Another news source conflating “behavior” and “attraction. See our notes and exciting score at the bottom of the blog.
This is an assertion. The definition of “sexual orientation” includes attraction to genders. Children have “gender or genders” according to modern gender theory taught to CT children.
Fact Check: Other states have an exclusion based on the underlying behavior or an outright exclusion for pedophile. CT does not have to “invoke” any criminal statutes, but they should limit the attractions to at least, “adult gender or genders”.
Not plants, but children do have “gender”. Connecticut teaches its children to identify their gender using “genderbread person” lessons. To avoid confusion, CT should edit modify “gender or genders” to reflect that any person the object of their attraction, must be an adult, no matter what gender.
First, intent doesn’t matter because the CHRO, any court or agency will primarily consider the express wording of the statute. The stated intent IS to include LGBTQ+ which is an always expanding category and includes “minor attracted persons” by many. Professor Rosky again conflates criminal behavior with attraction. Yes, sex with minors remains illegal. But CT parents and employers should not be expected to hire professed pedophiles or people who are attracted to minors even if not convicted of a sex crime.
Mental disorders are not relevant to the definition of “sexual orientation” in HB6638. The words of the definition primarily matter which is clear to include “sexual attraction” to a “gender or genders” which is really any person, since everyone has a gender. Again, the illegality of pedophile behavior is not at issue. What is at issue is forcing employers and state agencies to ignore a person’s professed sexual attraction to minors when hiring or issuing licenses, etc. And we think the bill should be made to reflect that.
For these and other reasons, we rate this article “Mostly False”.