar legislation have been nicknamed “don’t say gay” laws, the Florida law does not, in fact, say “gay” or “transgender” or anything like that. It cloaks its discriminatory intent in studiously neutral language: “classroom instruction by school personnel or third parties on sexual orientation or gender identity may not occur in kindergarten through grade 3.”

The author continued, claiming that to supporters of the law, the terms “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” are not “neutral terms that encompass an entire spectrum of human experience, including heterosexuality.”

But that’s not all.

After showing that she knows very little about the types of folks who support the law, Cohen insists that they don’t use these terms correctly “because they don’t believe the words apply to them,” and that they “think that only gay people have a sexual orientation” and that “only trans people have a gender identity.”

The author then suggests people should treat “every lesson that endorsed any sexual orientation or gender schema as an actionable offense.”

She jumps like a shark here. She wrote this with a straight face:

Imagine if a teacher told our children that certain bathroom facilities should be used solely on the grounds of gender identity.

What if we called a lawyer when we discovered our children were learning that the “mommies on the bus” said “shush, shush, shush”?

Cohen pointed out that Governor. DeSantis signed the bill into law at a school “where students wear uniforms designed specifically for ‘girls’ or ‘boys’” — as if that were some clever point demonstrating some type of duplicity.

Later in the piece, she suggests that because of Alabama’s law, which is similar to Florida’s, teachers “should probably refrain from any allusion to heterosexuality, including references to their husbands, wives, boyfriends, girlfriends, upcoming weddings or – heaven forbid – expected babies.”

It is this type of opinion that shows that Cohen and other people don’t usually talk to those who are not in agreement with them. This also shows a strange form of dishonesty.

These laws aren’t intended to prohibit any discussion of gender identity and relationships. Anyone who is familiar with them will know that. If a teacher mentions that they had dinner at Fuddrucker’s with their significant other, that would not be actionable. The law clearly says “instruction,” which means an educator is actually teaching about sexuality or gender identity. It could be considered instruction if a teacher tells students that they are able to choose their own gender. But referring to someone as a “boy” or “girl” clearly does not. Anyone who tried to sue under such circumstances would be laughed at by the court.

Cohen, and others in her circle know all this.

The bill’s proponents do not wish to AnyInstruction on gender identity and sexuality for young children. Cohen really believes that people who support the law will be willing to listen to a teacher explain heterosexual intercourse. Of course, she doesn’t, which shows just how disingenuous these folks are. This is why the majority of Americans – including a majority of Democratic voters – favor the law.

Cohen and others like him should ask themselves: “Why do teachers want to teach children about sexuality, gender identity?” Is there any benefit? Why shouldn’t parents be able to opt their children out of such discussions?

Chances are, they won’t have much of an answer, which is why they have to resort to deception. Would we really expect any other?