Glad MCPS is getting sued

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some of these books are problematic and I can understand why parents want to opt-out. I think MCPS has a good chance of losing based on freedom of religion grounds.

My daughter was forced to read a Boy Named Penelope and we don't agree with the viewpoints expressed in that book. I think it's dangerous for MCPS to take a stance on gender theory. None of this stuff is settled and we are very much in the throes of a societal debate about it, so people acting like people who disagree are neanderthals are wrong. There's lots of room for shades of gray here, but the activists won't allow it.

I think they are opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students. The religious right doesn't get to decide for everyone any more and they are having a hissy fit about it.

They are not opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students because Muslim parents are TELLING you these books and teachings about LGBTQ sexual norms and family structures VIOLATE their faith. They're not the only ones who this applies to.

You can't say you're inclusive for all when a significant chunk of students, who are Muslim or more conservative Christian, tell you this violates their faith. You're choosing to offend some to please others. And that's fine. But that's NOT inclusive and is the opposite of that.

I'm going to the church of the spaghetti monster and stupidity greatly offends me. I think we should have it banned. Does anyone want to join me in the class action against stupidity?

1. Get your church recognized as a church

2. File a lawsuit and try your luck

1. That is a church

2. They are both very litigious and very successful in their litigation.

Then may the best church win.

HOw about we keep religion out of schools altogether? Instill those values at home if you wish, but I don't care what religious sensibilities the curriculum is offending.

I think we could all get behind that if you would admit that your efforts to promote certain social and environmental agendas were also a religion (see definition of "dogma").

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some of these books are problematic and I can understand why parents want to opt-out. I think MCPS has a good chance of losing based on freedom of religion grounds.

My daughter was forced to read a Boy Named Penelope and we don't agree with the viewpoints expressed in that book. I think it's dangerous for MCPS to take a stance on gender theory. None of this stuff is settled and we are very much in the throes of a societal debate about it, so people acting like people who disagree are neanderthals are wrong. There's lots of room for shades of gray here, but the activists won't allow it.

I think they are opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students. The religious right doesn't get to decide for everyone any more and they are having a hissy fit about it.

They are not opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students because Muslim parents are TELLING you these books and teachings about LGBTQ sexual norms and family structures VIOLATE their faith. They're not the only ones who this applies to.

You can't say you're inclusive for all when a significant chunk of students, who are Muslim or more conservative Christian, tell you this violates their faith. You're choosing to offend some to please others. And that's fine. But that's NOT inclusive and is the opposite of that.

I'm going to the church of the spaghetti monster and stupidity greatly offends me. I think we should have it banned. Does anyone want to join me in the class action against stupidity?

1. Get your church recognized as a church

2. File a lawsuit and try your luck

1. That is a church

2. They are both very litigious and very successful in their litigation.

Then may the best church win.

HOw about we keep religion out of schools altogether? Instill those values at home if you wish, but I don't care what religious sensibilities the curriculum is offending.

I think we could all get behind that if you would admit that your efforts to promote certain social and environmental agendas were also a religion (see definition of "dogma").

What an anti-religious definition of religion. The religious people I know do not consider their religion to consist exclusively, or even principally, of dogma.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Personally, I couldn't care less what they say about LGBTQ+. I applaud their efforts to teach children to respect everyone's differences (except Asians, who seem to be invisible to them).

Of course, except for all of the parent meetings specifically for AAPI parents, and the fact that three of the six languages in which MCPS typically communicates are Asian languages. Invisible except for that.

I was talking about OUR school, who is making all these efforts to reach out to other groups, but never Asians. And I know why. There are no Asian staff or teachers. All the top students are Asians. It's a case of "well you guys do so well you don't need any help", which is not the point at all of making efforts to include various populations. On the contrary, it gives the vibe they're deliberately trying to downplay these kids' achievements.

Also, our school offer French and Spanish. Which last time I checked, are not Asian languages.

Dumbass.

So sick and tired of Asians carrying on like they are disadvantaged minorities

We are disadvantaged for college admissions. We were targeted during Covid - Asian-Americans were KILLED and INJURED because of hate against us. And your racist comment proves that people are willing to discriminate against an entire population merely because you see us as different.

Well guess what? We're not going to vote Democrat in the future if you insist on ignoring us and keep implementing "equity" regulations that end up hurting us. Democrats keep taking minorities, including us, for granted, and then don't do a single constructive thing for them. I am against affirmative action, for a start. From where I stand, it's just another way Asians can be pushed aside.

Okay, so your plan is to vote for the party whose elected leaders vilified Asians during COVID and got them killed because you're mad that your kids might learn some families have two moms?

Cool cool cool.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/05/20/politics/republicans-voted-no-asian-hate-crime-bill/index.html

https://americanindependent.com/republicans-congress-kn95-masks-anti-asian-china-covid-coronavirus/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Health/trumps-chinese-virus-tweet-helped-lead-rise-racist/story%3fid=76530148

Telling the truth about China and COVID is not "vilifying Asians" and I think you might want to check the political party of all of those people inflicting hate crimes on Asians. I think you would be surprised... And why does every DCUM thread have to devolve into a Trump bashing session. It is irrelevant to the thread.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some of these books are problematic and I can understand why parents want to opt-out. I think MCPS has a good chance of losing based on freedom of religion grounds.

My daughter was forced to read a Boy Named Penelope and we don't agree with the viewpoints expressed in that book. I think it's dangerous for MCPS to take a stance on gender theory. None of this stuff is settled and we are very much in the throes of a societal debate about it, so people acting like people who disagree are neanderthals are wrong. There's lots of room for shades of gray here, but the activists won't allow it.

I think they are opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students. The religious right doesn't get to decide for everyone any more and they are having a hissy fit about it.

Do you see the irony in your statement? Choosing books that are both highly controversial and offensive to many, many people (especially in elementary school) is not inclusive on its face. It is supporting a minority social agenda. Because the law requires children to attend school, and because it is administered by the government, there should be humility on the part of administrators and teachers about choosing curricula that everyone can get behind.

Could you please explain what is highly controversial and offensive about these books, which are about:

1. a child and a parent who go to a parade (a Pride parade)
2. a child who is upset that her uncle is getting married and will have less time for her (her uncle is marrying a man)
3. an autistic child who wants long hair now, so the mother makes a wig with long hair (the child is a transgender girl)
4. a prince who doesn't want to marry any of the people his parents have picked out for him but then finds his true love while killing a dragon (the true love is a knight in shining armor)
5. a child who has a crush on another child in class at school (both children are girls)
6. a child who expresses unhappiness through bad behavior until the mother makes things better (the unhappiness is due to the conflict between the child's assigned (girl) and felt (boy) gender identity)

Thanks.
5.
3.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We've done away with all things Halloween for elementary children. Tons of families associate it with demonic things and it doesn't align with their religions and values. MCPS made it the autumn festival or harvest or whatever to make it inclusive and no more costumes. We adapted and decided that those who celebrate Halloween can do so after school. We do not make the kids who do not celebrate feel irrational, less than or that something is wrong with them; we just do not spend time on it in school.

Tons of families have issues with this LGBTQIA affirming curriculum for a variety of reasons--religious, feel it is not age appropriate, much of it is still being debated and understood....why are these families viewed as irrational, intolerant or less than? Pride parade away, change your gender, discuss ad nauseam how the inside doesn't match your outside....but do it outside of school.

+1

-2 It Sounds like they need to learn tolerance.

I’ve said this from the very beginning. When mcps started taking out Christmas, Halloween, Valentine’s Day in favor of vague celebrations, you were setting yourself up for a slippery slope on other topics. Family life?!

What I feel mcps is saying is: we acknowledge your religious sensitivities on these topics, but we don’t acknowledge it on those topics. And because of that, they now have a lawsuit on their hands.

It’s not that I agree or disagree with these topics-
It’s irrelevant, but I do agree that these families have the right to opt out. Just like they opt out on family life and festivities.

I know! I had my kids opt out of Earth Science because they were teaching the world was round, and the Bible says it's flat.

The Bible says the Earth is flat?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Personally, I couldn't care less what they say about LGBTQ+. I applaud their efforts to teach children to respect everyone's differences (except Asians, who seem to be invisible to them).

Of course, except for all of the parent meetings specifically for AAPI parents, and the fact that three of the six languages in which MCPS typically communicates are Asian languages. Invisible except for that.

I was talking about OUR school, who is making all these efforts to reach out to other groups, but never Asians. And I know why. There are no Asian staff or teachers. All the top students are Asians. It's a case of "well you guys do so well you don't need any help", which is not the point at all of making efforts to include various populations. On the contrary, it gives the vibe they're deliberately trying to downplay these kids' achievements.

Also, our school offer French and Spanish. Which last time I checked, are not Asian languages.

Dumbass.

So sick and tired of Asians carrying on like they are disadvantaged minorities

We are disadvantaged for college admissions. We were targeted during Covid - Asian-Americans were KILLED and INJURED because of hate against us. And your racist comment proves that people are willing to discriminate against an entire population merely because you see us as different.

Well guess what? We're not going to vote Democrat in the future if you insist on ignoring us and keep implementing "equity" regulations that end up hurting us. Democrats keep taking minorities, including us, for granted, and then don't do a single constructive thing for them. I am against affirmative action, for a start. From where I stand, it's just another way Asians can be pushed aside.

Okay, so your plan is to vote for the party whose elected leaders vilified Asians during COVID and got them killed because you're mad that your kids might learn some families have two moms?

Cool cool cool.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/05/20/politics/republicans-voted-no-asian-hate-crime-bill/index.html

https://americanindependent.com/republicans-congress-kn95-masks-anti-asian-china-covid-coronavirus/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/Health/trumps-chinese-virus-tweet-helped-lead-rise-racist/story%3fid=76530148

Telling the truth about China and COVID is not "vilifying Asians" and I think you might want to check the political party of all of those people inflicting hate crimes on Asians. I think you would be surprised... And why does every DCUM thread have to devolve into a Trump bashing session. It is irrelevant to the thread.

Probably for the same reason that MAGA astroturfers like yourself show up here to start culture wars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We've done away with all things Halloween for elementary children. Tons of families associate it with demonic things and it doesn't align with their religions and values. MCPS made it the autumn festival or harvest or whatever to make it inclusive and no more costumes. We adapted and decided that those who celebrate Halloween can do so after school. We do not make the kids who do not celebrate feel irrational, less than or that something is wrong with them; we just do not spend time on it in school.

Tons of families have issues with this LGBTQIA affirming curriculum for a variety of reasons--religious, feel it is not age appropriate, much of it is still being debated and understood....why are these families viewed as irrational, intolerant or less than? Pride parade away, change your gender, discuss ad nauseam how the inside doesn't match your outside....but do it outside of school.

+1

-2 It Sounds like they need to learn tolerance.

I’ve said this from the very beginning. When mcps started taking out Christmas, Halloween, Valentine’s Day in favor of vague celebrations, you were setting yourself up for a slippery slope on other topics. Family life?!

What I feel mcps is saying is: we acknowledge your religious sensitivities on these topics, but we don’t acknowledge it on those topics. And because of that, they now have a lawsuit on their hands.

It’s not that I agree or disagree with these topics-
It’s irrelevant, but I do agree that these families have the right to opt out. Just like they opt out on family life and festivities.

I know! I had my kids opt out of Earth Science because they were teaching the world was round, and the Bible says it's flat.

The Bible says the Earth is flat?

There was even a diagram in Genesis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We've done away with all things Halloween for elementary children. Tons of families associate it with demonic things and it doesn't align with their religions and values. MCPS made it the autumn festival or harvest or whatever to make it inclusive and no more costumes. We adapted and decided that those who celebrate Halloween can do so after school. We do not make the kids who do not celebrate feel irrational, less than or that something is wrong with them; we just do not spend time on it in school.

Tons of families have issues with this LGBTQIA affirming curriculum for a variety of reasons--religious, feel it is not age appropriate, much of it is still being debated and understood....why are these families viewed as irrational, intolerant or less than? Pride parade away, change your gender, discuss ad nauseam how the inside doesn't match your outside....but do it outside of school.

+1

-2 It Sounds like they need to learn tolerance.

I’ve said this from the very beginning. When mcps started taking out Christmas, Halloween, Valentine’s Day in favor of vague celebrations, you were setting yourself up for a slippery slope on other topics. Family life?!

What I feel mcps is saying is: we acknowledge your religious sensitivities on these topics, but we don’t acknowledge it on those topics. And because of that, they now have a lawsuit on their hands.

It’s not that I agree or disagree with these topics-
It’s irrelevant, but I do agree that these families have the right to opt out. Just like they opt out on family life and festivities.

I know! I had my kids opt out of Earth Science because they were teaching the world was round, and the Bible says it's flat.

The Bible says the Earth is flat?

There was even a diagram in Genesis.

It also was clear that women and children were chattel and slavery was okay.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We've done away with all things Halloween for elementary children. Tons of families associate it with demonic things and it doesn't align with their religions and values. MCPS made it the autumn festival or harvest or whatever to make it inclusive and no more costumes. We adapted and decided that those who celebrate Halloween can do so after school. We do not make the kids who do not celebrate feel irrational, less than or that something is wrong with them; we just do not spend time on it in school.

Tons of families have issues with this LGBTQIA affirming curriculum for a variety of reasons--religious, feel it is not age appropriate, much of it is still being debated and understood....why are these families viewed as irrational, intolerant or less than? Pride parade away, change your gender, discuss ad nauseam how the inside doesn't match your outside....but do it outside of school.

+1

-2 It Sounds like they need to learn tolerance.

I’ve said this from the very beginning. When mcps started taking out Christmas, Halloween, Valentine’s Day in favor of vague celebrations, you were setting yourself up for a slippery slope on other topics. Family life?!

What I feel mcps is saying is: we acknowledge your religious sensitivities on these topics, but we don’t acknowledge it on those topics. And because of that, they now have a lawsuit on their hands.

It’s not that I agree or disagree with these topics-
It’s irrelevant, but I do agree that these families have the right to opt out. Just like they opt out on family life and festivities.

I know! I had my kids opt out of Earth Science because they were teaching the world was round, and the Bible says it's flat.

The Bible says the Earth is flat?

There was even a diagram in Genesis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
We've done away with all things Halloween for elementary children. Tons of families associate it with demonic things and it doesn't align with their religions and values. MCPS made it the autumn festival or harvest or whatever to make it inclusive and no more costumes. We adapted and decided that those who celebrate Halloween can do so after school. We do not make the kids who do not celebrate feel irrational, less than or that something is wrong with them; we just do not spend time on it in school.

Tons of families have issues with this LGBTQIA affirming curriculum for a variety of reasons--religious, feel it is not age appropriate, much of it is still being debated and understood....why are these families viewed as irrational, intolerant or less than? Pride parade away, change your gender, discuss ad nauseam how the inside doesn't match your outside....but do it outside of school.

+1

-2 It Sounds like they need to learn tolerance.

I’ve said this from the very beginning. When mcps started taking out Christmas, Halloween, Valentine’s Day in favor of vague celebrations, you were setting yourself up for a slippery slope on other topics. Family life?!

What I feel mcps is saying is: we acknowledge your religious sensitivities on these topics, but we don’t acknowledge it on those topics. And because of that, they now have a lawsuit on their hands.

It’s not that I agree or disagree with these topics-
It’s irrelevant, but I do agree that these families have the right to opt out. Just like they opt out on family life and festivities.

I know! I had my kids opt out of Earth Science because they were teaching the world was round, and the Bible says it's flat.

The Bible says the Earth is flat?

DP. Revelations 7:1: "I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, on the sea, or on any tree." However, I suppose that instead of being flat, the Earth could be a cube.

There's also Psalm 96:10 (or 95, depending on how you count them): "Say among the nations, “The LORD reigns.” The world is firmly established, it cannot be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity." Opt your kids out of science when the topic is the solar system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some of these books are problematic and I can understand why parents want to opt-out. I think MCPS has a good chance of losing based on freedom of religion grounds.

My daughter was forced to read a Boy Named Penelope and we don't agree with the viewpoints expressed in that book. I think it's dangerous for MCPS to take a stance on gender theory. None of this stuff is settled and we are very much in the throes of a societal debate about it, so people acting like people who disagree are neanderthals are wrong. There's lots of room for shades of gray here, but the activists won't allow it.

I think they are opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students. The religious right doesn't get to decide for everyone any more and they are having a hissy fit about it.

They are not opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students because Muslim parents are TELLING you these books and teachings about LGBTQ sexual norms and family structures VIOLATE their faith. They're not the only ones who this applies to.

You can't say you're inclusive for all when a significant chunk of students, who are Muslim or more conservative Christian, tell you this violates their faith. You're choosing to offend some to please others. And that's fine. But that's NOT inclusive and is the opposite of that.

I'm going to the church of the spaghetti monster and stupidity greatly offends me. I think we should have it banned. Does anyone want to join me in the class action against stupidity?

1. Get your church recognized as a church

2. File a lawsuit and try your luck

1. That is a church

2. They are both very litigious and very successful in their litigation.

Then may the best church win.

HOw about we keep religion out of schools altogether? Instill those values at home if you wish, but I don't care what religious sensibilities the curriculum is offending.

I think we could all get behind that if you would admit that your efforts to promote certain social and environmental agendas were also a religion (see definition of "dogma").

What you view as "promoting as certain social and environmental agendas" the rest of us view as acknowledging that these kids exists, allowing them to exist and including them instead of stuffing our head in the sand and hiding behind religion in order to bully these kids into depression and suicide. Someone's mare existence is not "dogma."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some of these books are problematic and I can understand why parents want to opt-out. I think MCPS has a good chance of losing based on freedom of religion grounds.

My daughter was forced to read a Boy Named Penelope and we don't agree with the viewpoints expressed in that book. I think it's dangerous for MCPS to take a stance on gender theory. None of this stuff is settled and we are very much in the throes of a societal debate about it, so people acting like people who disagree are neanderthals are wrong. There's lots of room for shades of gray here, but the activists won't allow it.

I think they are opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students. The religious right doesn't get to decide for everyone any more and they are having a hissy fit about it.

Do you see the irony in your statement? Choosing books that are both highly controversial and offensive to many, many people (especially in elementary school) is not inclusive on its face. It is supporting a minority social agenda. Because the law requires children to attend school, and because it is administered by the government, there should be humility on the part of administrators and teachers about choosing curricula that everyone can get behind.

Could you please explain what is highly controversial and offensive about these books, which are about:

1. a child and a parent who go to a parade (a Pride parade)
2. a child who is upset that her uncle is getting married and will have less time for her (her uncle is marrying a man)
3. an autistic child who wants long hair now, so the mother makes a wig with long hair (the child is a transgender girl)
4. a prince who doesn't want to marry any of the people his parents have picked out for him but then finds his true love while killing a dragon (the true love is a knight in shining armor)
5. a child who has a crush on another child in class at school (both children are girls)
6. a child who expresses unhappiness through bad behavior until the mother makes things better (the unhappiness is due to the conflict between the child's assigned (girl) and felt (boy) gender identity)

Thanks.
5.
3.

There are so many books out there that are not controversial. Pick those and move on. If the above are ok then why not the book about Sam who is upset he doesn’t get present at Christmas. Or the one about Gina who’s mom drinks too much. We’re talking elementary school. Keep controversial books out of schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some of these books are problematic and I can understand why parents want to opt-out. I think MCPS has a good chance of losing based on freedom of religion grounds.

My daughter was forced to read a Boy Named Penelope and we don't agree with the viewpoints expressed in that book. I think it's dangerous for MCPS to take a stance on gender theory. None of this stuff is settled and we are very much in the throes of a societal debate about it, so people acting like people who disagree are neanderthals are wrong. There's lots of room for shades of gray here, but the activists won't allow it.

I think they are opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students. The religious right doesn't get to decide for everyone any more and they are having a hissy fit about it.

Do you see the irony in your statement? Choosing books that are both highly controversial and offensive to many, many people (especially in elementary school) is not inclusive on its face. It is supporting a minority social agenda. Because the law requires children to attend school, and because it is administered by the government, there should be humility on the part of administrators and teachers about choosing curricula that everyone can get behind.

Could you please explain what is highly controversial and offensive about these books, which are about:

1. a child and a parent who go to a parade (a Pride parade)
2. a child who is upset that her uncle is getting married and will have less time for her (her uncle is marrying a man)
3. an autistic child who wants long hair now, so the mother makes a wig with long hair (the child is a transgender girl)
4. a prince who doesn't want to marry any of the people his parents have picked out for him but then finds his true love while killing a dragon (the true love is a knight in shining armor)
5. a child who has a crush on another child in class at school (both children are girls)
6. a child who expresses unhappiness through bad behavior until the mother makes things better (the unhappiness is due to the conflict between the child's assigned (girl) and felt (boy) gender identity)

Thanks.
5.
3.

There are so many books out there that are not controversial. Pick those and move on. If the above are ok then why not the book about Sam who is upset he doesn’t get present at Christmas. Or the one about Gina who’s mom drinks too much. We’re talking elementary school. Keep controversial books out of schools.

So we should erase LGBTQ people?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think some of these books are problematic and I can understand why parents want to opt-out. I think MCPS has a good chance of losing based on freedom of religion grounds.

My daughter was forced to read a Boy Named Penelope and we don't agree with the viewpoints expressed in that book. I think it's dangerous for MCPS to take a stance on gender theory. None of this stuff is settled and we are very much in the throes of a societal debate about it, so people acting like people who disagree are neanderthals are wrong. There's lots of room for shades of gray here, but the activists won't allow it.

I think they are opting for the inclusivity of ALL of their students. The religious right doesn't get to decide for everyone any more and they are having a hissy fit about it.

Do you see the irony in your statement? Choosing books that are both highly controversial and offensive to many, many people (especially in elementary school) is not inclusive on its face. It is supporting a minority social agenda. Because the law requires children to attend school, and because it is administered by the government, there should be humility on the part of administrators and teachers about choosing curricula that everyone can get behind.

Could you please explain what is highly controversial and offensive about these books, which are about:

1. a child and a parent who go to a parade (a Pride parade)
2. a child who is upset that her uncle is getting married and will have less time for her (her uncle is marrying a man)
3. an autistic child who wants long hair now, so the mother makes a wig with long hair (the child is a transgender girl)
4. a prince who doesn't want to marry any of the people his parents have picked out for him but then finds his true love while killing a dragon (the true love is a knight in shining armor)
5. a child who has a crush on another child in class at school (both children are girls)
6. a child who expresses unhappiness through bad behavior until the mother makes things better (the unhappiness is due to the conflict between the child's assigned (girl) and felt (boy) gender identity)

Thanks.
5.
3.

There are so many books out there that are not controversial. Pick those and move on. If the above are ok then why not the book about Sam who is upset he doesn’t get present at Christmas. Or the one about Gina who’s mom drinks too much. We’re talking elementary school. Keep controversial books out of schools.

I wouldn't have a problem with those. Why do you? It would be a weird sort of education where the only books until middle school were books about children whose lives are perfect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Parents should always have a say in what their kids are learning. Ideally, their day can be to leave this crazy system but not vv everyone can afford that. Parents should be able to opt out of having their two and three year olds use a word search to find words like drag in story books being read to them.

https://www.fox5dc.com/news/3-montgomery-county-families-sue-mcps-over-lbtq-books.amp

Oh, grow up. Amy idiot can sue. They will lose and I hope it costs the person suing as much money as possible.