Community Message Concerning Access to the Carver Educational Services Center on Thursday, July 20

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LGBTQ books belong in the family life curriculum. Period.

So "Lilly's Big Day" (Lilly participates in the wedding of a man and a woman) belongs in the ELA curriculum, but "Uncle Bobby's Wedding" (Chloe participates in the wedding of a man and a man) belongs in the Family Life curriculum ("Period")? Why?

I don’t have a problem with books about adults getting married. It’s the ones that portray kids and gender or romance (gay or not). There are books about changing genders and about a crush someone has on another kid who happens to be the same sex. Those don’t belong in ELA.

Ah. So "Kyle's First Crush" (Kyle has a crush on a girl) belongs in the ELA curriculum, but "Love, Violet" (Violet has a crush on a girl) belongs in the Family Life curriculum? Why?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LGBTQ books belong in the family life curriculum. Period.

So "Lilly's Big Day" (Lilly participates in the wedding of a man and a woman) belongs in the ELA curriculum, but "Uncle Bobby's Wedding" (Chloe participates in the wedding of a man and a man) belongs in the Family Life curriculum ("Period")? Why?

I don’t have a problem with books about adults getting married. It’s the ones that portray kids and gender or romance (gay or not). There are books about changing genders and about a crush someone has on another kid who happens to be the same sex. Those don’t belong in ELA.

Romeo and Juliet MUST BE BANNED!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Me again (the PP who posted without thinking about the Family Life education in MCPS elementary school). I guess people better start opting their kids out of the insidious dangers of the kindergarten Family Life curriculum? Because if just *books* about families that are LGBTQ are already too much, actual families that are LGBTQ must be way, way, way over the line.

A. Family Unit
4.K.A.1. Define a family unit.
4.K.A.1.a.
Describe what is a family.
4.K.A.1.b.
Label who is in your family.
4.K.A.1.c.
Explain/Interpret where you fit in your family structure.
4.K.A.1.d.
Analyze family structures in media.

https://moco360.media/2023/07/20/volume-of-lgbtq-opt-out-requests-caused-significant-disruptions-mcps-says-in-legal-filing/

MCPS removed opt-out because too many people opted out...

MCPS removed opt-out of the ELA curriculum because the opt-out was disruptive. There is still an opt-out of the Family Life and Human Sexuality curriculum (except for HIV and AIDS prevention). So don't worry, you can opt your kindergartner out of describing what is a family, labeling who is in their family, explaining/interpreting where they fit in their family structure, and analyzing family structures in media.

MCPS used to allow people to opt out of certain ELA lessons, but MCPS discontinued it this year because too many opted out.

MCPS can accommodate the opt-outs if they group their ELA LGBTQ lessons together.

The court must balance the plaintiffs' religious rights and MCPS's educational goals.

I think the court will grant the plaintiffs' preliminary injunction to preserve the old system while the court case progresses.

It's not about "religious rights." People have a right to choose whether or not to send their child to public school; they do not have a right to choose how public school teaches their child. And the no-opt-out policy applies equally to people with religious objections to the ELA curriculum and people with non-religious objections to the ELA curriculum. (Or do you think that people with religious objections should be allowed to opt their children out, but people with non-religious objections should not be allowed to opt their children out?)

As for your truly appalling idea of a separate-but-equal ELA curriculum for LGBTQ students and/or students with LGBTQ families: "MCPS cannot ensure that it is providing a classroom environment that is safe for all students, that allows LGBTQ students to thrive, and that meets its obligations under state and federal laws, if students can be excused from class any time their teacher uses the LGBTQ Inclusive Books."

Finally, it's not possible to "preserve" a policy that no longer exists. The current policy is: no opt-out of any curriculum, except the Family Life and Human Sexuality curriculum as required by state law.

MCPS changed the rules this year, and that prompted the plaintiffs to sue.

If the Maryland District Court does not grant the plaintiffs' preliminary injunction, it will be immediately appealed to the Fourth Circuit. If the Fourth Circuit does not grant it, it will be appealed to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court will almost certainly grant it.

Says your crystal ball.

People who are interested can read MCPS's legal filing here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L0BKX9u-EuvS8B2pkvB0zY58eqUsDSfg/view?pli=1

The PP thinks if they keep sharing the legal filing that people are going to actual read and agree with it 😂

That's up to you. If you don't want to read it, don't read it. I don't care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LGBTQ books belong in the family life curriculum. Period.

So "Lilly's Big Day" (Lilly participates in the wedding of a man and a woman) belongs in the ELA curriculum, but "Uncle Bobby's Wedding" (Chloe participates in the wedding of a man and a man) belongs in the Family Life curriculum ("Period")? Why?

I don’t have a problem with books about adults getting married. It’s the ones that portray kids and gender or romance (gay or not). There are books about changing genders and about a crush someone has on another kid who happens to be the same sex. Those don’t belong in ELA.

Romeo and Juliet MUST BE BANNED!!!!

Peanuts, too. Charlie Brown and the little red haired girl? Peppermint Patty and Charlie Brown? Lucy and Schroeder? Inappropriate! Period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LGBTQ books belong in the family life curriculum. Period.

So "Lilly's Big Day" (Lilly participates in the wedding of a man and a woman) belongs in the ELA curriculum, but "Uncle Bobby's Wedding" (Chloe participates in the wedding of a man and a man) belongs in the Family Life curriculum ("Period")? Why?

I don’t have a problem with books about adults getting married. It’s the ones that portray kids and gender or romance (gay or not). There are books about changing genders and about a crush someone has on another kid who happens to be the same sex. Those don’t belong in ELA.

Ah. So "Kyle's First Crush" (Kyle has a crush on a girl) belongs in the ELA curriculum, but "Love, Violet" (Violet has a crush on a girl) belongs in the Family Life curriculum? Why?

Nope I didnt say that. Reread my post in bold.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LGBTQ books belong in the family life curriculum. Period.

So "Lilly's Big Day" (Lilly participates in the wedding of a man and a woman) belongs in the ELA curriculum, but "Uncle Bobby's Wedding" (Chloe participates in the wedding of a man and a man) belongs in the Family Life curriculum ("Period")? Why?

I don’t have a problem with books about adults getting married. It’s the ones that portray kids and gender or romance (gay or not). There are books about changing genders and about a crush someone has on another kid who happens to be the same sex. Those don’t belong in ELA.

Romeo and Juliet MUST BE BANNED!!!!

Romeo and Juliet is high school level reading. Ninth grade for my kid. Not appropriate for elementary school. So yes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LGBTQ books belong in the family life curriculum. Period.

So "Lilly's Big Day" (Lilly participates in the wedding of a man and a woman) belongs in the ELA curriculum, but "Uncle Bobby's Wedding" (Chloe participates in the wedding of a man and a man) belongs in the Family Life curriculum ("Period")? Why?

I don’t have a problem with books about adults getting married. It’s the ones that portray kids and gender or romance (gay or not). There are books about changing genders and about a crush someone has on another kid who happens to be the same sex. Those don’t belong in ELA.

Ah. So "Kyle's First Crush" (Kyle has a crush on a girl) belongs in the ELA curriculum, but "Love, Violet" (Violet has a crush on a girl) belongs in the Family Life curriculum? Why?

Nope I didnt say that. Reread my post in bold.

So, no books in elementary school about any kind of kids having any kind of crush of any sort on any kind of person? Wow. That's a take.

Time to ban "Are You There God? It's Me, Margaret" again, I guess.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LGBTQ books belong in the family life curriculum. Period.

So "Lilly's Big Day" (Lilly participates in the wedding of a man and a woman) belongs in the ELA curriculum, but "Uncle Bobby's Wedding" (Chloe participates in the wedding of a man and a man) belongs in the Family Life curriculum ("Period")? Why?

I don’t have a problem with books about adults getting married. It’s the ones that portray kids and gender or romance (gay or not). There are books about changing genders and about a crush someone has on another kid who happens to be the same sex. Those don’t belong in ELA.

Romeo and Juliet MUST BE BANNED!!!!

Jokes on you. MCPS no longer requires kids to read Shakespeare anyway. You pretty much have to choose and sign up for Shakespeare classes if you want that exposure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LGBTQ books belong in the family life curriculum. Period.

So "Lilly's Big Day" (Lilly participates in the wedding of a man and a woman) belongs in the ELA curriculum, but "Uncle Bobby's Wedding" (Chloe participates in the wedding of a man and a man) belongs in the Family Life curriculum ("Period")? Why?

I don’t have a problem with books about adults getting married. It’s the ones that portray kids and gender or romance (gay or not). There are books about changing genders and about a crush someone has on another kid who happens to be the same sex. Those don’t belong in ELA.

Romeo and Juliet MUST BE BANNED!!!!

Jokes on you. MCPS no longer requires kids to read Shakespeare anyway. You pretty much have to choose and sign up for Shakespeare classes if you want that exposure.

What? My daughter (private school) read it in ninth grade last year and is reading Macbeth this year. Wow, I feel like moving her out of mcps was a good move.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LGBTQ books belong in the family life curriculum. Period.

So "Lilly's Big Day" (Lilly participates in the wedding of a man and a woman) belongs in the ELA curriculum, but "Uncle Bobby's Wedding" (Chloe participates in the wedding of a man and a man) belongs in the Family Life curriculum ("Period")? Why?

I don’t have a problem with books about adults getting married. It’s the ones that portray kids and gender or romance (gay or not). There are books about changing genders and about a crush someone has on another kid who happens to be the same sex. Those don’t belong in ELA.

Romeo and Juliet MUST BE BANNED!!!!

Jokes on you. MCPS no longer requires kids to read Shakespeare anyway. You pretty much have to choose and sign up for Shakespeare classes if you want that exposure.

What? My daughter (private school) read it in ninth grade last year and is reading Macbeth this year. Wow, I feel like moving her out of mcps was a good move.

As another private school parent, this kind of reply embarrasses me. I mean, good for us? It's not like everyone can afford to send their kids to an independent school, and you sound tone deaf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LGBTQ books belong in the family life curriculum. Period.

So "Lilly's Big Day" (Lilly participates in the wedding of a man and a woman) belongs in the ELA curriculum, but "Uncle Bobby's Wedding" (Chloe participates in the wedding of a man and a man) belongs in the Family Life curriculum ("Period")? Why?

I don’t have a problem with books about adults getting married. It’s the ones that portray kids and gender or romance (gay or not). There are books about changing genders and about a crush someone has on another kid who happens to be the same sex. Those don’t belong in ELA.

Romeo and Juliet MUST BE BANNED!!!!

Jokes on you. MCPS no longer requires kids to read Shakespeare anyway. You pretty much have to choose and sign up for Shakespeare classes if you want that exposure.

As of when? This past year (2022-2023)? Because my kid read Shakespeare the year before that (2021-2022).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am not religious person, but I wouldn't want gender change ideas being taught to my 6 years old son. Thankfully some parents are fighting the good cause and MCPS is the problem here.

I am also not religious, but I have two degrees in Science and everything I have been taught makes me comfortable with the concept that gender is an assigned quality. It is not something that you can change.

I also don't want MCPS teaching my elementary school aged kid that he can change his gender. That is simply not true. He can wear dresses and enjoy 'girly' activities. But, he is a boy doing that.

MCPS has gone too far with this. I hope this lawsuit gains some traction and I hope the protesters get their voices heard.

Lol. If you really had a degree in science you would understand gender and biological sex are two different things. Please leave the field. You are an embarrassment to us.

For years gender was commonly understood to be the polite term to refer to biological sex. For cultures that were shocked by ankles and required fig leaves for statues, “gender” was a much more refined and acceptable term than “sex”. Relatively recently, academics decided to redefine gender as something separate from sex.

Languages evolve and words get redefined. That seems to be currently happening with “gender”, but the widespread cultural debate seems a clear indication that that redefinition is not complete. You can certainly describe the difference between biological sex and what you call gender. You can define gender however you wish. But a new definition doesn’t automatically make an older definition wrong. Moreover, even if a new definition is universally adopted, it doesn’t mean that the concept behind the new definition has more merit than the concept behind another definition, even an obsolete one.

Basically, the while point of language is communication. In areas where there is disagreement on how to define a term, it might behoove both sides to drop the term altogether and instead speak directly to the concept they were trying to convey by using the disputes term. The respective arguments need to be evaluated on their actual merits. Dismissing an argument because they’re using a term “wrong” may be convenient, but it is bad logic amd blocks communication.

Common sense is not common, but you NAILED IT.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

For years gender was commonly understood to be the polite term to refer to biological sex. For cultures that were shocked by ankles and required fig leaves for statues, “gender” was a much more refined and acceptable term than “sex”. Relatively recently, academics decided to redefine gender as something separate from sex.

Languages evolve and words get redefined. That seems to be currently happening with “gender”, but the widespread cultural debate seems a clear indication that that redefinition is not complete. You can certainly describe the difference between biological sex and what you call gender. You can define gender however you wish. But a new definition doesn’t automatically make an older definition wrong. Moreover, even if a new definition is universally adopted, it doesn’t mean that the concept behind the new definition has more merit than the concept behind another definition, even an obsolete one.

Basically, the while point of language is communication. In areas where there is disagreement on how to define a term, it might behoove both sides to drop the term altogether and instead speak directly to the concept they were trying to convey by using the disputes term. The respective arguments need to be evaluated on their actual merits. Dismissing an argument because they’re using a term “wrong” may be convenient, but it is bad logic amd blocks communication.

Nah. For years, gender was commonly understand to be a term in linguistics. For example, in Latin and Romance languages, nouns have gender. In Hebrew, verbs are gendered.

And then, in the just last few decades, in the US, it became a euphemism for "sex", for example "gender reveal parties". But even so we do still use the word "sex", for example in sexism and sexist.

The culture that was shocked by ankles and required fig leaves for statues actually used the term "sex". "The fair sex," for example. Or sometimes even just "the sex" (meaning women). Or:

"We are warriors three,
Sons of Gama, Rex,
Like most sons are we,
Masculine in sex."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LGBTQ books belong in the family life curriculum. Period.

So "Lilly's Big Day" (Lilly participates in the wedding of a man and a woman) belongs in the ELA curriculum, but "Uncle Bobby's Wedding" (Chloe participates in the wedding of a man and a man) belongs in the Family Life curriculum ("Period")? Why?

I don’t have a problem with books about adults getting married. It’s the ones that portray kids and gender or romance (gay or not). There are books about changing genders and about a crush someone has on another kid who happens to be the same sex. Those don’t belong in ELA.

Romeo and Juliet MUST BE BANNED!!!!

Jokes on you. MCPS no longer requires kids to read Shakespeare anyway. You pretty much have to choose and sign up for Shakespeare classes if you want that exposure.

As of when? This past year (2022-2023)? Because my kid read Shakespeare the year before that (2021-2022).

My 10th grader hasn't ready Shakespeare in either 9th or 10th grade.

When I was in MCPS, we read Romeo + Juliet in 9th and in 10th grade I think it was Merchant of Venice?

Anyway, our DCC high school is majority black and brown so I think they justified doing away with requiring Shakespeare because it's not "culturally relevant" to our school population. So some of this might vary by school within MCPS.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:LGBTQ books belong in the family life curriculum. Period.

So "Lilly's Big Day" (Lilly participates in the wedding of a man and a woman) belongs in the ELA curriculum, but "Uncle Bobby's Wedding" (Chloe participates in the wedding of a man and a man) belongs in the Family Life curriculum ("Period")? Why?

I don’t have a problem with books about adults getting married. It’s the ones that portray kids and gender or romance (gay or not). There are books about changing genders and about a crush someone has on another kid who happens to be the same sex. Those don’t belong in ELA.

Romeo and Juliet MUST BE BANNED!!!!

Jokes on you. MCPS no longer requires kids to read Shakespeare anyway. You pretty much have to choose and sign up for Shakespeare classes if you want that exposure.

As of when? This past year (2022-2023)? Because my kid read Shakespeare the year before that (2021-2022).

My 10th grader hasn't ready Shakespeare in either 9th or 10th grade.

When I was in MCPS, we read Romeo + Juliet in 9th and in 10th grade I think it was Merchant of Venice?

Anyway, our DCC high school is majority black and brown so I think they justified doing away with requiring Shakespeare because it's not "culturally relevant" to our school population. So some of this might vary by school within MCPS.

I'm the PP you're responding to, whose kid had Shakespeare in high school, and my kid's non-DCC MCPS high school is also majority Black and Hispanic.

I do think there's an argument to be made (including by John McWhorter, of all people) that Shakespeare is not linguistically relevant anymore. You need an awful lot of footnotes to be able to understand Shakespeare properly. Or Shmoop.