Talk:Anti-LGBT curriculum laws in the United States

South Carolina section
The South Carolina section (and the map) need to be changed because of this.

Nevermind, I fixed it. The image still needs to be changed though.

Internetronic (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Just fixed the image as well.

Internetronic (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Requested move 22 December 2020

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved to Anti-LGBT curriculum laws in the United States. The move was nearly unanimously supported, but there was also agreement that "in the United States" was needed for recognisability. Number  5  7  23:42, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

No promo homo laws → Anti-LGBT curriculum laws – The current title strikes me as a trendy slogan which does not describe the subject very well. I think it should be renamed to a more descriptive and more encyclopedic alternative like Anti-LGBT curriculum laws or Laws against LGBT education, with no promo homo listed as a common alternative. I'm fairly certain this will be an uncontroversial change, and will probably be bold and do it if no significant objections arise. Still I figured I should open it up to discussion in case I'm missing a substantial argument for maintaining the current name. Suggestions for better names also welcome. RoxySaunders (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC) RoxySaunders (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment - There is precedent for slogan-based titles in the subject matter. Don't ask, don't tell is still the most common name "remembered or connected with a particular issue years later". - Axisixa T  C  03:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * DADT is a good point. Still, while certainly a common name, I don't think No Promo Homo (or its alternative, Don't Say Gay) is the most common name for the laws which would more commonly be described in plain English as something like Laws restricting LGBT topics in schools. I suppose I should just pick a title and see if anyone feels strongly enough to undo it? RoxySaunders (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Weak Support The current title certainly seems to fail on recognizability. It is very unclear what it is about.  I am not sure I like "Anti-LGBT curriculum laws" and more inclined to later suggestion "Laws restricting LGBT topics in schools".  It seems the most straightforward. Walrasiad (talk) 06:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support "No promo homo" is a common name for these laws, but I see the argument that it's not common enough to be the common name. I would probably favor a plain English title for the article, with a redirect from "No promo homo laws". One thing to note is that "Anti-LGBT curriculum laws" is a bit ambiguous; it's unclear whether the curriculum is anti-LGBT or if the laws are anti-"LGBT curriculum". Oddly enough in this case I think either one applies; there's an argument that a curriculum restricted by these laws is anti-LGBT itself. But I agree with Walrasiad that "Laws restricting LGBT topics in schools" or something similar is probably our best bet. Sr ey Sr os talk 18:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * support per op—blindlynx (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment Why not expand the article to include an overview of the laws of all fifty states, and drop the "anti" premise. Instead, call it something like Laws concerning LGBT education or LGBT curriculum laws. Tbobbed (talk) 20:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment. If moved, the article needs to have "United States" somewhere in the title, as this article doesn't cover any other country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)


 * Support. I agree with the other comment supporting the title change and a redirect to this page from "no promo homo" or "no promo homo laws". Also agree that "US" should be in the title. -- Internetronic (talk) 06:08, 28 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Support Anti-LGBT curriculum laws in the United States per SreySros; the slogan is in use but isn't so common to justify such an unencylopedicly-toned title. A descriptive title is better.  Also agree with Necrothesp that "United States" needs to be in the descriptive title power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 06:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Florida Update
Right-ho!

It's about time to update the page concerning Florida's HB 1557 Parential Rights in Education Bill. It's got to be done sometime!

105.184.245.66 (talk) 18:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC) A conservative


 * I've updated the page to address HB 1557, along with a couple of other states. I assume the map also needs to be updated but I don't know how to do that. VeeTHis (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I was working on fixing the .svg (which is a pain in the ass), but it made me realize something: Should the bullying-related color codes be on the map at all? For one, I'm not exactly sure what the sources for them are. Additionally, the key says "State school regulation", but most of them are clearly local, considering they only fill in certain districts. (This is also confusing in states like Florida, where the entire state should be red because the curriculum law covers the entire state regardless of local bullying laws.) And lastly, I think LGBTQ+ school bullying laws are distinct enough from curriculum laws that they likely deserve their own article anyways.
 * Any objections to removing the bullying stuff from the map? And would anyone be interested in starting a separate article on that topic? Internetronic (talk) 04:05, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Honestly yeah the bullying stuff probably doesn't fit here, which would make my other talk thing irrelevant. Also there's a new one passed in Tennessee, if I get time I'll add that one Dinosar199 (talk) 21:34, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Informationageuser (talk) 01:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree that the map needs to be updated (sounds like someone is in the process of doing so?).
 * Also agree that the bullying stuff may be a bit out of place on this page focused on curriculum enforcements, though I think that info could be put to good use in other spaces (examples might include LGBT bullying, youth suicide statistics, bullying laws, etc.).
 * I do think we should keep info related to not just curriculum law, but extracurricular activities laws, in this article, as both are related to public school districts.
 * Are there any territories/counties/districts that have enacted their own anti-lgbt curriculum laws in states that don’t have a statewide law on this? If so, yes, this needs to be specified on the map, and we should consider changing the title of the article to say something like “states AND countries or localities, etc.)

^counties, not countries Informationageuser (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Map colors
Hey I'm colorblind and some of the colors on the map are indistinguishable for me, specifically "state laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation only" and "state school regulation or ethical code for teachers that address discrimination or bullying of students based on sexual orientation and gender identity". I don't really know how to change that or if it's possible, but if someone could do that it would improve the accessibility of this article. Dinosar199 (talk) 21:11, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Media Smart Libraries
— Assignment last updated by Kelseycronin (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * My edit includes the North Carolina House Bill 755 on the list of proposed legislation. This is my first edit to Wikipedia.  Please feel free to correct, edit, update, etc. Thank you kindly--Samuel Watson URI (talk) 06:03, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Information Literacy and Scholarly Discourse
— Assignment last updated by Atufail (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

“No Promo Homo” vs. “Don’t Say Gay”
This article makes use of the phrase “no promo homo” (in the lead and in other sections) in reference to this type of anti-LBGT law. While I verified that the Columbia source provided by a previous editor does indeed include “no promo homo”, I have not once seen this phrase in any media or other sources mentioning these law(s). Instead, “don’t say gay” seems to be the common colloquial phrase used by the general public. I did add the latter phrase to the lead today (without deleting the former), and just noticed another earlier editor replaced the former with the latter at one point further down in the article. My questions for all are: *Do you feel one of these phrases is used more than the other?
 * Have you heard or not heard of either phrase in various sources?
 * Would it be best to just use one of these colloquial phrases uniformly in this article to avoid confusion for the reader?

I believe yes, but I believe an open discussion on the matter is in everyone’s best interest. Please weigh in! Thank you. Informationageuser (talk) 01:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * "Don't say gay" is mindless radical leftist agitprop. It is politically and Hollywood (Amy Schumer) inspired demonization of sensible legislation to protect minor children from what is, at best, possibly well-meaning but inappropriate sexual material (starting in some places in kindergarten or first grade!). Partisan ideological warriors and Hollywood D-listers (Amy Schumer and that ilk) should get to determine inflammatory Wikipedia article titles, headers, leading summaries, etc. Otherwise, Wikipedia is no longer an encyclopaedia -- it is a cudgel to be used by nefarious sources which control mass media, academia, etc and can cite left-leaning or even radical websites to back up inflammatory claims. 67.84.230.45 (talk) 00:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'm removing all mentions of "no pro homo" as UNDUE, it is a niche term that should not be mentioned in the article and lacks almost any sourcing. Bill Williams 22:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Removal of Map
I removed the map because it tries to draw a juxtaposition between two completely separate areas, anti-discrimination and controlling school curriculums. It is absurd to pretent like banning education on sexual orientation and gender identity is the opposite of banning discrimination against LGBT children, when schools can do both and most schools don't even teach anything about sexual orientation or gender identity in the first place. Bill Williams 22:02, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I removed the new map because it was once again extremely misleading, allowing parents to opt out of certain education is not remotely similar to banning that education entirely, and there is zero evidence of some juxtaposition between Florida banning that education and California "requiring" it because no source states that California and the other states require "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to be taught in schools. The source for the map in the example of California points to a state law that never once says California students are required to learn these topics, so the map is creating some fake juxtaposition once again. Bill Williams 19:48, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-03
— Assignment last updated by Momlife5 (talk) 15:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Alabama
I was wonder should the Alabama information be moved to the overturned laws or repealed laws sections because the information is not talking about Anti-LGBT laws but about one that was removed. Aosanch (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: History of Sexuality in the U.S.
— Assignment last updated by Charliewerth (talk) 15:26, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Description in the Lead
The lead currently describes Anti-LGBT curriculum laws as This does not seem to match how it these laws are discussed in most sources, which generally describe them as bans on discussing sexuality and gender identity. The one exception that I saw was the GLSEN source, which is the oldest. Additionally, this sentence would be improved with more concise language. I propose that we change the first sentence to say they are "laws that prohibit the discussion of sexuality and gender identity in public schools." We could Poppa shark (talk) 21:16, 10 April 2024 (UTC)