Wall Street Journal on Gender Storytime in Montgomery County

[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.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

They DID object and MCPS said tough, you can’t stop us and your kid cannot opt out.

So now it is at the SCOTUS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

They DID object and MCPS said tough, you can’t stop us and your kid cannot opt out.

So now it is at the SCOTUS.

Correct. MCPS's hubris and unwillingness to compromise and collaborate got them here.

[Anonymous]

Based on WaPo's reporting, as predicted, it seems like MCPS is gonna lose: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/04/22/supreme-court-lgbtq-books-storytime-montgomery-maryland/

During more than two-and-a-half hours of argument on Tuesday, several justices read aloud from the text of the disputed storybooks, some of which referred to drag queens and same-sex marriage. Conservative justices repeatedly pressed the lawyer for the Maryland school system on why it could not easily accommodate the religious parents and allow their children to opt out of objectionable curriculum.

“What’s the big deal about allowing them to opt out,” asked Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

“I’m not understanding why it’s not feasible,” added Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh, who said he was “mystified” by the school board’s actions in the Maryland county where he grew up in and still lives.

Montgomery County expanded its English Language Arts curriculum in 2022 to include books with LGBTQ+ characters to better reflect the diversity of families in its religiously diverse and politically liberal population. The elementary-school aged books included stories about a girl who finds that her favorite uncle’s marriage means she’s gaining another uncle, not losing one. Another tells the story of a young girl who has a crush on her female classmate.

[Anonymous]

WOW. Excellent op-ed in NYTimes about how MCPS could have and should have avoided this case going to the Supreme Court: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/18/opinion/lgbtq-books-supreme-court.html?searchResultPosition=3

I can’t decide which conceit is more delusional: The school district grandstanding about social tolerance while forcing a minority of religious families to engage with books they consider immoral or the religious parents claiming that they can’t properly rear their children in faith if the kids get exposed to a few picture books. Both positions, it seems to me, rest on a cartoonishly inflated sense of school’s influence on children. And both seek an ideologically purified classroom while underestimating the sweep of ideas and information kids absorb simply by existing in our world.

Most of all, I feel that our community’s failure to resolve a thoroughly predictable tension with the time-tested tools of straight talk, compromise and extending one another a little grace has made for a demoralizing spectacle. And I can’t help but notice that our district, in its clumsy efforts to force tolerance, might have given the Supreme Court an opening to repress L.G.B.T.Q.-related speech in the nation’s schools.

There wasn’t much fanfare or outcry when, just as a school year began in 2022, the district added a handful of L.G.B.T.Q.-inclusive storybooks to the elementary English curriculum. For example, “Pride Puppy!,” an alphabet book in which a pet dog gets lost at a Pride celebration, includes a search-and-find list for incipient readers with words like “leather,” “[drag] queen” and “intersex.” In the fairy tale “Prince & Knight,” a handsome prince rejects a parade of princesses before realizing that he would rather marry a knight. “Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope” was written by the mother of a trans boy.

Many of us were oblivious to the whole thing and — in my case, anyway — wouldn’t have complained about the books even if we’d known. Some parents who paid closer attention could and did opt out, but that didn’t draw much attention, either.

That’s probably because there is nothing very remarkable about the subtle but widespread use of opting out in American schooling. Our district (in accordance with state law, like most in the United States) has long allowed parents to opt their children out of health classes about sex and what the county calls “family life.” Even the most liberal U.S. enclaves (San Francisco; Portland, Ore.; Boston; Minneapolis) let parents excuse their kids from sex education. Giving parents the chance to opt out has, in fact, prevailed as the more open-minded approach; some states (Utah, Nevada, North Carolina) require parents to opt kids in before they are taught about sex.

But a few months after introducing the books at the county’s elementary schools, the district announced, for reasons that remain unclear, that families would no longer be allowed to opt out when the books were taught. In its legal filings, the district explained that there were simply too many parents trying to opt out, causing complicated logistics, driving absenteeism, and creating a risk of “exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families to social stigma and isolation.”

Hisham Garti, who met with district officials as a Muslim community representative, said he was told that the decision to end opt-outs came about after L.G.B.T.Q. families reported that their children’s feelings were hurt when their classmates left the room to avoid the books. He told me that he was sympathetic to the students but that religious pupils had also suffered stigma. Some of them, he said, were shamed over their families’ request to opt out.

Whatever the reason, once the opt-out was gone, everything heated up. A diverse group of parents — including Muslims, Ethiopian Orthodox Christians, Jews and Catholics — demanded the opt-out’s restoration. They railed at school board meetings. They held street protests. Their numbers grew. Meanwhile, the district refused to budge.

“It was extremely poorly handled by one of the biggest school districts in the U.S.,” Mr. Garti told me recently. “They allowed it to be politicized. I feel like, in the end, they knew they were wrong. But they wouldn’t back down.”

[Anonymous]

A little bit more from the NYTimes op-ed cause this is good:

The district also argued in court that the books told “archetypal stories that touch on the same themes introduced to children in such classic books as ‘Snow White,’ ‘Cinderella’ and ‘Peter Pan.’” The characters happened to be L.G.B.T.Q., the argument went, but their sexuality and gender identity were not the point of the book. School board members have also made this argument.

I don’t believe it’s true — and I say that as someone who’d like to keep the books around. Some of the books in question are stories specifically about the revelation of gender identity or sexual orientation. It’s disingenuous to pretend that a roomful of very young readers won’t end up grappling with the very topics of sexuality that parents can opt out of in health class.

The elementary school principals didn’t buy it, either. After reviewing the books, the association of unionized principals sent an alarmed letter to top Montgomery County Public School district officials. It reminded them that the county had described the books as promoting inclusivity by showcasing L.G.B.T.Q. characters.

“It has been communicated that M.C.P.S. is not teaching about sexual orientation and gender identity as stand-alone concepts in elementary school,” the letter said. “However, several of the books and supporting documents seem to contradict this message.”

The principals warned that the books might not be appropriate for primary school, that the teachers didn’t have proper training to present them and that some parents were concerned about hidden agendas and indoctrination. The letter noted that principals were facing parents who “vehemently” wanted the books kept from their children, as well as parent groups with “strong support” for the books. In short, decisions about the books could “significantly damage school-community relationships.”

Nevertheless, after listening to a student tell the school board the topics were “unsettling” because they contradicted her religious beliefs, a board member, Lynne Harris, told a reporter she felt “kind of sorry” for the girl and speculated that she may be “parroting dogma.” Other times Ms. Harris, who was not re-elected last fall, accused the parents of “hate” and ascribed to them “a judgmental view and a belief that not everybody is OK.” (Ms. Harris didn’t reply when I emailed her for comment.)