Lawsuit targeting LGTBQ books in classrooms

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is already being discussed in another thread. It's incredibly disappointing because the groups suing here would be the ones immediately turned on and singled out to have books with them in it eliminated.

?

I would have no objection to kids being read books about devout Christian and Muslim kids. I do actually read my kids those types of books at home and would love to have them read at school too.

I think you misunderstood here. If you can single out books about or even featuring one type of person, you can single out books about or featuring another. The religious groups and families suing here to remove books with LGBTQ+ people will find that their win allows their peers to sue to remove books featuring a person of their faith.

+1 I grew up in a non-mainstream Christian denomination and my parents would ABSOLUTELY have asked to "opt out" of books with Muslim, Jewish, Hindu, and Catholic characters. Some of my classmates would have opted out of books where people celebrate birthdays, and others would have opted out of books with any type of magic or mystical creatures such as dragons or fairies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents need to stay in their lane and let the professionals educate children and make these decisions.

It’s precisely BECAUSE of parents like those who filed the suit that we must make children read these books. We are educating them to make society a better place, not to allow the perpetuation of backwards and hateful attitudes that some parents and their churches groom and indoctrinate children to believe.

Not wanting our kids be taught that it's easy peasy to change your gender at 5 years old is hateful??

DP. Actually, your characterization of the book "A boy named Penelope" as "teaching that it's easy peasy to change your gender at 5 years old" does indicate, to me, that you have a hateful attitude about this.

Do you think it’s appropriate to tell a 5 yo that they can easily change back and forth from a girl to a boy?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which part of her remarks did you find problematic. I read the entire article and agree with everything she said.

Moreover, I support her firm stance on this issue. This isn't an issue on which I want wobbly political answers from my elected officials - I want a clear statement that MCPS will not single out the existence of LGBTQ+ children and families as "controversial."

My kids school banned Halloween and Valentines Day as not being inclusive,but is mandating lgbtq books in classrooms. Just seems a little incongruous.

To be clear, MCPS is not "mandating" those books. They are simply adding them to the list of books that teachers could choose to read in class, and that librarians could choose to stock.

And to be clear, all the parents are asking is for the right to opt out.

How do kids opt out of books residing in a classroom? I think the point that this is not part of sex ed so there is no opt out option makes perfect sense. These aren't sexual issues.

Huh? Gender transition is definitely part of sex ed. Sex ed is not about having sex.

The opt out would be from being assigned the book or read out loud.

Gender does not equal sex. Gender is not about who you have sex with. Sex ed is partially about having sex. Maybe you are missing something.

Oh ffs. Here is the MoCo 5th grade Sex Ed curriculum. Gender transition is on topic. And if course, gender has a lot to do with having sex, don’t be obtuse.

https://www2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/curriculum/health/elementary/grade5/familylife

Families are also on topic.

A. Family Unit
4.5.A.1. Describe how family members influence the development of adolescents.
4.5.A.1.a. Describe the relationships that exist within a family.
4.5.A.1.b. Explain how family relationships may change during puberty.

Therefore, obviously, MCPS should provide notification and opt-out for any and all ELA books that have families in them! Right?

If the book is being used to teach a didactic lesson on families, yes. I mean, take issue with the law, not me.

None of these books are being used to teach "didactic lessons on families", unless you consider "not everybody's family is the same as your family" to be a didactic lesson.

Read the complaint.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which part of her remarks did you find problematic. I read the entire article and agree with everything she said.

Moreover, I support her firm stance on this issue. This isn't an issue on which I want wobbly political answers from my elected officials - I want a clear statement that MCPS will not single out the existence of LGBTQ+ children and families as "controversial."

My kids school banned Halloween and Valentines Day as not being inclusive,but is mandating lgbtq books in classrooms. Just seems a little incongruous.

To be clear, MCPS is not "mandating" those books. They are simply adding them to the list of books that teachers could choose to read in class, and that librarians could choose to stock.

And to be clear, all the parents are asking is for the right to opt out.

How do kids opt out of books residing in a classroom? I think the point that this is not part of sex ed so there is no opt out option makes perfect sense. These aren't sexual issues.

Huh? Gender transition is definitely part of sex ed. Sex ed is not about having sex.

The opt out would be from being assigned the book or read out loud.

Gender does not equal sex. Gender is not about who you have sex with. Sex ed is partially about having sex. Maybe you are missing something.

This is a new and political stance, not science. So the basis of your argument is not accepted by many people.

Gender is not political.

Restricting the discussion of gender is political.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents need to stay in their lane and let the professionals educate children and make these decisions.

It’s precisely BECAUSE of parents like those who filed the suit that we must make children read these books. We are educating them to make society a better place, not to allow the perpetuation of backwards and hateful attitudes that some parents and their churches groom and indoctrinate children to believe.

Not wanting our kids be taught that it's easy peasy to change your gender at 5 years old is hateful??

JFC! It's so easy peasy to have gender dysphoria that 80% of all trans kids have suicidal ideation and 40% attempt suicide.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32345113/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Parents need to stay in their lane and let the professionals educate children and make these decisions.

It’s precisely BECAUSE of parents like those who filed the suit that we must make children read these books. We are educating them to make society a better place, not to allow the perpetuation of backwards and hateful attitudes that some parents and their churches groom and indoctrinate children to believe.

Tell it to the Founders and the MD Legislature. Both MD law and the First Amendment give parents the right over some aspects of their child’s education. I am a supporter of LGBTQ rights, but public schools simply cannot “make children read these books” as the way to inculcate a contested ideology. These are fundamentally NEUTRAL principals that protect your kids from indoctrination that you disagree with too. (Imagine if they were forced to sit through the opposite lesson, like Florida would probably like to do?)

I said it upthread earlier: activists need to stop seeing public school as part of their cause. Public schools are neutral.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents need to stay in their lane and let the professionals educate children and make these decisions.

It’s precisely BECAUSE of parents like those who filed the suit that we must make children read these books. We are educating them to make society a better place, not to allow the perpetuation of backwards and hateful attitudes that some parents and their churches groom and indoctrinate children to believe.

LOL, professionals.... If professionals were left to teach, entire MCPS result will look horrible.

Yes. Professionals. SMEs with pedagogy training.

Parents don’t get a say in what should be taught in the classroom or what books should or should not be available. Their opinions are irrelevant and invalid. Parents don’t matter here — they are not important stakeholders and in fact often work against the interests of educating children. They sure are arrogant, though.

jfc. that’s a great line to alienate parents of all political stripes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents need to stay in their lane and let the professionals educate children and make these decisions.

It’s precisely BECAUSE of parents like those who filed the suit that we must make children read these books. We are educating them to make society a better place, not to allow the perpetuation of backwards and hateful attitudes that some parents and their churches groom and indoctrinate children to believe.

Tell it to the Founders and the MD Legislature. Both MD law and the First Amendment give parents the right over some aspects of their child’s education. I am a supporter of LGBTQ rights, but public schools simply cannot “make children read these books” as the way to inculcate a contested ideology. These are fundamentally NEUTRAL principals that protect your kids from indoctrination that you disagree with too. (Imagine if they were forced to sit through the opposite lesson, like Florida would probably like to do?)

I said it upthread earlier: activists need to stop seeing public school as part of their cause. Public schools are neutral.

Parents are welcome to home school their kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents need to stay in their lane and let the professionals educate children and make these decisions.

It’s precisely BECAUSE of parents like those who filed the suit that we must make children read these books. We are educating them to make society a better place, not to allow the perpetuation of backwards and hateful attitudes that some parents and their churches groom and indoctrinate children to believe.

Tell it to the Founders and the MD Legislature. Both MD law and the First Amendment give parents the right over some aspects of their child’s education. I am a supporter of LGBTQ rights, but public schools simply cannot “make children read these books” as the way to inculcate a contested ideology. These are fundamentally NEUTRAL principals that protect your kids from indoctrination that you disagree with too. (Imagine if they were forced to sit through the opposite lesson, like Florida would probably like to do?)

I said it upthread earlier: activists need to stop seeing public school as part of their cause. Public schools are neutral.

+1. Right wing and left wing activists are driving teachers from our schools with all their nonsense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm as liberal as they come and don't practice religion but it's getting a bit absurd and I know with my kids it's rammed into them constantly. They've had enough between this and mental health/suicide. They don't feel they can just be straight as several teachers push it (and yes, we see it). I prefer MCPS just stick to education not politics and advocacy for different groups and stay neutral. But, with that said, I'd just be impressed if they offered my kids books. We might have 1-2 a school year and otherwise it's short passages and heavy writing/research (which is good but they need more reading comprehension).

How does one do heavy writing/research without reading comprehension?

this is off topic but: I think PP is seeing that instead of actual books to read in their entirety, schools focus on short passages that kids have to analyze in a very rote and circumscribed way. eg “Identify two pieces of textual information that support the thesis …” So kids don’t develop the stamina to read longer books and don’t develop a richer understanding of the subject matter. Just disembodied 500 word exerpts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which part of her remarks did you find problematic. I read the entire article and agree with everything she said.

Moreover, I support her firm stance on this issue. This isn't an issue on which I want wobbly political answers from my elected officials - I want a clear statement that MCPS will not single out the existence of LGBTQ+ children and families as "controversial."

My kids school banned Halloween and Valentines Day as not being inclusive,but is mandating lgbtq books in classrooms. Just seems a little incongruous.

To be clear, MCPS is not "mandating" those books. They are simply adding them to the list of books that teachers could choose to read in class, and that librarians could choose to stock.

And to be clear, all the parents are asking is for the right to opt out.

How do kids opt out of books residing in a classroom? I think the point that this is not part of sex ed so there is no opt out option makes perfect sense. These aren't sexual issues.

Huh? Gender transition is definitely part of sex ed. Sex ed is not about having sex.

The opt out would be from being assigned the book or read out loud.

Gender does not equal sex. Gender is not about who you have sex with. Sex ed is partially about having sex. Maybe you are missing something.

This is a new and political stance, not science. So the basis of your argument is not accepted by many people.

Seriously. This is the issue. No one is debating anyone's existence, but these radical theories around sex/gender identity are THEORIES and OPINIONS. And many people are not onboard with this new wave. Hence the backlash.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents need to stay in their lane and let the professionals educate children and make these decisions.

It’s precisely BECAUSE of parents like those who filed the suit that we must make children read these books. We are educating them to make society a better place, not to allow the perpetuation of backwards and hateful attitudes that some parents and their churches groom and indoctrinate children to believe.

Tell it to the Founders and the MD Legislature. Both MD law and the First Amendment give parents the right over some aspects of their child’s education. I am a supporter of LGBTQ rights, but public schools simply cannot “make children read these books” as the way to inculcate a contested ideology. These are fundamentally NEUTRAL principals that protect your kids from indoctrination that you disagree with too. (Imagine if they were forced to sit through the opposite lesson, like Florida would probably like to do?)

I said it upthread earlier: activists need to stop seeing public school as part of their cause. Public schools are neutral.

A book with an LGBT character is neutral, unless you think acknowledging existence is taking a stance

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents need to stay in their lane and let the professionals educate children and make these decisions.

It’s precisely BECAUSE of parents like those who filed the suit that we must make children read these books. We are educating them to make society a better place, not to allow the perpetuation of backwards and hateful attitudes that some parents and their churches groom and indoctrinate children to believe.

Not wanting our kids be taught that it's easy peasy to change your gender at 5 years old is hateful??

DP. Actually, your characterization of the book "A boy named Penelope" as "teaching that it's easy peasy to change your gender at 5 years old" does indicate, to me, that you have a hateful attitude about this.

Do you think it’s appropriate to tell a 5 yo that they can easily change back and forth from a girl to a boy?

NP. Absolutely. They are 5. Sometimes a 5 yo identifies as a cat. Or a princess. Or a war hero. So what?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which part of her remarks did you find problematic. I read the entire article and agree with everything she said.

Moreover, I support her firm stance on this issue. This isn't an issue on which I want wobbly political answers from my elected officials - I want a clear statement that MCPS will not single out the existence of LGBTQ+ children and families as "controversial."

My kids school banned Halloween and Valentines Day as not being inclusive,but is mandating lgbtq books in classrooms. Just seems a little incongruous.

To be clear, MCPS is not "mandating" those books. They are simply adding them to the list of books that teachers could choose to read in class, and that librarians could choose to stock.

And to be clear, all the parents are asking is for the right to opt out.

How do kids opt out of books residing in a classroom? I think the point that this is not part of sex ed so there is no opt out option makes perfect sense. These aren't sexual issues.

Huh? Gender transition is definitely part of sex ed. Sex ed is not about having sex.

The opt out would be from being assigned the book or read out loud.

Gender does not equal sex. Gender is not about who you have sex with. Sex ed is partially about having sex. Maybe you are missing something.

This is a new and political stance, not science. So the basis of your argument is not accepted by many people.

That's silly. It's not new, and it is science. For example, it's impossible even to explain androgen insensitivity syndrome without distinguishing between sex and gender. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but nobody is entitled to their own facts.

Why do people who support abolishing gender norms point to defects as evidence of why the norms are not valid?

Kids are born with cleft palate. Does that mean human beings shouldn't naturally, and by default, be born with a lip that is fully closed and joined?

Defects or errors do not disprove the norm.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is already being discussed in another thread. It's incredibly disappointing because the groups suing here would be the ones immediately turned on and singled out to have books with them in it eliminated.

?

I would have no objection to kids being read books about devout Christian and Muslim kids. I do actually read my kids those types of books at home and would love to have them read at school too.

I think you misunderstood here. If you can single out books about or even featuring one type of person, you can single out books about or featuring another. The religious groups and families suing here to remove books with LGBTQ+ people will find that their win allows their peers to sue to remove books featuring a person of their faith.

No, it will be a factual matter. A religious book that provides religious instruction, with a teacher’s guide that tells the teacher to say eg “God created the planet in seven days and that is why the dinosaurs are only 2000 year old!” could be pulled as a 1st Amend violation. A religious book that objectively educates is OK. Heather has 2 mommies is OK. What’s not OK is a book on trans kids that instructs the teacher to give a specific lesson on gender ideology. Under MD law parents can opt out.