Wall Street Journal on Gender Storytime in Montgomery County

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Who you want to have sex with is your choice, jsut keep it out of elemnatry schools.

If a fairytale where the prince marries the knight is about sex, then so is the story where the prince marries the princess.

Seriously. Do you folks not get it? You can't just say that schools should only have books with white straight cis abled people in them, because those are "neutral" and everything else is "controversial"/"pushing an agenda."

And the opt-out stuff is ridiculous. Do you think racist parents should also be notified and get the option to opt out every time a book is read that has an inter-racial couple or a person of color doing something that's "not their place" because they don't want the schools pushing a "race mixing agenda" on their kids? What about super-religious families who think a woman's place is in the home-- should they be notified of books where women hold jobs or where a wife (or child) speaks up rather than being submissive to the husband as the head of the household, and get to opt out to avoid exposing their kids to the school's "feminist agenda"?

So we have to show kindergartners that leather fetish gear exists? Are there zero boundaries in your world?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why is MCPS and the county wasting huge amounts of money on this? This is exactly why they keep raising taxes. Just never ending progressive agenda junk that costs massive amounts of money while not improving education at all.

What happened to a normal curriculum? Reading, writing, math, history, language, and science. Done.

But nah, they need the alternative math where they first have to learn numbers are racist. They can't learn science because chemistry is sexist since reactions are named after men. They can't do any reading because Jack and Jill are oppressive, it has to be Jack and John. Good god, just total paralysis. Why can't parents who want drag reading hours and Pride Puppy do all of that stuff at home rather than trying to forcefeed it? No big deal. Where do you draw the line? What's next, demanding full blown Communist indoctrination curricula and America bad be taught with no opt out? At some point this stuff is indoctrination, not education.

For much of the 20th century certain Christian interest groups asserted that teaching the theory of evolution in public schools amounted to indoctrination and offended their religious sensibilities. Certain states and school districts outlawed the teaching of evolution until the Supreme Court ruled against it. Then certain states and districts demanded that if they could not ban the teaching of evolution they must be allowed to teach Christian Creationism alongside it, until the Supreme Court also ruled against that. These issues were litigated over decades, but once the Supreme Court decided, social consensus followed. These days I think you'd be hard pressed to find anyone outside the very fringe claiming that teaching evolution is "indoctrination" and demanding their children be opted out of those lessons.

Similarly, there was a lot of religious objection to whether it was acceptable for people to mingle and marry outside their race, which have largely fallen by the wayside since rulings like Loving vs Virginia.

I see a lot of parallels in the arguments today around this issue.

I don't disagree but this Supreme Court is clearly going to come out the other way on this. Which will open floodgates and set things back instead.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Who you want to have sex with is your choice, jsut keep it out of elemnatry schools.

If a fairytale where the prince marries the knight is about sex, then so is the story where the prince marries the princess.

Seriously. Do you folks not get it? You can't just say that schools should only have books with white straight cis abled people in them, because those are "neutral" and everything else is "controversial"/"pushing an agenda."

And the opt-out stuff is ridiculous. Do you think racist parents should also be notified and get the option to opt out every time a book is read that has an inter-racial couple or a person of color doing something that's "not their place" because they don't want the schools pushing a "race mixing agenda" on their kids? What about super-religious families who think a woman's place is in the home-- should they be notified of books where women hold jobs or where a wife (or child) speaks up rather than being submissive to the husband as the head of the household, and get to opt out to avoid exposing their kids to the school's "feminist agenda"?

So we have to show kindergartners that leather fetish gear exists? Are there zero boundaries in your world?

This is a strawman because none of the books in question show fetishist gear. You can go watch that YouTube link showing Pride Puppy. The leash and leather both refers to the dog's leash. Leather appears in a vocabulary list on the last page along with dozens of other words. There is no depiction of leather fetish gear in any of the images or text.

[Anonymous]

I'm going to be certain to opt my kid out of any books that feature Muslim families. Which would mean I'd have opted them out of half the books they've read in upper elementary because they keep reading stories about people who are persecuted for their religion and flee to America.

I think that's all made up to get sympathy for Muslims because they certainly don't suffer higher rates of hate/bias or exclusion.

My kid is only going to be allowed to read books that don't glorify lifestyles I'm uncomfortable with like Muslims and refugees and immigrants.

Why can't we all just only read about white founders of this country all the time?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread really exposes that the objection to these books is not about religious freedom, as nearly no commenters cite religion in making the case about keeping these books away from their kids.

I am not a religious person. I don't want my 6 year old to learn about drag queen and gay parade when he goes to school.

That’s nice but not the topic of the lawsuit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread really exposes that the objection to these books is not about religious freedom, as nearly no commenters cite religion in making the case about keeping these books away from their kids.

Most parents are going to be wary of activists coming at their kids with a political agenda.

+1

Parents want best for their kids and you don't have to follow a religion for that.

But the whole point of the lawsuit was that the parents claimed their freedom of religion was at risk! What happened to that argument?

If you can opt out of being drafted into a friggin' war during war time due to religion, then you should be able to opt out of drag queen storytime due to religion. It really isn't that big of a leap.

The earlier PP's point was that it wasn't due to religion, just parental preference. The case hinges on first amendment claims about freedom of religion. If there's no religious basis to the argument, there's no case.

[Anonymous]

MCPS is going to lose this one. Kind of expensive for the taxpayers who have to pay all the lawyers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS is going to lose this one. Kind of expensive for the taxpayers who have to pay all the lawyers.

MCPS doesn't care though because they have an unlimited chest for lawsuit settlements.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:MCPS is going to lose this one. Kind of expensive for the taxpayers who have to pay all the lawyers.

And then have to pay to provide for alternatives to kids opting out if whatever they don’t like.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS is going to lose this one. Kind of expensive for the taxpayers who have to pay all the lawyers.

MCPS doesn't care though because they have an unlimited chest for lawsuit settlements.

Maybe they should use some of that to hire more teachers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:MCPS is going to lose this one. Kind of expensive for the taxpayers who have to pay all the lawyers.

MCPS doesn't care though because they have an unlimited chest for lawsuit settlements.

Maybe they should use some of that to hire more teachers.

Pretty sure that if MCPS loses they will have to hire more teachers to deal with the fearful opt outs.

[Anonymous]

In reality is any school using these books anymore?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread really exposes that the objection to these books is not about religious freedom, as nearly no commenters cite religion in making the case about keeping these books away from their kids.

I am not a religious person. I don't want my 6 year old to learn about drag queen and gay parade when he goes to school.

That’s nice but not the topic of the lawsuit.

You didn’t listen to what the Supreme Court justices said yesterday. Maybe you are the MCPS lawyer because he was sure clueless too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This thread really exposes that the objection to these books is not about religious freedom, as nearly no commenters cite religion in making the case about keeping these books away from their kids.

I am not a religious person. I don't want my 6 year old to learn about drag queen and gay parade when he goes to school.

That’s nice but not the topic of the lawsuit.

You didn’t listen to what the Supreme Court justices said yesterday. Maybe you are the MCPS lawyer because he was sure clueless too.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Where does that cover a non-religious person's opinions about books used in schools?

[Anonymous]

The easy answer is to opt out of public school.