Supreme Court to hear case on opting out of lessons with LGBTQ+ books

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. What the people who brought this suit don’t understand is that mandating this education was helping their cause, not hurting it. Having the weirdest, most cringe middle school teacher heavy-handedly preaching to kids about how they are mandated to think essentially just has the effect of turning kids in the exact opposite direction.

The younger half of Gen Z — the ones who got these lessons — are sharply more conservative (particularly socially) than their older peers. That is not a coincidence.

Bar the lessons, and you make them cool again. Not that these plaintiffs understand kids, of course.

I think what you’re saying is that you have to pick your battles. Yes, but that is a two way street. Require the lesson and you’ll accelerate parents moving on to private and sectarian schools as well as home schooling—reducing funding to public schools and further eroding support for public schools.

That is true, I think.

It feels to me that school districts could make these lessons less doctrinaire, less inappropriate (we should all be able admit that in some districts, some of the material was grotesquely inappropriate), and less flatly weird, and they’d have widespread support. But the problem is that when you have your weirdest, most obviously unstable teachers preaching shrilly at middle schoolers, not actually educating them on civil rights, you accomplish the opposite of what was intended.

[Anonymous]

FYI.

Supreme Court appears to favor opt-out option for LGBTQ readings in school

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/22/supreme-court-support-md-parents-lgbtq-storybook-challenge-00303001m

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. What the people who brought this suit don’t understand is that mandating this education was helping their cause, not hurting it. Having the weirdest, most cringe middle school teacher heavy-handedly preaching to kids about how they are mandated to think essentially just has the effect of turning kids in the exact opposite direction.

The younger half of Gen Z — the ones who got these lessons — are sharply more conservative (particularly socially) than their older peers. That is not a coincidence.

Bar the lessons, and you make them cool again. Not that these plaintiffs understand kids, of course.

I think what you’re saying is that you have to pick your battles. Yes, but that is a two way street. Require the lesson and you’ll accelerate parents moving on to private and sectarian schools as well as home schooling—reducing funding to public schools and further eroding support for public schools.

So we should continue to make LGBTQ kids and family hide and pretend they don’t exist? Just so some small population can potentially not do what has been done throughout history, segregate itself until such time as they come to realize, oh these lessons really don’t do anything more than make individuals reflective and tolerant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP. What the people who brought this suit don’t understand is that mandating this education was helping their cause, not hurting it. Having the weirdest, most cringe middle school teacher heavy-handedly preaching to kids about how they are mandated to think essentially just has the effect of turning kids in the exact opposite direction.

The younger half of Gen Z — the ones who got these lessons — are sharply more conservative (particularly socially) than their older peers. That is not a coincidence.

Bar the lessons, and you make them cool again. Not that these plaintiffs understand kids, of course.

I think what you’re saying is that you have to pick your battles. Yes, but that is a two way street. Require the lesson and you’ll accelerate parents moving on to private and sectarian schools as well as home schooling—reducing funding to public schools and further eroding support for public schools.

So we should continue to make LGBTQ kids and family hide and pretend they don’t exist? Just so some small population can potentially not do what has been done throughout history, segregate itself until such time as they come to realize, oh these lessons really don’t do anything more than make individuals reflective and tolerant.

Just like religion, don't discuss it in schools. No need. Just stick to academics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing opt out seems like a no brainer.

Where is the line between kids not being exposed to gay characters in books and kids not being exposed to gay people in schools?

AP:

“The stories include a family’s attendance at a pride parade, a girl’s introduction to her uncle’s husband-to-be, a prince’s love for a knight amid their battle against a dragon, a girl’s anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl and a transgender boy’s decision to share his gender identity with his family.”

In this case, I believe the line has been crossed from education to promotion.

Then we need to remove books with a mom and dad, girls liking boys and giving them valentines and boys falling in love with girls while fightings dragon

The seven books mentioned by the plaintiffs didn't even include the book about the uncle's wedding or the prince loving the knight. Those were raised by the defendant's petition. If it was just about books that include all types of families, I don't think anyone cared. But it was beyond that

Some of what's in the plaintiff petition:

Born Ready,” a story about Penelope, a student who identifies as a boy. “Teachers are told to instruct students that, at birth, doctors guess about our gender, but we know ourselves best”;

“Love, Violet,” a story about two young girls and their same-sex playground romance. “Teachers are encouraged to have a think-aloud moment to ask students how it feels when they don’t just like but like like someone”

*I think this book is inappropriate regardless of the sex of the characters. Kindergarten students don't need to be read a book that encourages "playground romance" between two seven year olds.

“Intersection Allies,” a picture book for children to ponder what it means to be “transgender” or “non-binary” and asks, “what pronouns fit you?”

“Pride Puppy,” about a puppy lost at a Pride parade. The book, for pre-K and kindergarten, goes through each letter of the alphabet, describing people the puppy might have met at the parade, inviting student to search for drag kings and queens, lip rings, leather, underwear and other items.

*I think this book was ultimately pulled by the school because it required teachers to teach vocabulary beyond what was in the curriculum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing opt out seems like a no brainer.

Where is the line between kids not being exposed to gay characters in books and kids not being exposed to gay people in schools?

AP:

“The stories include a family’s attendance at a pride parade, a girl’s introduction to her uncle’s husband-to-be, a prince’s love for a knight amid their battle against a dragon, a girl’s anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl and a transgender boy’s decision to share his gender identity with his family.”

In this case, I believe the line has been crossed from education to promotion.

Then we need to remove books with a mom and dad, girls liking boys and giving them valentines and boys falling in love with girls while fightings dragon

The seven books mentioned by the plaintiffs didn't even include the book about the uncle's wedding or the prince loving the knight. Those were raised by the defendant's petition. If it was just about books that include all types of families, I don't think anyone cared. But it was beyond that

Some of what's in the plaintiff petition:

Born Ready,” a story about Penelope, a student who identifies as a boy. “Teachers are told to instruct students that, at birth, doctors guess about our gender, but we know ourselves best”;

“Love, Violet,” a story about two young girls and their same-sex playground romance. “Teachers are encouraged to have a think-aloud moment to ask students how it feels when they don’t just like but like like someone”

*I think this book is inappropriate regardless of the sex of the characters. Kindergarten students don't need to be read a book that encourages "playground romance" between two seven year olds.

“Intersection Allies,” a picture book for children to ponder what it means to be “transgender” or “non-binary” and asks, “what pronouns fit you?”

“Pride Puppy,” about a puppy lost at a Pride parade. The book, for pre-K and kindergarten, goes through each letter of the alphabet, describing people the puppy might have met at the parade, inviting student to search for drag kings and queens, lip rings, leather, underwear and other items.

*I think this book was ultimately pulled by the school because it required teachers to teach vocabulary beyond what was in the curriculum.

My son was last in grade school 15 years ago and it’s been almost 50 years for me, but I have zero memory of romances and romantic relationships in the K-5 class.

Why are 5 year old kids being taught about romantic relationships by the teachers? MCPS has lost their minds.

[Anonymous]

Looks like Maryland is on track to lose this case especially since scotus judges had read the books in question and came prepared. Good. It’s common sense.

How absolutely ridiculous that the appeals court sided with the state and it got this far!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing opt out seems like a no brainer.

Except the kids being opted out are the ones that need to know it’s ok and normal to be gay or be part of a gay family.

You know what my kids conversations are on this very issue, they don't care that you're gay, they don't care who you kiss, they don't want to talk about it because they don't want to talk about sex stuff. It's really that simple for kids, you just don't get it. Why are we overcomplicating kids, if they don't want to be part of it I'm sure they have genuine feelings why that is, and their feelings matter just as much as the LGBT kids' feelings matter.

Here’s the thing, no one is talking to a. Kindergarten about sex. They may read “and tango makes three” which is a lovely book based on a true story that provides representation that families aren’t all the traditional nuclear family of a mom, dad, and two kids. Once you start banning curriculum of any sort everything becomes objectionable. Why is it ok to teach a book that has a mom and a dad but not one that has two moms?

Parents can already opt out of sex Ed. Leave it there.

One of the books in question says that doctors make a “guess” about sex at birth. That’s anti scientific pseudo religious nonsense that shouldn’t be taught at a school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing opt out seems like a no brainer.

It quickly becomes chaos. Opt kids out of evolution in biology, books in English, topics in history.

Things parents can opt their kids out of:
Sex Ed
Field Trips
Required Vaccinations (and I’m not talking about COVID)
Dissections
Attendance on religious holidays
Class parties
Saying the Pledge of Allegiance
Watching R-rated movies for instructional purposes
MAP tests

It seems to me that we allow parents to opt their children out of a great many things. Why is this the exception where parents rights become irrelevant?

Because these opt-outs don’t require a replacement. Having a second curriculum is a different animal.

Then remove the replacement requirement. The people are speaking, listen to them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing opt out seems like a no brainer.

Except the kids being opted out are the ones that need to know it’s ok and normal to be gay or be part of a gay family.

Not the school’s role.

What are you so frightened of?

If your kid is gay, transgender, reading or not reading a book is not going to change anything about his or her sexual preferences.

OTOH. That book and a sense of acceptance might save him or her from suicide.

I can’t believe people are still trying “they might kill themselves” as a moral argument. Give it a rest, no one is buying the emotional blackmail anymore.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing opt out seems like a no brainer.

Where is the line between kids not being exposed to gay characters in books and kids not being exposed to gay people in schools?

AP:

“The stories include a family’s attendance at a pride parade, a girl’s introduction to her uncle’s husband-to-be, a prince’s love for a knight amid their battle against a dragon, a girl’s anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl and a transgender boy’s decision to share his gender identity with his family.”

In this case, I believe the line has been crossed from education to promotion.

Then we need to remove books with a mom and dad, girls liking boys and giving them valentines and boys falling in love with girls while fightings dragon

Exactly. If schools need to stay in their lane and not discuss sexual orientation or have materials that feature a sexual orientation then that should apply across the board. No books that feature couples of any type. No nuclear families. No fairy tales where the prince rescues his princess. It’s all or nothing.

No. Things were fine before the state started this program and we can return to that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing opt out seems like a no brainer.

Where is the line between kids not being exposed to gay characters in books and kids not being exposed to gay people in schools?

AP:

“The stories include a family’s attendance at a pride parade, a girl’s introduction to her uncle’s husband-to-be, a prince’s love for a knight amid their battle against a dragon, a girl’s anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl and a transgender boy’s decision to share his gender identity with his family.”

In this case, I believe the line has been crossed from education to promotion.

Then we need to remove books with a mom and dad, girls liking boys and giving them valentines and boys falling in love with girls while fightings dragon

The seven books mentioned by the plaintiffs didn't even include the book about the uncle's wedding or the prince loving the knight. Those were raised by the defendant's petition. If it was just about books that include all types of families, I don't think anyone cared. But it was beyond that

Some of what's in the plaintiff petition:

Born Ready,” a story about Penelope, a student who identifies as a boy. “Teachers are told to instruct students that, at birth, doctors guess about our gender, but we know ourselves best”;

“Love, Violet,” a story about two young girls and their same-sex playground romance. “Teachers are encouraged to have a think-aloud moment to ask students how it feels when they don’t just like but like like someone”

*I think this book is inappropriate regardless of the sex of the characters. Kindergarten students don't need to be read a book that encourages "playground romance" between two seven year olds.

“Intersection Allies,” a picture book for children to ponder what it means to be “transgender” or “non-binary” and asks, “what pronouns fit you?”

“Pride Puppy,” about a puppy lost at a Pride parade. The book, for pre-K and kindergarten, goes through each letter of the alphabet, describing people the puppy might have met at the parade, inviting student to search for drag kings and queens, lip rings, leather, underwear and other items.

*I think this book was ultimately pulled by the school because it required teachers to teach vocabulary beyond what was in the curriculum.

My son was last in grade school 15 years ago and it’s been almost 50 years for me, but I have zero memory of romances and romantic relationships in the K-5 class.

Why are 5 year old kids being taught about romantic relationships by the teachers? MCPS has lost their minds.

You clearly do not remember being kid. I had a crush on a classmate in preschool. Many elementary school kids have crushes and many children’s book have romance. Did you read Cinderella or watch a similar movie in elementary school?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the problem with Jack and Jill? Why do they have to force Jack and John down the throats of 7 year olds during drag queen story hours at school? Give me a break. Gen Z now reports and insane rate of LGBTQ compared to other generations. It's clear they're brainwashing kids and are confusing them due to indoctrination at such a young age. It is mass hysteria and a trendy fad to be an alphabet soup for your sexual identity. Why should schools be forced to teach this indoctrination? Parents can choose to let their kids have reading hour with Village People at home or outside school.

+1.

What exactly is an LBGTQ book?

One that casually mentions teacher Ms. Smith has a wife? Fine whatever.

One that teaches 7 years they can choose to be a boy or girl or neither? No way I am keeping my kid in that school.

Agree. My young elementary child was read Being You: A first conversation about gender by the teacher, to the whole class- with no mention of it to the parents. It basically tells children they can pick their gender, be both, or neither or chance anytime, and then goes into talking about patriarchy. WTF. Seriously, this is totally inappropriate

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_T-eGrBpxAc

Liberals are sick. They are pushing transgender indoctrination onto elementary school children. My guess is that the sex change surgeries and medications must be a lucrative business. So, they are launching the campaign to turn children trans when they are young and impressionable. Gender is biological! It is impossible to change your gender, just like it’s impossible to change your race. Transgender ideology is sick. I’m sick of mentally ill men trying to force their way into our spaces.

I am a moderate liberal Democrat and I believe most Democrats fall into my camp. It is not helpful to call liberals sick when I think it is only a small percentage on folks on the left who agree with teaching kids this. I do not agree it is a good idea.

That “small minority” was powerful enough to have a case make it to the Supreme Court!

The Dems’ inability to rein in this nonsense and continue to call it “a small percentage” is how we got Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing opt out seems like a no brainer.

Where is the line between kids not being exposed to gay characters in books and kids not being exposed to gay people in schools?

AP:

“The stories include a family’s attendance at a pride parade, a girl’s introduction to her uncle’s husband-to-be, a prince’s love for a knight amid their battle against a dragon, a girl’s anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl and a transgender boy’s decision to share his gender identity with his family.”

In this case, I believe the line has been crossed from education to promotion.

Agree. I have no problem with books that feature same gender parents. But when you start reading books romanticizing kids’ relationships (girls having crushes on a girl classmate) or kids changing genders, that crosses the line for me. Gender identity and romantic relationships between kids shouldn’t be topics taught in schools

So, a book like Junie B Jones which talks about her crushes on boys should be banned too right?

No books are being banned here.

That’s quite literally what this is. If a parent “opts out” of having their kid have access to these materials how does a teacher reasonably do that? They take the materials out of the classroom. It’s not like they’ll have a section in their libraries where they say “sorry Jimmy, that’s off limits to you”

If a book can be procured through other means, such as a public library, book story or Amazon, that by definition means it is not banned.

The books are not being banned or pulled out of classrooms or school libraries. Opt out is not a ban.

Pulling a book from a school library is also not a ban. Not all books are found in libraries but you are free to purchase them on the market.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don’t understand where kids are “getting indoctrinated”? My kids attend DCPS and are in high school. I’m don’t see any indoctrination.

Read Maryland’s instruction guidelines for this program. Perfect example of indoctrination and why SCOTUS will implement the opt out.

Enough with the “we just want to exist” blather. Everyone knows gay people exist and an opt out policy is not banning books. Such tired and easily falsified arguments.

I’m not gay. I’m your average GenX mom of teenagers. I do think MAGA wants to erase people who don’t fit their ideal. White, Christian, heterosexual, Trump-loving, working to middle class or billionaire. You refuse to acknowledge there are other people in this world who want to read about their history/experience in literature. MAGA cannot handle a reality different than their own.

If we don’t teach the Bible in school, is that progressives not “handling a reality different than their own”?