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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP have you read this lawsuit in its entirety?

I have they will lose .

It is the worst written lawsuit. The lawyers on the side of the religious zealots should lose their license because of how bad they wrote their side.

It is religious garbage. Worse than that they want add religious indoctrination into public schools.

Well of course it is! It's written by religious ignoramuses MAGA dorks. Not intellectuals.

Michel Foucault was an intellectual. Guess what he did to little boys in Morocco…

Justifying that is what the “intellectuals” are going to do next.

Of course. Who is pushing teaching 5 year olds to read stories about gay men in leather fetish gear.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m liberal and far from a religious extremist. I am all for including books where it mentions in passing that sally has two moms, just like many kids books mention in passing that Johnny has a mom and a dad or that Lisa’s parents are divorced. I am not ok with introducing concepts of actual sexual acts in elementary school. Any kind of sex - hetero included. I don’t really need my kids reading about drag queens either although I wouldn’t opt them out, because it’s harmless, but it makes me wonder what great classics foe that age group were sacrificed to make room.

And yes I have two current elementary and schoolers in MoCo. The curriculum for my now 5th grader has been pretty bad for years. The books they chose weren’t controversial but they were of lousy quality. My current second grader is using the newer curriculum and it’s so much better. The books she gets are already on par with what he got in fourth grade.

I view positive kids books about drag queens as akin to positive kids books about blackface performers. I do not want my kids taught that drag queens are “harmless.” Womanface minstrelry is not “harmless.” I’m an atheist, by the way. This is not a religious objection.

In 100 years, drag will be looked at with the same revulsion that blackface minstrels are now. It is already aging out; Gen Z (the generation that grew up with drag queen story hour) largely doesn’t attend drag. It is the “entertainment” of old men now. Books like Pride Puppy are merely attempting to revive what is already headed to the trash bin of history.

Gorsuch was right to challenge the MoCo attorney on Pride Puppy. And it is embarrassing for MoCo that the attorney clearly hadn’t expected Gorsuch to have actually read the book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Parents in Montgomery Count, Maryland, want to be able to opt out of instruction on gender and sexuality that they say goes against their religious convictions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/01/17/lgbtq-books-supreme-court-montgomery-maryland-schools-religion/

Why can't these a$$holes just go to parochial school? You cannot dictate public education according to religion. Nor should you.

But that is exactly what MCPS is doing. It is just a different religion; one they believe in and evangelize.

The religion of people exist?

Trans ideology functions like a religion because it’s built on unverifiable beliefs, demands moral obedience, and punishes dissent. The core claim—that gender identity is an inner truth disconnected from biology—can’t be proven, only accepted on faith. Misgendering is treated as a moral sin, questioning the doctrine is labeled as hate, and dissenters face social and professional excommunication.

Like religion, it has sacred rituals (name changes, pronoun declarations), symbols (flags), and even holy days (Trans Day of Remembrance). It enforces ideological conformity in schools, media, and law. This isn’t just a personal identity movement—it’s a belief system demanding cultural and institutional submission.

Sounds like sports… has rituals, symbols, and important days like opening day and Super Bowl. People even low-key fight over their team teams.

Maybe we should remove sports from schools.

Both sports and trans people exist so I say we continue to books about them.

I'm sick of you posting "trans people exist" as justification for endlessly talking about them to young kids.
Anorexic people exist. Suicidal people exist. Drug addicted and alcoholic people exist. We don't teach kids about them in kindergarten. Even though they exist. There may well be a deeply depressed child in your kids class. Should we read a book celebrating it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of you arguing that this is about religious freedom and not homophobia are strange. If a school taught a book where the main character eats pork, it would not be offensive to muslim or kosher students because they themselves aren't eating pork. Religious freedom is about what you do, not what the people around you do.

Wrong. The equivalent would be a school deliberately choosing to have teachers read a series of books about eating pork, and then launching a teacher-led classroom discussion about why it’s ok to eat pork, then saying parents can opt out from those lessons, and then rescinding that option under political pressure.

Get it now?

No it’s like reading a book where people are eating bacon for breakfast and asking to opt out because it’s pork.

Nope.

National review: “Teachers are instructed to lead classroom discussions about the books, which cite terms such as, “intersex,” “drag queen,” and “non-binary.” One book claims that doctors only “guess” when determining a newborn’s sex.” NTD: “The board instructed employees responsible for selecting the books to use an “LGBTQ+ Lens” and to question whether “cisnormativity,” “stereotypes,” and “power hierarchies” are “reinforced or disrupted,” the petition said.“

Trying to follow this issue, and I keep encountering one book in particular, the LGTBQIA+ positive graphic novel, Gender Queer. It appears some find it controversial.

Can someone post what seems to be so controversial about this novel?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All of you arguing that this is about religious freedom and not homophobia are strange. If a school taught a book where the main character eats pork, it would not be offensive to muslim or kosher students because they themselves aren't eating pork. Religious freedom is about what you do, not what the people around you do.

Wrong. The equivalent would be a school deliberately choosing to have teachers read a series of books about eating pork, and then launching a teacher-led classroom discussion about why it’s ok to eat pork, then saying parents can opt out from those lessons, and then rescinding that option under political pressure.

Get it now?

No it’s like reading a book where people are eating bacon for breakfast and asking to opt out because it’s pork.

Nope.

National review: “Teachers are instructed to lead classroom discussions about the books, which cite terms such as, “intersex,” “drag queen,” and “non-binary.” One book claims that doctors only “guess” when determining a newborn’s sex.” NTD: “The board instructed employees responsible for selecting the books to use an “LGBTQ+ Lens” and to question whether “cisnormativity,” “stereotypes,” and “power hierarchies” are “reinforced or disrupted,” the petition said.“

Trying to follow this issue, and I keep encountering one book in particular, the LGTBQIA+ positive graphic novel, Gender Queer. It appears some find it controversial.

Can someone post what seems to be so controversial about this novel?

Surely you can track this down yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone wants to point out the cultural or religious content of these books without talking about the actual reading curriculum. Whether it’s benchmark or CKLa, these books don’t fit the reading curriculum. Once MSDE finishes their push for the science of reading, these books will get pushed to the social studies curriculum

You sound stupid.

Do you understand how people learn to read? Do you understand phonics? None of the books deemed controversial support any of these fundamental skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m liberal and far from a religious extremist. I am all for including books where it mentions in passing that sally has two moms, just like many kids books mention in passing that Johnny has a mom and a dad or that Lisa’s parents are divorced. I am not ok with introducing concepts of actual sexual acts in elementary school. Any kind of sex - hetero included. I don’t really need my kids reading about drag queens either although I wouldn’t opt them out, because it’s harmless, but it makes me wonder what great classics foe that age group were sacrificed to make room.

And yes I have two current elementary and schoolers in MoCo. The curriculum for my now 5th grader has been pretty bad for years. The books they chose weren’t controversial but they were of lousy quality. My current second grader is using the newer curriculum and it’s so much better. The books she gets are already on par with what he got in fourth grade.

PP here. I agree with all you said (I work in public schools)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone wants to point out the cultural or religious content of these books without talking about the actual reading curriculum. Whether it’s benchmark or CKLa, these books don’t fit the reading curriculum. Once MSDE finishes their push for the science of reading, these books will get pushed to the social studies curriculum

You sound stupid.

Do you understand how people learn to read? Do you understand phonics? None of the books deemed controversial support any of these fundamental skills.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone wants to point out the cultural or religious content of these books without talking about the actual reading curriculum. Whether it’s benchmark or CKLa, these books don’t fit the reading curriculum. Once MSDE finishes their push for the science of reading, these books will get pushed to the social studies curriculum

These were books that MCPS decided to add into the curriculum on their own - they were not in Benchmark (the curriculum at the time) and are not in CKLA (the current curriculum).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Everyone wants to point out the cultural or religious content of these books without talking about the actual reading curriculum. Whether it’s benchmark or CKLa, these books don’t fit the reading curriculum. Once MSDE finishes their push for the science of reading, these books will get pushed to the social studies curriculum

These were books that MCPS decided to add into the curriculum on their own - they were not in Benchmark (the curriculum at the time) and are not in CKLA (the current curriculum).

Which is to say they offer zero educational value and are only meant to indoctrinate.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Correct. Another unintended consequence will likely be an expansion of voucher programs fueling growth of private education.

Either offer the opt-out again, or offer school choice. Choose wisely.

MD is not offering school choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP have you read this lawsuit in its entirety?

I have they will lose .

It is the worst written lawsuit. The lawyers on the side of the religious zealots should lose their license because of how bad they wrote their side.

It is religious garbage. Worse than that they want add religious indoctrination into public schools.

Well of course it is! It's written by religious ignoramuses MAGA dorks. Not intellectuals.

Michel Foucault was an intellectual. Guess what he did to little boys in Morocco…

Justifying that is what the “intellectuals” are going to do next.

Of course. Who is pushing teaching 5 year olds to read stories about gay men in leather fetish gear.

Are you referring to the D.C. and Montgomery County Drag Queen children’s story hour?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP have you read this lawsuit in its entirety?

I have they will lose .

It is the worst written lawsuit. The lawyers on the side of the religious zealots should lose their license because of how bad they wrote their side.

It is religious garbage. Worse than that they want add religious indoctrination into public schools.

Well of course it is! It's written by religious ignoramuses MAGA dorks. Not intellectuals.

Michel Foucault was an intellectual. Guess what he did to little boys in Morocco…

Justifying that is what the “intellectuals” are going to do next.

Of course. Who is pushing teaching 5 year olds to read stories about gay men in leather fetish gear.

Are you referring to the D.C. and Montgomery County Drag Queen children’s story hour?

If so: https://www.capitalpride.org/events/drag-queen-storytime/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I support allowing them to opt out or seek a private school that aligns with their beliefs.

Cool. So can be kids opt out if we ever have books with Muslim women wearing hijabs? As far as I am concerned that aspect of the religion is opressive.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:This is just the start of the next four years eroding the long-fought rights of LGBT people. What’s next? We’re only allowed to talk about the achievements of straight white men? Oh, wait.

oppressive.

What if my religion/ values goes against reading about the achievements of white men or men in general? Do I get to opt out too?