Wall Street Journal on Gender Storytime in Montgomery County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting aside the emotional aspect of this argument, there is a link to the briefs filed by MCPS and the Plaintiffs. I'm not a lawyer, but it's a fascinating read.

MCPS Opposition to Writ of Certiorari:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/335502/20241218150621210_24-297%20-%20Mahmoud%20v.%20Taylor%20-%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf

Plaintiffs Argument for Writ of Certiorari:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/336156/20241227173322003_Mahmoud%20Cert%20Reply%20FINAL.pdf

Link to the Documents filed with the case, including various amicus briefs and other replies by MCPS and plaintiffs:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public%5C24-297.html

Looks like the question is if the inclusion of these books is just exposing students to ideas that are at odds with their religious beliefs, or if these books are part of an effort by MCPS to instruct students to think a specific way about gender and sexuality.

Interesting read. This is in MCPS's filing in the first link above:

At first, teachers and principals sought to accommodate these requests by excusing students when the
books were read in class. The growing number of opt-out requests, however, gave rise to
three related concerns: high student absenteeism, the infeasibility of administering opt-outs across classrooms
and schools, and the risk of exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families
to social stigma and isolation.

I'm no lawyer so I have no idea about the legal side of this. But from a practical standpoint, if they are getting flooded with opt-out requests, maybe they should listen to such a large number of parents and just not read those books in class? Aren't they supposed to serve the interests of parents and their children? It would be one thing if it's 1 or 2 parents requesting it, but it sounds like a large number of parents opposed this.

(Also interesting MCPS is so concerned about student absenteeism in this situation and not other situations, but that's for another thread.)

But where does that end? What if the majority of families didn't want their kids exposed to any books that have gay people in them? People of color? Disabled people? Should schools just leave all those sorts of people out of books too? Besides being both morally and educationally problematic, that's also harmful to kids from those groups if they don't ever see people like them represented in school materials... avoiding books like that isn't a neutral choice, it's taking sides.

If a majority of families want X, the school system should probably do X. The schools are there to serve the parents and their children. We have an elected BOE, and open board meetings for this reason -- so the community can provide their input and the majority can vote for people who will steer the school system in the direction of the will of the people.

People did vote for the BOE members they wanted to steer the system. The candidate who was most outspoken about these issues was Bethany Mandel, and she came in third out of the three candidates in her primary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting aside the emotional aspect of this argument, there is a link to the briefs filed by MCPS and the Plaintiffs. I'm not a lawyer, but it's a fascinating read.

MCPS Opposition to Writ of Certiorari:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/335502/20241218150621210_24-297%20-%20Mahmoud%20v.%20Taylor%20-%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf

Plaintiffs Argument for Writ of Certiorari:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/336156/20241227173322003_Mahmoud%20Cert%20Reply%20FINAL.pdf

Link to the Documents filed with the case, including various amicus briefs and other replies by MCPS and plaintiffs:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public%5C24-297.html

Looks like the question is if the inclusion of these books is just exposing students to ideas that are at odds with their religious beliefs, or if these books are part of an effort by MCPS to instruct students to think a specific way about gender and sexuality.

Interesting read. This is in MCPS's filing in the first link above:

At first, teachers and principals sought to accommodate these requests by excusing students when the
books were read in class. The growing number of opt-out requests, however, gave rise to
three related concerns: high student absenteeism, the infeasibility of administering opt-outs across classrooms
and schools, and the risk of exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families
to social stigma and isolation.

I'm no lawyer so I have no idea about the legal side of this. But from a practical standpoint, if they are getting flooded with opt-out requests, maybe they should listen to such a large number of parents and just not read those books in class? Aren't they supposed to serve the interests of parents and their children? It would be one thing if it's 1 or 2 parents requesting it, but it sounds like a large number of parents opposed this.

(Also interesting MCPS is so concerned about student absenteeism in this situation and not other situations, but that's for another thread.)

But where does that end? What if the majority of families didn't want their kids exposed to any books that have gay people in them? People of color? Disabled people? Should schools just leave all those sorts of people out of books too? Besides being both morally and educationally problematic, that's also harmful to kids from those groups if they don't ever see people like them represented in school materials... avoiding books like that isn't a neutral choice, it's taking sides.

If a majority of families want X, the school system should probably do X. The schools are there to serve the parents and their children. We have an elected BOE, and open board meetings for this reason -- so the community can provide their input and the majority can vote for people who will steer the school system in the direction of the will of the people.

People did vote for the BOE members they wanted to steer the system. The candidate who was most outspoken about these issues was Bethany Mandel, and she came in third out of the three candidates in her primary.

She was an awful, terrible candidate even though she was right about this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting aside the emotional aspect of this argument, there is a link to the briefs filed by MCPS and the Plaintiffs. I'm not a lawyer, but it's a fascinating read.

MCPS Opposition to Writ of Certiorari:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/335502/20241218150621210_24-297%20-%20Mahmoud%20v.%20Taylor%20-%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf

Plaintiffs Argument for Writ of Certiorari:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/336156/20241227173322003_Mahmoud%20Cert%20Reply%20FINAL.pdf

Link to the Documents filed with the case, including various amicus briefs and other replies by MCPS and plaintiffs:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public%5C24-297.html

Looks like the question is if the inclusion of these books is just exposing students to ideas that are at odds with their religious beliefs, or if these books are part of an effort by MCPS to instruct students to think a specific way about gender and sexuality.

Interesting read. This is in MCPS's filing in the first link above:

At first, teachers and principals sought to accommodate these requests by excusing students when the
books were read in class. The growing number of opt-out requests, however, gave rise to
three related concerns: high student absenteeism, the infeasibility of administering opt-outs across classrooms
and schools, and the risk of exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families
to social stigma and isolation.

I'm no lawyer so I have no idea about the legal side of this. But from a practical standpoint, if they are getting flooded with opt-out requests, maybe they should listen to such a large number of parents and just not read those books in class? Aren't they supposed to serve the interests of parents and their children? It would be one thing if it's 1 or 2 parents requesting it, but it sounds like a large number of parents opposed this.

(Also interesting MCPS is so concerned about student absenteeism in this situation and not other situations, but that's for another thread.)

But where does that end? What if the majority of families didn't want their kids exposed to any books that have gay people in them? People of color? Disabled people? Should schools just leave all those sorts of people out of books too? Besides being both morally and educationally problematic, that's also harmful to kids from those groups if they don't ever see people like them represented in school materials... avoiding books like that isn't a neutral choice, it's taking sides.

If a majority of families want X, the school system should probably do X. The schools are there to serve the parents and their children. We have an elected BOE, and open board meetings for this reason -- so the community can provide their input and the majority can vote for people who will steer the school system in the direction of the will of the people.

People did vote for the BOE members they wanted to steer the system. The candidate who was most outspoken about these issues was Bethany Mandel, and she came in third out of the three candidates in her primary.

As I stated before, there is a silent majority in MoCo that IS tolerant of LGBTQ rights and representation but does feel that some of the push with kids at the youngest levels is inappropriate. But they don't feel SO strongly about this that they're willing to protest and speak up about it, in part because they fear being labeled intolerant and homophobic.

Bethany Mandel didn't win her BOE seat because at the end of the day, MoCo is still a left-leaning county, and she was too right-wing and intolerant to be palatable with an electorate that WANTS to be progressive. But we are actually CENTER left, even though Takoma Park/Silver Spring can lean incredibly radical left and elect people that represent that extreme.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting aside the emotional aspect of this argument, there is a link to the briefs filed by MCPS and the Plaintiffs. I'm not a lawyer, but it's a fascinating read.

MCPS Opposition to Writ of Certiorari:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/335502/20241218150621210_24-297%20-%20Mahmoud%20v.%20Taylor%20-%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf

Plaintiffs Argument for Writ of Certiorari:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/336156/20241227173322003_Mahmoud%20Cert%20Reply%20FINAL.pdf

Link to the Documents filed with the case, including various amicus briefs and other replies by MCPS and plaintiffs:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public%5C24-297.html

Looks like the question is if the inclusion of these books is just exposing students to ideas that are at odds with their religious beliefs, or if these books are part of an effort by MCPS to instruct students to think a specific way about gender and sexuality.

Interesting read. This is in MCPS's filing in the first link above:

At first, teachers and principals sought to accommodate these requests by excusing students when the
books were read in class. The growing number of opt-out requests, however, gave rise to
three related concerns: high student absenteeism, the infeasibility of administering opt-outs across classrooms
and schools, and the risk of exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families
to social stigma and isolation.

I'm no lawyer so I have no idea about the legal side of this. But from a practical standpoint, if they are getting flooded with opt-out requests, maybe they should listen to such a large number of parents and just not read those books in class? Aren't they supposed to serve the interests of parents and their children? It would be one thing if it's 1 or 2 parents requesting it, but it sounds like a large number of parents opposed this.

(Also interesting MCPS is so concerned about student absenteeism in this situation and not other situations, but that's for another thread.)

But where does that end? What if the majority of families didn't want their kids exposed to any books that have gay people in them? People of color? Disabled people? Should schools just leave all those sorts of people out of books too? Besides being both morally and educationally problematic, that's also harmful to kids from those groups if they don't ever see people like them represented in school materials... avoiding books like that isn't a neutral choice, it's taking sides.

If a majority of families want X, the school system should probably do X. The schools are there to serve the parents and their children. We have an elected BOE, and open board meetings for this reason -- so the community can provide their input and the majority can vote for people who will steer the school system in the direction of the will of the people.

People did vote for the BOE members they wanted to steer the system. The candidate who was most outspoken about these issues was Bethany Mandel, and she came in third out of the three candidates in her primary.

As I stated before, there is a silent majority in MoCo that IS tolerant of LGBTQ rights and representation but does feel that some of the push with kids at the youngest levels is inappropriate. But they don't feel SO strongly about this that they're willing to protest and speak up about it, in part because they fear being labeled intolerant and homophobic.

Bethany Mandel didn't win her BOE seat because at the end of the day, MoCo is still a left-leaning county, and she was too right-wing and intolerant to be palatable with an electorate that WANTS to be progressive. But we are actually CENTER left, even though Takoma Park/Silver Spring can lean incredibly radical left and elect people that represent that extreme.

BOE members are elected by all MoCo voters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve never once seen an example of a book that was actually being read in class that was actually offensive. The examples they have in the lawsuit seemed to be books that were on lists to possibly be read but no one ever seemed to say “yes my kids second grade teacher is reading this.”
It just seems like a huge non issue.

+1

Not one of these books was ever used in the classroom

The people are lying. They don't even have kids in public school. This lawsuit is absurd.

SCOTUS will give them this win God help all of us. It is not going to end well. UGH

That’s not true. My DD’s 4th grade class had to read the Boy Named Penelope book. I think that book is absolutely ridiculous and dangerous.

Huh? What on earth is "dangerous" about it? I've read it, it's a simple kids book about a kid who's trans... It honestly seems fine even for 5 year olds let alone 4th graders, nothing about genitals or sex or anything else folks might think is age-inappropriate, just a little trans kid being a kid. I can't imagine anything offensive or problematic about it, unless you don't think kids should know that trans kids exist? And even then, dangerous suggests someone could somehow be hurt by it and unless your kid is such a fragile snowflake you think they're going to collapse upon learning of the existence of trans kids (super weird if so), how could a book like this possibly hurt anyone?

It's dangerous because it presents as accepted, the idea that a 5-year-old can just decide that they are not the gender that they are born with and that there's no reason to question it and everyone should accept that 5-year-old's decision and if you don't, you're an intolerant bigot.

It is a book with an incredibly controversial political stance that is not widely accepted.

That's why it's dangerous. It's propaganda masquerading as ELA material.

I remember reading a book where a 10 year old girl decided to live. Y herself in the woods for a summer. Her parents were fine with it. It was never questioned. I didn’t think that I could run off and do that.
I’ve read books where no one questioned that animals could talk or you could walk through the back of a wardrobe into another world.
I’ve read books where no one questioned that an all powerful and all good being would just decide to kill every living creature in the world, save for two of each species - no one questioned it!
None of this was considered grooming.

You are comparing FICTION books to a book described as a true story. Do you need to go back to elementary school to learn the difference? One is being presented as factual, the other is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting aside the emotional aspect of this argument, there is a link to the briefs filed by MCPS and the Plaintiffs. I'm not a lawyer, but it's a fascinating read.

MCPS Opposition to Writ of Certiorari:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/335502/20241218150621210_24-297%20-%20Mahmoud%20v.%20Taylor%20-%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf

Plaintiffs Argument for Writ of Certiorari:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/336156/20241227173322003_Mahmoud%20Cert%20Reply%20FINAL.pdf

Link to the Documents filed with the case, including various amicus briefs and other replies by MCPS and plaintiffs:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public%5C24-297.html

Looks like the question is if the inclusion of these books is just exposing students to ideas that are at odds with their religious beliefs, or if these books are part of an effort by MCPS to instruct students to think a specific way about gender and sexuality.

Interesting read. This is in MCPS's filing in the first link above:

At first, teachers and principals sought to accommodate these requests by excusing students when the
books were read in class. The growing number of opt-out requests, however, gave rise to
three related concerns: high student absenteeism, the infeasibility of administering opt-outs across classrooms
and schools, and the risk of exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families
to social stigma and isolation.

I'm no lawyer so I have no idea about the legal side of this. But from a practical standpoint, if they are getting flooded with opt-out requests, maybe they should listen to such a large number of parents and just not read those books in class? Aren't they supposed to serve the interests of parents and their children? It would be one thing if it's 1 or 2 parents requesting it, but it sounds like a large number of parents opposed this.

(Also interesting MCPS is so concerned about student absenteeism in this situation and not other situations, but that's for another thread.)

But where does that end? What if the majority of families didn't want their kids exposed to any books that have gay people in them? People of color? Disabled people? Should schools just leave all those sorts of people out of books too? Besides being both morally and educationally problematic, that's also harmful to kids from those groups if they don't ever see people like them represented in school materials... avoiding books like that isn't a neutral choice, it's taking sides.

If a majority of families want X, the school system should probably do X. The schools are there to serve the parents and their children. We have an elected BOE, and open board meetings for this reason -- so the community can provide their input and the majority can vote for people who will steer the school system in the direction of the will of the people.

People did vote for the BOE members they wanted to steer the system. The candidate who was most outspoken about these issues was Bethany Mandel, and she came in third out of the three candidates in her primary.

As I stated before, there is a silent majority in MoCo that IS tolerant of LGBTQ rights and representation but does feel that some of the push with kids at the youngest levels is inappropriate. But they don't feel SO strongly about this that they're willing to protest and speak up about it, in part because they fear being labeled intolerant and homophobic.

Bethany Mandel didn't win her BOE seat because at the end of the day, MoCo is still a left-leaning county, and she was too right-wing and intolerant to be palatable with an electorate that WANTS to be progressive. But we are actually CENTER left, even though Takoma Park/Silver Spring can lean incredibly radical left and elect people that represent that extreme.

"Silent majority"? Bullcrap.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting aside the emotional aspect of this argument, there is a link to the briefs filed by MCPS and the Plaintiffs. I'm not a lawyer, but it's a fascinating read.

MCPS Opposition to Writ of Certiorari:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/335502/20241218150621210_24-297%20-%20Mahmoud%20v.%20Taylor%20-%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf

Plaintiffs Argument for Writ of Certiorari:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/336156/20241227173322003_Mahmoud%20Cert%20Reply%20FINAL.pdf

Link to the Documents filed with the case, including various amicus briefs and other replies by MCPS and plaintiffs:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public%5C24-297.html

Looks like the question is if the inclusion of these books is just exposing students to ideas that are at odds with their religious beliefs, or if these books are part of an effort by MCPS to instruct students to think a specific way about gender and sexuality.

Interesting read. This is in MCPS's filing in the first link above:

At first, teachers and principals sought to accommodate these requests by excusing students when the
books were read in class. The growing number of opt-out requests, however, gave rise to
three related concerns: high student absenteeism, the infeasibility of administering opt-outs across classrooms
and schools, and the risk of exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families
to social stigma and isolation.

I'm no lawyer so I have no idea about the legal side of this. But from a practical standpoint, if they are getting flooded with opt-out requests, maybe they should listen to such a large number of parents and just not read those books in class? Aren't they supposed to serve the interests of parents and their children? It would be one thing if it's 1 or 2 parents requesting it, but it sounds like a large number of parents opposed this.

(Also interesting MCPS is so concerned about student absenteeism in this situation and not other situations, but that's for another thread.)

But where does that end? What if the majority of families didn't want their kids exposed to any books that have gay people in them? People of color? Disabled people? Should schools just leave all those sorts of people out of books too? Besides being both morally and educationally problematic, that's also harmful to kids from those groups if they don't ever see people like them represented in school materials... avoiding books like that isn't a neutral choice, it's taking sides.

If a majority of families want X, the school system should probably do X. The schools are there to serve the parents and their children. We have an elected BOE, and open board meetings for this reason -- so the community can provide their input and the majority can vote for people who will steer the school system in the direction of the will of the people.

Schools are actually not supposed to be driven purely by the preferences of the majority of parents, no. Or do you think that in a school district where the majority of parents are of one political party, and they want all the history classes to never talk about bad things presidents from their party have done, and never talk about good things presidents from the other party have done, that's what the schools should do?

Sort of. There's a reason school systems are not managed at the federal level, and not much at the state level either. It's so there can be local input and so they are run according to local needs and input. Yes, both MCPS and Garrett County are in MD and need to follow state curriculum at a general level, but they have a lot of flexibility in how they teach, what they teach, and even on how they set their school calendars. Some school systems in MD, like MCPS, give days off for Yom Kippur, and others do not. That's up to them, based on local needs and population. For example, Garrett County has a day off every October for Autumn Glory, to celebrate the area's festival dedicated to fall foliage, while MCPS does not. In Garrett County, Autumn Glory is an important part of the culture there and the people have deemed it worthy of a day off school.

+1 and these books are not at most schools nationwide. this is a MoCo thing (and various other schools obviously). There should be some calibration to what the community overall wants.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting aside the emotional aspect of this argument, there is a link to the briefs filed by MCPS and the Plaintiffs. I'm not a lawyer, but it's a fascinating read.

MCPS Opposition to Writ of Certiorari:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/335502/20241218150621210_24-297%20-%20Mahmoud%20v.%20Taylor%20-%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf

Plaintiffs Argument for Writ of Certiorari:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/336156/20241227173322003_Mahmoud%20Cert%20Reply%20FINAL.pdf

Link to the Documents filed with the case, including various amicus briefs and other replies by MCPS and plaintiffs:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public%5C24-297.html

Looks like the question is if the inclusion of these books is just exposing students to ideas that are at odds with their religious beliefs, or if these books are part of an effort by MCPS to instruct students to think a specific way about gender and sexuality.

Interesting read. This is in MCPS's filing in the first link above:

At first, teachers and principals sought to accommodate these requests by excusing students when the
books were read in class. The growing number of opt-out requests, however, gave rise to
three related concerns: high student absenteeism, the infeasibility of administering opt-outs across classrooms
and schools, and the risk of exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families
to social stigma and isolation.

I'm no lawyer so I have no idea about the legal side of this. But from a practical standpoint, if they are getting flooded with opt-out requests, maybe they should listen to such a large number of parents and just not read those books in class? Aren't they supposed to serve the interests of parents and their children? It would be one thing if it's 1 or 2 parents requesting it, but it sounds like a large number of parents opposed this.

(Also interesting MCPS is so concerned about student absenteeism in this situation and not other situations, but that's for another thread.)

But where does that end? What if the majority of families didn't want their kids exposed to any books that have gay people in them? People of color? Disabled people? Should schools just leave all those sorts of people out of books too? Besides being both morally and educationally problematic, that's also harmful to kids from those groups if they don't ever see people like them represented in school materials... avoiding books like that isn't a neutral choice, it's taking sides.

If a majority of families want X, the school system should probably do X. The schools are there to serve the parents and their children. We have an elected BOE, and open board meetings for this reason -- so the community can provide their input and the majority can vote for people who will steer the school system in the direction of the will of the people.

People did vote for the BOE members they wanted to steer the system. The candidate who was most outspoken about these issues was Bethany Mandel, and she came in third out of the three candidates in her primary.

As I stated before, there is a silent majority in MoCo that IS tolerant of LGBTQ rights and representation but does feel that some of the push with kids at the youngest levels is inappropriate. But they don't feel SO strongly about this that they're willing to protest and speak up about it, in part because they fear being labeled intolerant and homophobic.

Bethany Mandel didn't win her BOE seat because at the end of the day, MoCo is still a left-leaning county, and she was too right-wing and intolerant to be palatable with an electorate that WANTS to be progressive. But we are actually CENTER left, even though Takoma Park/Silver Spring can lean incredibly radical left and elect people that represent that extreme.

BOE members are elected by all MoCo voters.

Doesn’t mean voters have to acquiesce to everything the BOE is doing.

Trump was also elected by all voters fair and square. Does he get to do anything he wants?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting aside the emotional aspect of this argument, there is a link to the briefs filed by MCPS and the Plaintiffs. I'm not a lawyer, but it's a fascinating read.

MCPS Opposition to Writ of Certiorari:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/335502/20241218150621210_24-297%20-%20Mahmoud%20v.%20Taylor%20-%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf

Plaintiffs Argument for Writ of Certiorari:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/336156/20241227173322003_Mahmoud%20Cert%20Reply%20FINAL.pdf

Link to the Documents filed with the case, including various amicus briefs and other replies by MCPS and plaintiffs:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public%5C24-297.html

Looks like the question is if the inclusion of these books is just exposing students to ideas that are at odds with their religious beliefs, or if these books are part of an effort by MCPS to instruct students to think a specific way about gender and sexuality.

Interesting read. This is in MCPS's filing in the first link above:

At first, teachers and principals sought to accommodate these requests by excusing students when the
books were read in class. The growing number of opt-out requests, however, gave rise to
three related concerns: high student absenteeism, the infeasibility of administering opt-outs across classrooms
and schools, and the risk of exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families
to social stigma and isolation.

I'm no lawyer so I have no idea about the legal side of this. But from a practical standpoint, if they are getting flooded with opt-out requests, maybe they should listen to such a large number of parents and just not read those books in class? Aren't they supposed to serve the interests of parents and their children? It would be one thing if it's 1 or 2 parents requesting it, but it sounds like a large number of parents opposed this.

(Also interesting MCPS is so concerned about student absenteeism in this situation and not other situations, but that's for another thread.)

But where does that end? What if the majority of families didn't want their kids exposed to any books that have gay people in them? People of color? Disabled people? Should schools just leave all those sorts of people out of books too? Besides being both morally and educationally problematic, that's also harmful to kids from those groups if they don't ever see people like them represented in school materials... avoiding books like that isn't a neutral choice, it's taking sides.

If a majority of families want X, the school system should probably do X. The schools are there to serve the parents and their children. We have an elected BOE, and open board meetings for this reason -- so the community can provide their input and the majority can vote for people who will steer the school system in the direction of the will of the people.

People did vote for the BOE members they wanted to steer the system. The candidate who was most outspoken about these issues was Bethany Mandel, and she came in third out of the three candidates in her primary.

As I stated before, there is a silent majority in MoCo that IS tolerant of LGBTQ rights and representation but does feel that some of the push with kids at the youngest levels is inappropriate. But they don't feel SO strongly about this that they're willing to protest and speak up about it, in part because they fear being labeled intolerant and homophobic.

Bethany Mandel didn't win her BOE seat because at the end of the day, MoCo is still a left-leaning county, and she was too right-wing and intolerant to be palatable with an electorate that WANTS to be progressive. But we are actually CENTER left, even though Takoma Park/Silver Spring can lean incredibly radical left and elect people that represent that extreme.

"Silent majority"? Bullcrap.

So many parents opted out that they had to cancel the “opt out” option.

[Anonymous]

[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this was all about parents not believing trans people exist (and hello—two of my high school classmates came out as trans long after high school and looking back it explained a lot), they wouldn’t want to opt out from Uncke Bobby’s Wedding, which would literally be the exact story if the spouse was a woman. Literally only names and pronouns are what tells you he’s gay.

I think a lot of people (myself included) recognize that trans people exist, but that it is rare and is, in fact, a psychological disorder. They should be treated with respect and not discriminated against, but there is no reason to encourage it or to introduce it to children as a natural choice.

The current movement to mainstream it is causing a lot of artificial and harmful social contagian. If you want to present it as a psychological disorder like depression, and OCD, that would be one thing. But that is not how it is being presented .

There is no mention of anything trans in Uncle Bobby’s Wedding. These people are motivated by their hatred of lgbtq people not just discomfort with trans people.

And I’m a pretty normal suburban mom with a normal friend/colleague group, and I know multiple non-binary and trans folks, am close friends with two, and have a very close friend with a trans son. Doesn’t seem rare to me.

Back in the 90s when I was in high school, I would have sworn I didn’t know any gay people but as it became more accepted, it turned out I knew quite a few. It’s the same thing with trans people.

I can say that exact same thing. I’m also a pretty normal suburban mom with normal friends/colleagues who know multiple non-binary/trans folks. It doesn’t seem rare to me either.

But let’s dig a little deeper into those that we know. How progressive are their parents? How many of the non-binary/trans folks you know are white girls who are on the autism spectrum/have some other type of mental health disorder like ADHD/depression/anxiety? Or are they white girls who are awkward and a theater kid?

I suspect like me and countless other people across this country who have insight into middle schools/high schools, the vast majority of non-binary/trans you know fall into one of those categories.

How can anyone not see what is going on with non-binary/trans in middle schools/high schools across the country and not deep down wonder if there is some truth to the Social Contagion? Or do you really, truly believe it’s all organic? If you think it’s really organic, did you ever wonder why it’s a certain type of person who is trans? That certain type of person being what I described above?

This is interesting line of thought. The person I know best whose kid is trans—the child is not autistic but always a little awkward. My friend is moving slowly with her kid and they are working with a whole team.

My adult friends who are trans/NB—there is a fair amount of correlation between that and autism/ADHD. But I don’t think it makes them being trans less real—I just think there’s probably some kind of genetic link between autism and being trans.

It’s telling you go to social contagion and not to maybe there’s a connection that should be explored.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:[twitter]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If this was all about parents not believing trans people exist (and hello—two of my high school classmates came out as trans long after high school and looking back it explained a lot), they wouldn’t want to opt out from Uncke Bobby’s Wedding, which would literally be the exact story if the spouse was a woman. Literally only names and pronouns are what tells you he’s gay.

I think a lot of people (myself included) recognize that trans people exist, but that it is rare and is, in fact, a psychological disorder. They should be treated with respect and not discriminated against, but there is no reason to encourage it or to introduce it to children as a natural choice.

The current movement to mainstream it is causing a lot of artificial and harmful social contagian. If you want to present it as a psychological disorder like depression, and OCD, that would be one thing. But that is not how it is being presented .

There is no mention of anything trans in Uncle Bobby’s Wedding. These people are motivated by their hatred of lgbtq people not just discomfort with trans people.

And I’m a pretty normal suburban mom with a normal friend/colleague group, and I know multiple non-binary and trans folks, am close friends with two, and have a very close friend with a trans son. Doesn’t seem rare to me.

Back in the 90s when I was in high school, I would have sworn I didn’t know any gay people but as it became more accepted, it turned out I knew quite a few. It’s the same thing with trans people.

I can say that exact same thing. I’m also a pretty normal suburban mom with normal friends/colleagues who know multiple non-binary/trans folks. It doesn’t seem rare to me either.

But let’s dig a little deeper into those that we know. How progressive are their parents? How many of the non-binary/trans folks you know are white girls who are on the autism spectrum/have some other type of mental health disorder like ADHD/depression/anxiety? Or are they white girls who are awkward and a theater kid?

I suspect like me and countless other people across this country who have insight into middle schools/high schools, the vast majority of non-binary/trans you know fall into one of those categories.

How can anyone not see what is going on with non-binary/trans in middle schools/high schools across the country and not deep down wonder if there is some truth to the Social Contagion? Or do you really, truly believe it’s all organic? If you think it’s really organic, did you ever wonder why it’s a certain type of person who is trans? That certain type of person being what I described above?

This is interesting line of thought. The person I know best whose kid is trans—the child is not autistic but always a little awkward. My friend is moving slowly with her kid and they are working with a whole team.

My adult friends who are trans/NB—there is a fair amount of correlation between that and autism/ADHD. But I don’t think it makes them being trans less real—I just think there’s probably some kind of genetic link between autism and being trans.

It’s telling you go to social contagion and not to maybe there’s a connection that should be explored.

Why can't it be both? Maybe there is a nature AND a nurture element to it. For some people it's more nature, and for other people it's more nurture. Why does the possibility of Social Contagion get dismissed?

[Anonymous]

Seems that some of these books crossed the line from “inclusion” to inappropriate content.

From the District Court’s opinion:

“[T]he alphabet primer Pride Puppy!…approved for pre-K and Head Start classrooms depicts a family whose puppy gets lost amidst a LBGTQ-pride parade…The 3 and 4 YO audience is invited to look for such items as ‘drag kings’, ‘leather’, ‘lip ring’, ‘drag queen’ and ‘underwear’.”

I’m in favor of inclusion, but this is idiotic.

(I’d also be opposed to a book about Mardi Gras inviting 3 yo’s to find “breasts” and “beer”).

Just not age appropriate and doesn’t belong in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Seems that some of these books crossed the line from “inclusion” to inappropriate content.

From the District Court’s opinion:

“[T]he alphabet primer Pride Puppy!…approved for pre-K and Head Start classrooms depicts a family whose puppy gets lost amidst a LBGTQ-pride parade…The 3 and 4 YO audience is invited to look for such items as ‘drag kings’, ‘leather’, ‘lip ring’, ‘drag queen’ and ‘underwear’.”

I’m in favor of inclusion, but this is idiotic.

(I’d also be opposed to a book about Mardi Gras inviting 3 yo’s to find “breasts” and “beer”).

Just not age appropriate and doesn’t belong in school.

What's going on? Did nobody object along the way?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Putting aside the emotional aspect of this argument, there is a link to the briefs filed by MCPS and the Plaintiffs. I'm not a lawyer, but it's a fascinating read.

MCPS Opposition to Writ of Certiorari:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/335502/20241218150621210_24-297%20-%20Mahmoud%20v.%20Taylor%20-%20Brief%20in%20Opposition.pdf

Plaintiffs Argument for Writ of Certiorari:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/24/24-297/336156/20241227173322003_Mahmoud%20Cert%20Reply%20FINAL.pdf

Link to the Documents filed with the case, including various amicus briefs and other replies by MCPS and plaintiffs:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docket/docketfiles/html/public%5C24-297.html

Looks like the question is if the inclusion of these books is just exposing students to ideas that are at odds with their religious beliefs, or if these books are part of an effort by MCPS to instruct students to think a specific way about gender and sexuality.

Interesting read. This is in MCPS's filing in the first link above:

At first, teachers and principals sought to accommodate these requests by excusing students when the
books were read in class. The growing number of opt-out requests, however, gave rise to
three related concerns: high student absenteeism, the infeasibility of administering opt-outs across classrooms
and schools, and the risk of exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families
to social stigma and isolation.

I'm no lawyer so I have no idea about the legal side of this. But from a practical standpoint, if they are getting flooded with opt-out requests, maybe they should listen to such a large number of parents and just not read those books in class? Aren't they supposed to serve the interests of parents and their children? It would be one thing if it's 1 or 2 parents requesting it, but it sounds like a large number of parents opposed this.

(Also interesting MCPS is so concerned about student absenteeism in this situation and not other situations, but that's for another thread.)

But where does that end? What if the majority of families didn't want their kids exposed to any books that have gay people in them? People of color? Disabled people? Should schools just leave all those sorts of people out of books too? Besides being both morally and educationally problematic, that's also harmful to kids from those groups if they don't ever see people like them represented in school materials... avoiding books like that isn't a neutral choice, it's taking sides.

If a majority of families want X, the school system should probably do X. The schools are there to serve the parents and their children. We have an elected BOE, and open board meetings for this reason -- so the community can provide their input and the majority can vote for people who will steer the school system in the direction of the will of the people.

People did vote for the BOE members they wanted to steer the system. The candidate who was most outspoken about these issues was Bethany Mandel, and she came in third out of the three candidates in her primary.

As I stated before, there is a silent majority in MoCo that IS tolerant of LGBTQ rights and representation but does feel that some of the push with kids at the youngest levels is inappropriate. But they don't feel SO strongly about this that they're willing to protest and speak up about it, in part because they fear being labeled intolerant and homophobic.

Bethany Mandel didn't win her BOE seat because at the end of the day, MoCo is still a left-leaning county, and she was too right-wing and intolerant to be palatable with an electorate that WANTS to be progressive. But we are actually CENTER left, even though Takoma Park/Silver Spring can lean incredibly radical left and elect people that represent that extreme.

BOE members are elected by all MoCo voters.

Doesn’t mean voters have to acquiesce to everything the BOE is doing.

Trump was also elected by all voters fair and square. Does he get to do anything he wants?

The PP claimed that "Takoma Park/Silver Spring" elected the "extreme" people on the board, but that's not true, as all board members are elected countywide. And members from all five districts as well as the at-large and student members are in agreement on this issue.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’ve never once seen an example of a book that was actually being read in class that was actually offensive. The examples they have in the lawsuit seemed to be books that were on lists to possibly be read but no one ever seemed to say “yes my kids second grade teacher is reading this.”
It just seems like a huge non issue.

+1

Not one of these books was ever used in the classroom

The people are lying. They don't even have kids in public school. This lawsuit is absurd.

SCOTUS will give them this win God help all of us. It is not going to end well. UGH

That’s not true. My DD’s 4th grade class had to read the Boy Named Penelope book. I think that book is absolutely ridiculous and dangerous.

Huh? What on earth is "dangerous" about it? I've read it, it's a simple kids book about a kid who's trans... It honestly seems fine even for 5 year olds let alone 4th graders, nothing about genitals or sex or anything else folks might think is age-inappropriate, just a little trans kid being a kid. I can't imagine anything offensive or problematic about it, unless you don't think kids should know that trans kids exist? And even then, dangerous suggests someone could somehow be hurt by it and unless your kid is such a fragile snowflake you think they're going to collapse upon learning of the existence of trans kids (super weird if so), how could a book like this possibly hurt anyone?

It's dangerous because it presents as accepted, the idea that a 5-year-old can just decide that they are not the gender that they are born with and that there's no reason to question it and everyone should accept that 5-year-old's decision and if you don't, you're an intolerant bigot.

It is a book with an incredibly controversial political stance that is not widely accepted.

That's why it's dangerous. It's propaganda masquerading as ELA material.

But, like, how on earth does this actually hurt anyone? You guys must have really charmed lives if your definition of dangerous is "My kid might learn that some families and communities support trans kids" and that's the kind of "harm" you're concerned with...

It is dangerous because it is teaching an anti-science lesson. Sex and gender are not something that is guessed about or “assigned” at birth. It is an immutable reality.

I would be just as concerned if they were teaching the earth is flat and human were created by god through Adam and Eve.

No religion should be taught in public schools and that includes trans dogma.