Submitted by wdcmsnbcgay t3_yexk9h in Pennsylvania
[deleted] t1_iu1ni0f wrote
I missed it. What did oz/mastriano say against the gay community?
Jef_Wheaton t1_iu1qzjj wrote
Mastriano has been pretty consistent with this anti-LGBTQ stance.
"Mastriano has not taken a public position on enshrining nondiscrimination protections based on sexual orientation and gender identiy into law. His campaign did not respond to a request for comment. In July, he was part of a unanimous vote to remove “acts of homosexuality” from the Pennsylvania crimes code.
In an August radio appearance, he attacked Gov. Tom Wolf’s efforts to discourage conversion therapy, saying Shapiro and Wolf want to “take over your kids and indoctrinate them.” Such therapy purports to make queer people straight, and has been rejected by the American Psychological Association.
In a 2001 thesis, he warned of a left-wing “Hitlerian Putsch” and that “aberrant sexual behavior in the ranks,” such as homosexuality, was part of an assault on the military designed to make way for “a larger cultural transformational agenda.”
Mastriano voted for a bill that would ban instruction on gender identity and sexual orientation in early elementary classrooms. In a tweet, he likened LGBTQ-inclusive education to “grooming,” echoing homophobic right-wing rhetoric.
In August, he accused the state Department of Education of encouraging “Gender Theory Indoctrination,” a term used by right-wing lawmakers to attack schools that acknowledge and affirm students’ gender and pronouns or have any curricula related to gender identity.
Shapiro’s campaign spokesperson Manuel Bonder responded to questions about the attorney general’s stance on the instruction ban bill by saying the legislature needs to stop “wasting time and taxpayer dollars on these attempts to bully LGBTQ Pennsylvanians.”
Mastriano said in a 2018 radio interview that same-sex marriage should not be legal and that he favors “traditional marriage.”
“I’m not a hater for saying that,” he continued. “It’s been like that for 6,000 years.”
During that same interview, he said he does not believe same-sex couples should be able to adopt children.
Mastriano voted for a bill that would ban transgender girls and women from participating on teams that correspond with their gender (legislation that Wolf vetoed in July) and has said he’d implement such a ban in his first 100 days in office through an executive order.
In his Republican nomination victory speech, he pledged to restrict transgender people’s access to restrooms, saying “on day one, you can only use the bathroom that your biology, anatomy says.”
SOURCE - https://www.whyy.org/articles/pa-election-2022-governor-race-mastriano-shapiro-lgbtq-rights
Friendly_Kangaroo871 t1_iu215s8 wrote
Thanks for the report. It’s nice to know that the evidence is overwhelming. It is what I expected but it is good to have data.
rovinchick t1_iu2fnu9 wrote
Not surprised about Mastriano, but what about Oz? I've seen nothing to suggest he is anything but supportive of the LGBTQIA+ community.
[deleted] t1_iu2b84f wrote
Nothing in what he says or votes for is “anti-LBGT” he is pro-let kids be kids and let’s not push ideologies on them. Not sure how anyone can be against that?
_switch360_ t1_iu2vqwi wrote
Kids don’t need instruction on gender identity - that is exactly why the democrats will lose! Enough already!
Kabloosh75 t1_iu22hj3 wrote
I don't see a problem with some of this.
I find it odd to teach elementary grade kids about sexual orientation and genders. Those kids are being taught basic math. Really feel like a lot of that is better for when kids are going through puberty.
I don't agree that same sex couples can't adopt children. Even if you find it morally wrong it's still better than leaving kids in the foster care system.
Jef_Wheaton t1_iu23m9y wrote
The thing is, nobody is teaching elementary school kids that stuff anyway, other than "Jimmy has two moms, and that's OK" type of thing. It's entirely fabricated by politicians trying to scare people, and amplified by Fox News/ OANN.
Kabloosh75 t1_iu241zk wrote
Then there's nothing to worry about. Just like how we don't need additional laws that stop discrimination against sex and gender since there is already laws on the book for that.
[deleted] t1_iu2bf8g wrote
Is it fabricated? Because there are tik tok accounts of teachers talking about how they talk to their students about sexual orientation and gender identity. I’ll take it right from the horses mouth over some politician, and the teachers themselves are openly admitting to teaching gender ideology to kids as young as pre-school!
Thievie t1_iu271ra wrote
When do you think kids start going through puberty? Especially girls? We were given "the talk" in elementary school and we absolutely would've been fine if there was any discussion of gender or orientation as well. If you can handle being told "you're going to start to grow boobs and pubic hair and bleeding out of your vagina", you're old enough to be to be told "it's ok if you have a crush on the same sex, there's nothing wrong with you and don't let anyone tell you otherwise".
_switch360_ t1_iu2vwxi wrote
What’s a girl?
Kabloosh75 t1_iu2cdes wrote
Yeah ok. Kids go through puberty around 11-14. That's more or less middle school. If it's that important to teach your kids this kind of information then as a parent you have all the right to. It's just you can't be relying on the state to do it for you through public education.
Thievie t1_iu2drop wrote
As in my case, it's very common for kids to be educated about puberty BEFORE it happens, so late elementary school.
Also the LGBT school debate isn't about whether teachers should be required to teach children about sexual/romantic orientation and gender. It's become about whether they're ALLOWED to at all. And I see literally no valid reason why not. Teachers are not corrupting children's minds. Thanks to social media, kids are learning about sexual topics, identity topics, etc younger and younger. There are 10 y.o. kids out there experiencing romantic attraction, learning about sex acts, exploring gender and sexual identity, etc whether they're too young to or not. Better that they be more educated, more safe, and less confused.
Kabloosh75 t1_iu2hylb wrote
Well I don't see how talking about sex in anything but a sex education class should ever be a thing.
Well, smart parents should be cognizant of what their kids are consuming and not just through the education system. Again, this isn't something the state should be responsible for.
Thievie t1_iu2mbpa wrote
Teachers don't talk about sex in any class other than sex ed. Sexual orientation includes both romantic and "sexual" attraction and therefore you can absolutely talk about sexual orientation, gender identity, etc without talking about sex. Conversations like "you're allowed to have a crush on someone the same gender as you" or "sometimes people have two dads" or "Billy wants you to call her Tammy now" have nothing to do with sex.
Again, no one is saying teachers NEED to discuss these things. Just that they should be allowed to. And it goes beyond teachers. "Don't say gay" bills would ban library books, restrict counselors, and enforce censorship filters, taking away resources from kids who WANT to learn more about why they are the way they are. And I think that's cruel.
jdi000 t1_iu6l9cb wrote
Family's reserve the right to teach their own kids about such matters, I don't prefer my kids learning this from social media or school but at home.
Thievie t1_iu6nmm5 wrote
Says who? You could say that about any subject.
jdi000 t1_iu6o9z2 wrote
Yes not what I want schools teaching
Thievie t1_iu6qacs wrote
I find that to be a narrow minded point of view. It is up to schools to prepare children for life in a functioning society. A society in which LGBT people exist. They learn about money in math class, love in literature, race in history class, and sex in sex ed. Why should orientation or identity be any different? It seems like a very natural thing to learn in something like a social studies class.
jdi000 t1_iu6qyl5 wrote
It's not narrow-minded it's a choice, sex ed is elected at a lot of schools and parents can opt out. I am not sure why this needs taught at school? Orientation is a choice of the individual and identity has no impact on learning the standard education curriculum. No one needs to identify or discuss their orientation at school. Since religion is separated from education, these other things should be left separate too.
Thievie t1_iu6vi0b wrote
I think you are conflating teaching with discussion. There is no "sexual orientation 101" class. However, LGBT people exist and therefore students might have classmates that raise questions, or the class might want to read a book that features a gay character. Under "don't say gay" laws, none of this would be allowed to be discussed. Neither would many historical topics revolving around civil rights. This severely limits perspectives and harms teaching possibilities, not to mention removes valuable resources from children that might need it the most.
Also, I learned about many religions in public school. School shouldn't tell you which way is the "right" way to be, but it should educate students that there are many people of many different religions out there, and explore the historical and cultural significance of them. Discussion of LGBT topics should be the exact same way.
neddiddley t1_iu3weux wrote
You realize many kids begin puberty in elementary school, right?
That said, I’ll echo what others have already said. Nobody’s getting graphic “insert tab A into slot B” LGBTQ or any other type of sex ed in elementary school. This is just a boogeyman created by people like Mastriano use to rile up their base.
thisisillegals t1_iu1zq2a wrote
Getting downvoted for asking a simple question, touchy people in here.
[deleted] t1_iu2p3nt wrote
Honestly don’t even know what they said lol
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments