Lawsuit targeting LGTBQ books in classrooms

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which part of her remarks did you find problematic. I read the entire article and agree with everything she said.

Moreover, I support her firm stance on this issue. This isn't an issue on which I want wobbly political answers from my elected officials - I want a clear statement that MCPS will not single out the existence of LGBTQ+ children and families as "controversial."

My kids school banned Halloween and Valentines Day as not being inclusive,but is mandating lgbtq books in classrooms. Just seems a little incongruous.

It is a huge double standard.

Books about kids being trans do not belong in elementary schools.

There are trans kids.
There are trans kids in our schools.
Why can't there be books about trans students?

This.
Just like there are Muslim kids in our schools and there are books featuring Muslim students.

I’m glad MCPS ended opting out for this type of thing. While I’m sorry that the Muslim girl felt uncomfortable hearing a story about a transgendered child, her discomfort is precisely why these books should be read to all. She is going to school with transgendered peers and needs to learn about them and get along with them. There are likely families who are “not comfortable” around Muslims, but their children also need to learn about them and get along with them.

This is PUBLIC school. Everyone of every type of diversity is in our schools and all are welcome. If you object to a subset of people because of a key characteristic of who they are, then get your education elsewhere.

I don’t think anyone is objecting to books with diverse characters. Its books that have content that some find morally objectionable and related to family life/sex ed (drag queens, leather, messages about changing your gender).

For better or for worse, schools (and MD law) have long carved out sex ed as one area of instruction where parents get a lot of say in the form of opting out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which part of her remarks did you find problematic. I read the entire article and agree with everything she said.

Moreover, I support her firm stance on this issue. This isn't an issue on which I want wobbly political answers from my elected officials - I want a clear statement that MCPS will not single out the existence of LGBTQ+ children and families as "controversial."

My kids school banned Halloween and Valentines Day as not being inclusive,but is mandating lgbtq books in classrooms. Just seems a little incongruous.

It is a huge double standard.

Books about kids being trans do not belong in elementary schools.

There are trans kids.
There are trans kids in our schools.
Why can't there be books about trans students?

How about kids with abusive parents? Or kids that have a life threatening disease, or any disease, like diabetes which is very common? How about kids that live in a foster home? MCPS has become a shit show. None of you are willing and able to see that the topic is controversial and needs to stay out of the elementary schools. Parents can read these books to their kids at home. Or allow parents to opt out. MCPs is a diverse district so they have to learn to respect the needs of a diverse population. I would be terrified to see how a teacher would answer questions coming from kids who are not familiar with trans kids.

There are books about all of those things. The library database is searchable.

Just called the librarian at my kids school and they don’t have any books in these topics.

[Anonymous]

I'm literally disgusted by those who think that trans people are morally objectionable and reprehensible literally for who they are. Just for their existence. It makes me feel sick that this is reality.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which part of her remarks did you find problematic. I read the entire article and agree with everything she said.

Moreover, I support her firm stance on this issue. This isn't an issue on which I want wobbly political answers from my elected officials - I want a clear statement that MCPS will not single out the existence of LGBTQ+ children and families as "controversial."

My kids school banned Halloween and Valentines Day as not being inclusive,but is mandating lgbtq books in classrooms. Just seems a little incongruous.

It is a huge double standard.

Books about kids being trans do not belong in elementary schools.

There are trans kids.
There are trans kids in our schools.
Why can't there be books about trans students?

How about kids with abusive parents? Or kids that have a life threatening disease, or any disease, like diabetes which is very common? How about kids that live in a foster home? MCPS has become a shit show. None of you are willing and able to see that the topic is controversial and needs to stay out of the elementary schools. Parents can read these books to their kids at home. Or allow parents to opt out. MCPs is a diverse district so they have to learn to respect the needs of a diverse population. I would be terrified to see how a teacher would answer questions coming from kids who are not familiar with trans kids.

There are books about all of those things. The library database is searchable.

Just called the librarian at my kids school and they don’t have any books in these topics.

Okay. So why not take all of this energy, search the database for books that you think would be appropriate on those topics, and send a polite email asking whether the library and would consider using next year's budget to procure some of them?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Which part of her remarks did you find problematic. I read the entire article and agree with everything she said.

Moreover, I support her firm stance on this issue. This isn't an issue on which I want wobbly political answers from my elected officials - I want a clear statement that MCPS will not single out the existence of LGBTQ+ children and families as "controversial."

My kids school banned Halloween and Valentines Day as not being inclusive,but is mandating lgbtq books in classrooms. Just seems a little incongruous.

It is a huge double standard.

Books about kids being trans do not belong in elementary schools.

There are trans kids.
There are trans kids in our schools.
Why can't there be books about trans students?

How about kids with abusive parents? Or kids that have a life threatening disease, or any disease, like diabetes which is very common? How about kids that live in a foster home? MCPS has become a shit show. None of you are willing and able to see that the topic is controversial and needs to stay out of the elementary schools. Parents can read these books to their kids at home. Or allow parents to opt out. MCPs is a diverse district so they have to learn to respect the needs of a diverse population. I would be terrified to see how a teacher would answer questions coming from kids who are not familiar with trans kids.

There are books about all of those things. The library database is searchable.

Just called the librarian at my kids school and they don’t have any books in these topics.

I do not believe this to be true.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm not comfortable sending my kids to school with bigots yet I still have to. Even in MOCO.

+1 million

Censorship is a terrible idea. Age-appropriate books of all vantage points should be encouraged in our schools. Obviously those who are pro-book removal are aware of similar efforts around the country to remove books about, say, Rosa Parks, in addition to any mention of LGBTQ identities. I wonder how you all feel about the successful effort in Utah to ban the Bible?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/utah-parent-upset-book-bans-gets-bible-pulled-school-shelves-expose-ba-rcna87450

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm literally disgusted by those who think that trans people are morally objectionable and reprehensible literally for who they are. Just for their existence. It makes me feel sick that this is reality.

Nobody said that. The objection is to instruction about the nature of gender, which is included in the teachers manual for the books.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not comfortable sending my kids to school with bigots yet I still have to. Even in MOCO.

+1 million

Censorship is a terrible idea. Age-appropriate books of all vantage points should be encouraged in our schools. Obviously those who are pro-book removal are aware of similar efforts around the country to remove books about, say, Rosa Parks, in addition to any mention of LGBTQ identities. I wonder how you all feel about the successful effort in Utah to ban the Bible?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/utah-parent-upset-book-bans-gets-bible-pulled-school-shelves-expose-ba-rcna87450

On the contrary- these parents are only asking to opt out, not ban anything.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not comfortable sending my kids to school with bigots yet I still have to. Even in MOCO.

+1 million

Censorship is a terrible idea. Age-appropriate books of all vantage points should be encouraged in our schools. Obviously those who are pro-book removal are aware of similar efforts around the country to remove books about, say, Rosa Parks, in addition to any mention of LGBTQ identities. I wonder how you all feel about the successful effort in Utah to ban the Bible?

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/utah-parent-upset-book-bans-gets-bible-pulled-school-shelves-expose-ba-rcna87450

so this lawsuit is about the books being used in class, not just being in the library. and yes, I would have a HUGE issue if a teacher led a bible study in class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t find the comments rude, just straightforward. I think the school has a right to teach their general curriculum (include age-appropriate LGBTQ+ books) to all students without telling the parents ahead of time. I think she’s right to say that if you want your children not to be exposed to ideas that don’t align with your religious beliefs you need to send them to a religious school, not a secular public one.

What shocked you so much, OP?

When people say this, what do they mean? There is no "age-appropriate heterosexual discussion". We don't refrain from talking about moms/dad, Mr./Mrs., one man/one woman marriage at any age. Why is there an "age appropriate" label around the same kind of discussion re: LGBTQ families? Are they somehow PG-13 when "mom and dad" is PG or G? None of the materials under discussion here are in any way more than showing diverse representations of people/families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm literally disgusted by those who think that trans people are morally objectionable and reprehensible literally for who they are. Just for their existence. It makes me feel sick that this is reality.

Nobody said that. The objection is to instruction about the nature of gender, which is included in the teachers manual for the books.

One of the plaintiffs specifically objected to a book that has nothing to do with trans identity, and where the most "sexual" thing that happens is two fully clothed individuals hug and put their faces near each other but not touching.

So, you can try to use trans rights as the wedge issue and protest that this isn't about LGB people, but we know better. This is about any representation of LGBTQ people in books or media, which is why it is so important that Harris and the rest of the BoE hold their ground right now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t find the comments rude, just straightforward. I think the school has a right to teach their general curriculum (include age-appropriate LGBTQ+ books) to all students without telling the parents ahead of time. I think she’s right to say that if you want your children not to be exposed to ideas that don’t align with your religious beliefs you need to send them to a religious school, not a secular public one.

What shocked you so much, OP?

When people say this, what do they mean? There is no "age-appropriate heterosexual discussion". We don't refrain from talking about moms/dad, Mr./Mrs., one man/one woman marriage at any age. Why is there an "age appropriate" label around the same kind of discussion re: LGBTQ families? Are they somehow PG-13 when "mom and dad" is PG or G? None of the materials under discussion here are in any way more than showing diverse representations of people/families.

PP who made the comment. I think there is age-inappropriate heterosexual content: it is any content that contains age-inappropriate language or themes related to heterosexual relationships. So books where kids have a mom and dad? Fine. Books where kids have two moms? Exactly the same level of fine. Twilight? Age-inappropriate heterosexual content for elementary school. Fun Home? Age-inappropriate LGBTQ+ content for elementary schoolers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I didn’t find the comments rude, just straightforward. I think the school has a right to teach their general curriculum (include age-appropriate LGBTQ+ books) to all students without telling the parents ahead of time. I think she’s right to say that if you want your children not to be exposed to ideas that don’t align with your religious beliefs you need to send them to a religious school, not a secular public one.

What shocked you so much, OP?

When people say this, what do they mean? There is no "age-appropriate heterosexual discussion". We don't refrain from talking about moms/dad, Mr./Mrs., one man/one woman marriage at any age. Why is there an "age appropriate" label around the same kind of discussion re: LGBTQ families? Are they somehow PG-13 when "mom and dad" is PG or G? None of the materials under discussion here are in any way more than showing diverse representations of people/families.

I mean - read the complaint. One of the books has the kid go to a Pride Parade where they spot leather gear and drag queens. Another one guides the teacher to give one ideological take on gender. The other two books seem to discuss sexual attraction/arousal. Only one of the books appears to be solely representative.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm literally disgusted by those who think that trans people are morally objectionable and reprehensible literally for who they are. Just for their existence. It makes me feel sick that this is reality.

You are the sick one trying to brainwash my DD

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm literally disgusted by those who think that trans people are morally objectionable and reprehensible literally for who they are. Just for their existence. It makes me feel sick that this is reality.

Nobody said that. The objection is to instruction about the nature of gender, which is included in the teachers manual for the books.

One of the plaintiffs specifically objected to a book that has nothing to do with trans identity, and where the most "sexual" thing that happens is two fully clothed individuals hug and put their faces near each other but not touching.

So, you can try to use trans rights as the wedge issue and protest that this isn't about LGB people, but we know better. This is about any representation of LGBTQ people in books or media, which is why it is so important that Harris and the rest of the BoE hold their ground right now.

Holding their ground until forced to settle after they lose at summary judgement. This is not a legally weak case.