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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

School choice already exist: public school, private school, home school

School choice exists for the well off. For those with lower incomes, they're condemned to public schools.

Wealth allows you to extract yourself from societal problems.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

School choice already exist: public school, private school, home school

Private school or home schooling isn't an option for many parents. As long as they are paying taxes, they should be able to send their kids to public schools without having to have them exposed to this crap.

To make school choice a REAL possibility, the money has to follow the child.

Look you get choices. No one said you would like all the choices or they would be the most convenient for you. If you don’t like public school you can choose private or home school. No problems and no judgements. Just because you have a problem with realistic information being available doesn’t mean you get to limit it from the rest of us who aren’t afraid of growth and critical thinking. No one is indoctrinated kids in public school beyond telling them this is the world at large, this is what things mean, and go forth with kindness and respect.

That is historically false.

One of the purposes of public schools back in the 1800s was to make immigrants and children of immigrants into Americans by teaching them American values. Foreign cultures don't value the same things we do. This is inpart why the petitioners, many of whom are immigrants object to these values

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

School choice already exist: public school, private school, home school

Private school or home schooling isn't an option for many parents. As long as they are paying taxes, they should be able to send their kids to public schools without having to have them exposed to this crap.

To make school choice a REAL possibility, the money has to follow the child.

Look you get choices. No one said you would like all the choices or they would be the most convenient for you. If you don’t like public school you can choose private or home school. No problems and no judgements. Just because you have a problem with realistic information being available doesn’t mean you get to limit it from the rest of us who aren’t afraid of growth and critical thinking. No one is indoctrinated kids in public school beyond telling them this is the world at large, this is what things mean, and go forth with kindness and respect.

Well said.

We also have the choice to take it to court and let the judges decide. Don’t want to be sued? Stay away from controversy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

School choice already exist: public school, private school, home school

Private school or home schooling isn't an option for many parents. As long as they are paying taxes, they should be able to send their kids to public schools without having to have them exposed to this crap.

To make school choice a REAL possibility, the money has to follow the child.

Look you get choices. No one said you would like all the choices or they would be the most convenient for you. If you don’t like public school you can choose private or home school. No problems and no judgements. Just because you have a problem with realistic information being available doesn’t mean you get to limit it from the rest of us who aren’t afraid of growth and critical thinking. No one is indoctrinated kids in public school beyond telling them this is the world at large, this is what things mean, and go forth with kindness and respect.

That is historically false.

One of the purposes of public schools back in the 1800s was to make immigrants and children of immigrants into Americans by teaching them American values. Foreign cultures don't value the same things we do. This is inpart why the petitioners, many of whom are immigrants object to these values

It’s not just immigrants who have a problem with this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Yes, I've read the book. Please stop gaslighting. Telling readers to look for "leather, lip ring, and underwear" (among other "vocabulary" words) is insanity.

Also “intersex flag,” “drag king,” and “drag queen.”

Again, point to the page where this is required. A teacher could read the book and never ask this. Also is leather inherently a problem? Women walk around with leather purses all the time. Folks wear leather pants. Why is lip ring any worse than earring or bracelet?
Why is drag king or queen any worse than find the clown?

If your argument is hinging on the fact that Pride Puppy has these search terms for kids, but MoCo didn’t require kids to search for them, you have lost the argument.

As for “drag queen,” you might as well have kids look for “blackface.” It is equivalent. It is harmful, unlike “clown.”

[Anonymous]

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.

It's you who should form your own private schools where you can peddle your fetish-driven religion to the children of fellow groomers like yourself. The normal people in society shouldn't be driven out of schools so you can run amok with your incessant sex talks.

+1000
It will never cease to astound me how much these people actually WANT to expose children to sexual topics. Why? I can't fathom the mind of someone who would promote this stuff to children.

What is with all your pearl clutching. People are sexual entities. They grow into that sexuality as the mature. No one is promoting anything sexual or religious wise to kids in school. They are just not shying away from letting kids make informed decisions. Sex exist. It exist in many forms besides the missionary position. Sexual health and responsibility exist. Folks should understand it just like they get taught about other health. LGBTQ people exist. Folks should be taught to respect their choices just like you expect people to respect yours.

How is any of this difficult to comprehend? Why is any of it controversial? Half the people claiming to reject it on religious reasons have many more other things in their lives which are counter to religion observance and behavior.

This is insane and ignoring reality. The fundamental problem is being gay is at its heart about one’s sexual behavior. It can only be one’s identity if he or she announces his or her sexual proclivities. In order to have pride in being gay even children need to know it involves sexual acts. It is the only way to normalize it - expose young children to sex. The problem is exposing children to sex at a young age breaks down the necessary and natural self defense of these kids that helps avoid being exploited or abused by adults. Normalizing sex for young kids means normalizing sexual acts by young kids.

[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.

It's you who should form your own private schools where you can peddle your fetish-driven religion to the children of fellow groomers like yourself. The normal people in society shouldn't be driven out of schools so you can run amok with your incessant sex talks.

+1000
It will never cease to astound me how much these people actually WANT to expose children to sexual topics. Why? I can't fathom the mind of someone who would promote this stuff to children.

What is with all your pearl clutching. People are sexual entities. They grow into that sexuality as the mature. No one is promoting anything sexual or religious wise to kids in school. They are just not shying away from letting kids make informed decisions. Sex exist. It exist in many forms besides the missionary position. Sexual health and responsibility exist. Folks should understand it just like they get taught about other health. LGBTQ people exist. Folks should be taught to respect their choices just like you expect people to respect yours.

How is any of this difficult to comprehend? Why is any of it controversial? Half the people claiming to reject it on religious reasons have many more other things in their lives which are counter to religion observance and behavior.

This is insane and ignoring reality. The fundamental problem is being gay is at its heart about one’s sexual behavior. It can only be one’s identity if he or she announces his or her sexual proclivities. In order to have pride in being gay even children need to know it involves sexual acts. It is the only way to normalize it - expose young children to sex. The problem is exposing children to sex at a young age breaks down the necessary and natural self defense of these kids that helps avoid being exploited or abused by adults. Normalizing sex for young kids means normalizing sexual acts by young kids.

Oh come on. You sound as crazy as the person you are responding to. It is quite possible to have books that casually have gay people as characters, no sex involved. Have a book with two gay parents and a kid, done. 99% of parents would be fine with that. You can easily have healthy, positive representation of gay people without exposing young kids to sex.

The problem is, that’s not what MoCo did. They took it much further. They picked books that had kids find drag queens, for instance, even though that’s a form of grossly sexist minstrelry. They picked books that asked kids to look for leather at pride parade. They picked books that presented as fact that children have a gender identity apart from their sex (which is a metaphysical and quasi-religious belief system, not reality).

If MoCo had just had books with gay parents, for instance, this case would not exist. But they went radically further and now there is going to be a ruling that is probably harmful for education overall, but also probably necessary to reign in radicalism in schools.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

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.

School choice already exist: public school, private school, home school

School choice exists for the well off. For those with lower incomes, they're condemned to public schools.

Wealth allows you to extract yourself from societal problems.

These same people fight against vouchers so the poor can escape badly performing publics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Point us to the page where any of that is discussed in Pride Puppy.

Listen to the Gorsuch questioning earlier in this thread - the video was posted where this exact issue was discussed.

[Anonymous]

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.

It's you who should form your own private schools where you can peddle your fetish-driven religion to the children of fellow groomers like yourself. The normal people in society shouldn't be driven out of schools so you can run amok with your incessant sex talks.

+1000
It will never cease to astound me how much these people actually WANT to expose children to sexual topics. Why? I can't fathom the mind of someone who would promote this stuff to children.

What is with all your pearl clutching. People are sexual entities. They grow into that sexuality as the mature. No one is promoting anything sexual or religious wise to kids in school. They are just not shying away from letting kids make informed decisions. Sex exist. It exist in many forms besides the missionary position. Sexual health and responsibility exist. Folks should understand it just like they get taught about other health. LGBTQ people exist. Folks should be taught to respect their choices just like you expect people to respect yours.

How is any of this difficult to comprehend? Why is any of it controversial? Half the people claiming to reject it on religious reasons have many more other things in their lives which are counter to religion observance and behavior.

This isn’t just a sex ed class. These readings are embedded throughout the curriculum so parents have fewer options to withdraw their children. Pride Puppy for example was being utilized in an English class.

The lesson plans go well beyond “gays exist” as has been pointed out. It includes the idea that biological sex is a “guess” which is a pseudo religious, non falsifiable concept that doesn’t belong in a school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

WARNING: that congressional document is NOT SAFE FOR WORK! The contents could subject you to discipline at work, due to the prohibition on viewing pornography at work.

The images are also prohibited on DCUMAD.

[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.

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.

Should we also read picture books about hetero kinksters? It's only fair. We're not talking about "Heather Has Two Mommies" here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's you who should form your own private schools where you can peddle your fetish-driven religion to the children of fellow groomers like yourself. The normal people in society shouldn't be driven out of schools so you can run amok with your incessant sex talks.

+1000
It will never cease to astound me how much these people actually WANT to expose children to sexual topics. Why? I can't fathom the mind of someone who would promote this stuff to children.

What is with all your pearl clutching. People are sexual entities. They grow into that sexuality as the mature. No one is promoting anything sexual or religious wise to kids in school. They are just not shying away from letting kids make informed decisions. Sex exist. It exist in many forms besides the missionary position. Sexual health and responsibility exist. Folks should understand it just like they get taught about other health. LGBTQ people exist. Folks should be taught to respect their choices just like you expect people to respect yours.

How is any of this difficult to comprehend? Why is any of it controversial? Half the people claiming to reject it on religious reasons have many more other things in their lives which are counter to religion observance and behavior.

This is insane and ignoring reality. The fundamental problem is being gay is at its heart about one’s sexual behavior. It can only be one’s identity if he or she announces his or her sexual proclivities. In order to have pride in being gay even children need to know it involves sexual acts. It is the only way to normalize it - expose young children to sex. The problem is exposing children to sex at a young age breaks down the necessary and natural self defense of these kids that helps avoid being exploited or abused by adults. Normalizing sex for young kids means normalizing sexual acts by young kids.

Oh come on. You sound as crazy as the person you are responding to. It is quite possible to have books that casually have gay people as characters, no sex involved. Have a book with two gay parents and a kid, done. 99% of parents would be fine with that. You can easily have healthy, positive representation of gay people without exposing young kids to sex.

The problem is, that’s not what MoCo did. They took it much further. They picked books that had kids find drag queens, for instance, even though that’s a form of grossly sexist minstrelry. They picked books that asked kids to look for leather at pride parade. They picked books that presented as fact that children have a gender identity apart from their sex (which is a metaphysical and quasi-religious belief system, not reality).

If MoCo had just had books with gay parents, for instance, this case would not exist. But they went radically further and now there is going to be a ruling that is probably harmful for education overall, but also probably necessary to reign in radicalism in schools.

I actually agree about the book that passively has gay couples - was responding to the person who wanted to normalize teaching young kids about sex. And my comment was in the context of these books. But also addressing the reality that the “pride” movement is about sex. So any school activities that focus on pride are focusing on sex. To include pride puppy. Pride parades are about sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

WARNING: that congressional document is NOT SAFE FOR WORK! The contents could subject you to discipline at work, due to the prohibition on viewing pornography at work.

The images are also prohibited on DCUMAD.

lol this ain’t the book in the lawsuit. God you people just say anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

WARNING: that congressional document is NOT SAFE FOR WORK! The contents could subject you to discipline at work, due to the prohibition on viewing pornography at work.

The images are also prohibited on DCUMAD.

lol this ain’t the book in the lawsuit. God you people just say anything.

The link was posted because someone on this thread was asking about Gender Queer specifically. It was an issue in a separate parental rights lawsuit in Maryland.