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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Go for it.

[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?

We can’t, because the images are so graphic that they aren’t allowed to be posted on this site.

[Anonymous]

The LGBTs obsession with families and children has always been its Achilles heel. It’s cooler as a counterculture.

[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.“

Insanity. I would say more about where this gender ideology comes from but it’s highly controversial

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The only way to fight homophobia is get to kids early and educate the hate out of them. Then of course small-minded Republican parents complain that we’re talking to their little kids about sex. But we can’t talk about gayness without at least a small nod to sexual preference. Republicans need to chill oit.

We should teach kids they are not a boy or a girl just a person. Their mom is not mom, they’re just the birthing person.

[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.“

Insanity. I would say more about where this gender ideology comes from but it’s highly controversial

this site is anonymous. i’m curious to hear your thoughts.

[Anonymous]

Stuff like this is why it took so long for the gays to be accepted. The community had to take out its own trash to change attitudes. Remember the North American Man Boy Love Alliance (NAMBLA). Gay community devoted to having sex with boys. Now where back to drag queens putting on shows for little kids and other bizarre forms of kink for public display involving kids. What a loser issue this is for the left lol.

[Anonymous]

Parents shouldn't get to tell schools what to teach.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

We can’t, because the images are so graphic that they aren’t allowed to be posted on this site.

https://www.congress.gov/118/meeting/house/115531/documents/HHRG-118-JU10-20230323-SD007.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

We can’t, because the images are so graphic that they aren’t allowed to be posted on this site.

I remember when somebody tried to read these books at a BOE meeting and they shut it down because it was “inappropriate” and “obscene”.

But teachers can use them in story time for 1st grade hostages and parents have no say.

[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

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.

Which is to say they were added to the library of allowable books for the curriculum that teachers and students can use. They were also allowed for libraries. No indoctrination beyond this basic idea of respect and tolerance.

[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.

THIS x 100000000000000

We should not be catering to the prejudices of the lowest denominator. These people EXIST and shouldn't be treated like they are a dirty secret. Take their bigotry to their churches where (as I have experienced firsthand) that sort of thing is generally tolerated.

Child sex predators exist too. When do we introduce children to this marginalized community's touching stories of devoted pursuit of minors?

We introduce the minority population to kids when they’re young when we talk about how and how not to interact with strangers? What parts of their bodies people are allowed or not allowed to touch and what to do if somebody does touch them. We do have touching stories about them because we give the appropriate lessons to protect kids.

Now contrast that with a book that talks about a girl attending her uncles wedding. How is the wedding boom harmful?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some things shouldn’t be discussed that at that young age in a school setting without parental permission.

Actually, it should. For example, 5 year olds need to hear stories featuring two dad households. Why? Because some of my students come from 2 dad households. On the other hand, no kindergarten teacher on the planet is teaching the explicit details about anyone's sexuality. Listen, I'm just trying to get them to stop picking their noses and wiping it on the carpet. That's as graphic as it gets.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yikes, this takedown of the MoCo attorney by Gorsuch was brutal.

Unreal that *anyone* would think that book is appropriate for the classroom.

Have you read the book? It’s literally an A to Z book that points out zero controversial things. The appendix of the books let you look for other things in the pictures and again, nothing controversial. There is no bondage is the book.

[Anonymous]

Nah just sex toys and fellatio just run of the mill elementary school topics