Ruling on MCPS LGBT curriculum case coming this morning

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 2 genders.

And all those troublesome intersex people, but why let biological reality get in the way of a dumb slogan?

That’s high school level biology/genetics curriculum, not kindergarten.

+1 just had this discussion with my 17 yr old DD who has a few gay friends, one who is her bff since 8. She said ES is not age appropriate to bring up these topics.

My older kid had a bff in ES whose parents were gay. It was just matter of fact for them - oh, my bff has two moms, and that was it. ES children don't delve too deeply into the whys and hows. They just accept it. There is no reason to teach them about the rest of the alphabet soup of genders at this age.

Ok. So you asked a cisgender, heterosexual teen, who presumably has cisgender heterosexual parents, and who also has a primarily cisgender and heterosexual peer group, and who has never been a parent, what she thought would be good for queer kids and kids with same sex parents? And you are offering this in the spirit of authority?

DP. Your question was “what’s good for queer kids and kids with same sex parents.” That’s not the charge of our elementary public school system. Getting confused about the mission of public school education is how we got into this situation.

It is absolutely the job of public education to reflect the everyday lives of students, and to create a welcoming environment in which they see their own reality reflected back to them. This contributes to classroom learning.

Then how about doing that for all groups, family styles and disabilities and not just your chosen favorite one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 2 genders.

Gender is a social construct. Literally. There are cultures in which a third gender is common.

Did you mean there are two sexes? That's also false.

Then teach that along side the current curriculum. Teach how women are so oppressed they must become men to survive.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63904744

Teach that in kindergarten.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 2 genders.

And all those troublesome intersex people, but why let biological reality get in the way of a dumb slogan?

Stating that there are 2 genders used to be an objective, inoffensive fact of life and biology. Trans activists have made it a “slogan.”

Saying the world was flat and black people are slaves with less rights, and stoning people to death use to be fact, the way of life, and unobjectable, does that mean we should never move forward and reach for better? Should we ignore all contrary evidence and never make changes just because some people are scared of the boogeyman?

We use to tell kids the stork delivered the baby, then realized it wasn’t really helpful to tell kids not to lie then lie to them about basic human biology.

Know better do better. The boogeyman isn’t there, the kids will be fine.

DP. Personally I am quite fine with older kids learning about the new religion that has grown in US that teaches that people have gender souls that can change in a baptism of self-awareness which then requires ritualistic body modification. They should learn about religious beliefs and religious mortification practices. Gender ideology isn’t the only religion that demands body mortification as part of its tenets. However, I do not want young kids taught the religious tenets of this neo religion as fact, because of course they are not. It’s no different that the schools that used to teach that Jesus rose from the dead as fact.

I sharply distinguish between LGB and T, although Pride Puppy with its fetish wear pictures was obviously inappropriate and it was ridiculous for the school district to ever argue that they had the right to show kindergarteners pictures of mostly naked men in bondage gear. No parents except highly suspicious extreme liberal parents want that. Very few parents object to books that show a family with two dads or two moms in the background. But, because the school district refused to moderate and inexplicably decided to fight for the right to require all kindergartners to have cartoon pictures of men in fetishwear in their books, here we are. The arrogance of MCPS is astonishing.

There are some good es books that explain differences in families and people that are not over the top and in your face.

This is why people should do their own research. There is no mostly naked in bondage wear any where in Pride Puppy.

Yes, there are. Or more specifically, there were at the time of filing the lawsuit. The pictures are widely available online and were referenced in oral argument in this case.

The publisher, seeing the backlash, has since re-issued the book to remove the fetishwear. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t there.

The case was filed in 2023. This video was filmed in 2021. Show me the "mostly naked in bondage wear."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sisIwl07mc4

^^ Another person who didn’t read the actual record or listen to oral argument. But that doesn’t stop them from giving their uninformed views.

Yes, the PP is obviously ignorant of what happened in oral argument.

Interestingly, the publisher of Pride Puppy appears to have aggressively used copyright takedowns to remove the original pictures from the internet. They are almost impossible to find now.

I literally just posted a timestamped video of the book as it would have been read to MCPS kids. I found it in a 10 second Google search. I do not see the fetish gear unless you count the one female in cat ears, which I do not, because sometimes people just wear cat ears.

Is your position that MCPS classrooms get entirely new books every year? That is the only way your “gotcha” would work. The book was reissued. Your timeline is irrelevant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 2 genders.

And all those troublesome intersex people, but why let biological reality get in the way of a dumb slogan?

That’s high school level biology/genetics curriculum, not kindergarten.

+1 just had this discussion with my 17 yr old DD who has a few gay friends, one who is her bff since 8. She said ES is not age appropriate to bring up these topics.

My older kid had a bff in ES whose parents were gay. It was just matter of fact for them - oh, my bff has two moms, and that was it. ES children don't delve too deeply into the whys and hows. They just accept it. There is no reason to teach them about the rest of the alphabet soup of genders at this age.

Ok. So you asked a cisgender, heterosexual teen, who presumably has cisgender heterosexual parents, and who also has a primarily cisgender and heterosexual peer group, and who has never been a parent, what she thought would be good for queer kids and kids with same sex parents? And you are offering this in the spirit of authority?

So you think a family with 2 moms, simply because they have 2 moms, would be comfortable talking about sex in kindergarten in a group of their peers? This is exactly the groomer behavior people want to avoid.

The only people talking about sex are the conservatives. None of the books under discussion here for the ES curriculum are about sex.

Give me the book list for each grade, I’d love to see it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 2 genders.

And all those troublesome intersex people, but why let biological reality get in the way of a dumb slogan?

That’s high school level biology/genetics curriculum, not kindergarten.

+1 just had this discussion with my 17 yr old DD who has a few gay friends, one who is her bff since 8. She said ES is not age appropriate to bring up these topics.

My older kid had a bff in ES whose parents were gay. It was just matter of fact for them - oh, my bff has two moms, and that was it. ES children don't delve too deeply into the whys and hows. They just accept it. There is no reason to teach them about the rest of the alphabet soup of genders at this age.

It's common sense to be honest.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 2 genders.

And all those troublesome intersex people, but why let biological reality get in the way of a dumb slogan?

That’s high school level biology/genetics curriculum, not kindergarten.

+1 just had this discussion with my 17 yr old DD who has a few gay friends, one who is her bff since 8. She said ES is not age appropriate to bring up these topics.

My older kid had a bff in ES whose parents were gay. It was just matter of fact for them - oh, my bff has two moms, and that was it. ES children don't delve too deeply into the whys and hows. They just accept it. There is no reason to teach them about the rest of the alphabet soup of genders at this age.

Ok. So you asked a cisgender, heterosexual teen, who presumably has cisgender heterosexual parents, and who also has a primarily cisgender and heterosexual peer group, and who has never been a parent, what she thought would be good for queer kids and kids with same sex parents? And you are offering this in the spirit of authority?

So you think a family with 2 moms, simply because they have 2 moms, would be comfortable talking about sex in kindergarten in a group of their peers? This is exactly the groomer behavior people want to avoid.

The only people talking about sex are the conservatives. None of the books under discussion here for the ES curriculum are about sex.

Not conservative but don’t see why 5-8 year olds need pictures of adults in bed. Why not at a table or activity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 2 genders.

And all those troublesome intersex people, but why let biological reality get in the way of a dumb slogan?

That’s high school level biology/genetics curriculum, not kindergarten.

+1 just had this discussion with my 17 yr old DD who has a few gay friends, one who is her bff since 8. She said ES is not age appropriate to bring up these topics.

My older kid had a bff in ES whose parents were gay. It was just matter of fact for them - oh, my bff has two moms, and that was it. ES children don't delve too deeply into the whys and hows. They just accept it. There is no reason to teach them about the rest of the alphabet soup of genders at this age.

Ok. So you asked a cisgender, heterosexual teen, who presumably has cisgender heterosexual parents, and who also has a primarily cisgender and heterosexual peer group, and who has never been a parent, what she thought would be good for queer kids and kids with same sex parents? And you are offering this in the spirit of authority?

DP. Your question was “what’s good for queer kids and kids with same sex parents.” That’s not the charge of our elementary public school system. Getting confused about the mission of public school education is how we got into this situation.

It is absolutely the job of public education to reflect the everyday lives of students, and to create a welcoming environment in which they see their own reality reflected back to them. This contributes to classroom learning.

Then how about doing that for all groups, family styles and disabilities and not just your chosen favorite one.

That's the point! No one is saying only teach about LGBTQ families! Those of us who want "My Uncle's Wedding" read in school ALSO want other books reflecting diverse experiences. Lailah's Lunchbox, Jabari Jumps, Eyes the Kiss Corners, What Happened to You, The Girl who Thought in Pictures.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 2 genders.

And all those troublesome intersex people, but why let biological reality get in the way of a dumb slogan?

Stating that there are 2 genders used to be an objective, inoffensive fact of life and biology. Trans activists have made it a “slogan.”

Saying the world was flat and black people are slaves with less rights, and stoning people to death use to be fact, the way of life, and unobjectable, does that mean we should never move forward and reach for better? Should we ignore all contrary evidence and never make changes just because some people are scared of the boogeyman?

We use to tell kids the stork delivered the baby, then realized it wasn’t really helpful to tell kids not to lie then lie to them about basic human biology.

Know better do better. The boogeyman isn’t there, the kids will be fine.

DP. Personally I am quite fine with older kids learning about the new religion that has grown in US that teaches that people have gender souls that can change in a baptism of self-awareness which then requires ritualistic body modification. They should learn about religious beliefs and religious mortification practices. Gender ideology isn’t the only religion that demands body mortification as part of its tenets. However, I do not want young kids taught the religious tenets of this neo religion as fact, because of course they are not. It’s no different that the schools that used to teach that Jesus rose from the dead as fact.

I sharply distinguish between LGB and T, although Pride Puppy with its fetish wear pictures was obviously inappropriate and it was ridiculous for the school district to ever argue that they had the right to show kindergarteners pictures of mostly naked men in bondage gear. No parents except highly suspicious extreme liberal parents want that. Very few parents object to books that show a family with two dads or two moms in the background. But, because the school district refused to moderate and inexplicably decided to fight for the right to require all kindergartners to have cartoon pictures of men in fetishwear in their books, here we are. The arrogance of MCPS is astonishing.

There are some good es books that explain differences in families and people that are not over the top and in your face.

This is why people should do their own research. There is no mostly naked in bondage wear any where in Pride Puppy.

Yes, there are. Or more specifically, there were at the time of filing the lawsuit. The pictures are widely available online and were referenced in oral argument in this case.

The publisher, seeing the backlash, has since re-issued the book to remove the fetishwear. But that doesn’t mean it wasn’t there.

The case was filed in 2023. This video was filmed in 2021. Show me the "mostly naked in bondage wear."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sisIwl07mc4

^^ Another person who didn’t read the actual record or listen to oral argument. But that doesn’t stop them from giving their uninformed views.

Yes, the PP is obviously ignorant of what happened in oral argument.

Interestingly, the publisher of Pride Puppy appears to have aggressively used copyright takedowns to remove the original pictures from the internet. They are almost impossible to find now.

I literally just posted a timestamped video of the book as it would have been read to MCPS kids. I found it in a 10 second Google search. I do not see the fetish gear unless you count the one female in cat ears, which I do not, because sometimes people just wear cat ears.

Is your position that MCPS classrooms get entirely new books every year? That is the only way your “gotcha” would work. The book was reissued. Your timeline is irrelevant.

No. The claim is that "at the time the lawsuit was filed," there were illustrations of men in bondage gear in "Pride Puppy." PP posted a video from two years BEFORE the lawsuit was filed and those illustrations don't exist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 2 genders.

And all those troublesome intersex people, but why let biological reality get in the way of a dumb slogan?

Stating that there are 2 genders used to be an objective, inoffensive fact of life and biology. Trans activists have made it a “slogan.”

Saying the world was flat and black people are slaves with less rights, and stoning people to death use to be fact, the way of life, and unobjectable, does that mean we should never move forward and reach for better? Should we ignore all contrary evidence and never make changes just because some people are scared of the boogeyman?

We use to tell kids the stork delivered the baby, then realized it wasn’t really helpful to tell kids not to lie then lie to them about basic human biology.

Know better do better. The boogeyman isn’t there, the kids will be fine.

DP. Personally I am quite fine with older kids learning about the new religion that has grown in US that teaches that people have gender souls that can change in a baptism of self-awareness which then requires ritualistic body modification. They should learn about religious beliefs and religious mortification practices. Gender ideology isn’t the only religion that demands body mortification as part of its tenets. However, I do not want young kids taught the religious tenets of this neo religion as fact, because of course they are not. It’s no different that the schools that used to teach that Jesus rose from the dead as fact.

I sharply distinguish between LGB and T, although Pride Puppy with its fetish wear pictures was obviously inappropriate and it was ridiculous for the school district to ever argue that they had the right to show kindergarteners pictures of mostly naked men in bondage gear. No parents except highly suspicious extreme liberal parents want that. Very few parents object to books that show a family with two dads or two moms in the background. But, because the school district refused to moderate and inexplicably decided to fight for the right to require all kindergartners to have cartoon pictures of men in fetishwear in their books, here we are. The arrogance of MCPS is astonishing.

It's not arrogance. Central office has been taken over by lobbyist. Instead of focusing on education they waste money on pushing their agenda. All of them should be fired.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 2 genders.

And all those troublesome intersex people, but why let biological reality get in the way of a dumb slogan?

That’s high school level biology/genetics curriculum, not kindergarten.

+1 just had this discussion with my 17 yr old DD who has a few gay friends, one who is her bff since 8. She said ES is not age appropriate to bring up these topics.

My older kid had a bff in ES whose parents were gay. It was just matter of fact for them - oh, my bff has two moms, and that was it. ES children don't delve too deeply into the whys and hows. They just accept it. There is no reason to teach them about the rest of the alphabet soup of genders at this age.

Ok. So you asked a cisgender, heterosexual teen, who presumably has cisgender heterosexual parents, and who also has a primarily cisgender and heterosexual peer group, and who has never been a parent, what she thought would be good for queer kids and kids with same sex parents? And you are offering this in the spirit of authority?

DP. Your question was “what’s good for queer kids and kids with same sex parents.” That’s not the charge of our elementary public school system. Getting confused about the mission of public school education is how we got into this situation.

It is absolutely the job of public education to reflect the everyday lives of students, and to create a welcoming environment in which they see their own reality reflected back to them. This contributes to classroom learning.

Then how about doing that for all groups, family styles and disabilities and not just your chosen favorite one.

They don’t like talking about actual diversity- families that force their children to be locked in the basement, children that get beaten for speaking out of line, children that have to have sex with old men to pay for mom’s drug habit, kids that can’t work to keep mom’s section 8 housing, kids that dig through the garbage for their dinner, kids with only 1 leg and an alcoholic mother that can’t afford therapy because they’d rather drink, you know these “adults” using diversity have enough sense to recognize that’s out of line for children but male bondage to them is somehow normal. This is how you know they’re groomers, because they don’t care about actual diversity.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 2 genders.

And all those troublesome intersex people, but why let biological reality get in the way of a dumb slogan?

That’s high school level biology/genetics curriculum, not kindergarten.

+1 just had this discussion with my 17 yr old DD who has a few gay friends, one who is her bff since 8. She said ES is not age appropriate to bring up these topics.

My older kid had a bff in ES whose parents were gay. It was just matter of fact for them - oh, my bff has two moms, and that was it. ES children don't delve too deeply into the whys and hows. They just accept it. There is no reason to teach them about the rest of the alphabet soup of genders at this age.

Ok. So you asked a cisgender, heterosexual teen, who presumably has cisgender heterosexual parents, and who also has a primarily cisgender and heterosexual peer group, and who has never been a parent, what she thought would be good for queer kids and kids with same sex parents? And you are offering this in the spirit of authority?

So you think a family with 2 moms, simply because they have 2 moms, would be comfortable talking about sex in kindergarten in a group of their peers? This is exactly the groomer behavior people want to avoid.

The only people talking about sex are the conservatives. None of the books under discussion here for the ES curriculum are about sex.

Not conservative but don’t see why 5-8 year olds need pictures of adults in bed. Why not at a table or activity?

Here is the illustration of "adults in bed." From the 2021 video, so two years before the lawsuit was filed.

https://imgur.com/a/4puxfN9

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 2 genders.

And all those troublesome intersex people, but why let biological reality get in the way of a dumb slogan?

That’s high school level biology/genetics curriculum, not kindergarten.

+1 just had this discussion with my 17 yr old DD who has a few gay friends, one who is her bff since 8. She said ES is not age appropriate to bring up these topics.

My older kid had a bff in ES whose parents were gay. It was just matter of fact for them - oh, my bff has two moms, and that was it. ES children don't delve too deeply into the whys and hows. They just accept it. There is no reason to teach them about the rest of the alphabet soup of genders at this age.

Ok. So you asked a cisgender, heterosexual teen, who presumably has cisgender heterosexual parents, and who also has a primarily cisgender and heterosexual peer group, and who has never been a parent, what she thought would be good for queer kids and kids with same sex parents? And you are offering this in the spirit of authority?

DP. Your question was “what’s good for queer kids and kids with same sex parents.” That’s not the charge of our elementary public school system. Getting confused about the mission of public school education is how we got into this situation.

It is absolutely the job of public education to reflect the everyday lives of students, and to create a welcoming environment in which they see their own reality reflected back to them. This contributes to classroom learning.

Then how about doing that for all groups, family styles and disabilities and not just your chosen favorite one.

That's the point! No one is saying only teach about LGBTQ families! Those of us who want "My Uncle's Wedding" read in school ALSO want other books reflecting diverse experiences. Lailah's Lunchbox, Jabari Jumps, Eyes the Kiss Corners, What Happened to You, The Girl who Thought in Pictures.

Why do you want to steal innocence from children? You should reflect on that during therapy.

[Anonymous]

Here is the transcript of oral argument for this case. Search for “puppy” to see the discussion.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2024/24-297_p8k0.pdf

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the parents opting their children out of lessons because those lessons include a same sex couple family, please know that the vast majority of us judge you harshly as a bigot and your kids will likely suffer social consequences because of your intolerance. I feel bad for them, especially those who are themselves gay. Shame on you, you intolerant and insecure people.

The vibe has shifted. I think you’ll be surprised at who is judging who here.

No such thing as a "bigot". This is a fake, made up social construct that liberals made up for people who don't agree with them. Disagreeing with you doesn't make someone an uneducated, narrow minded "bigot". It just means someone doesn't agree wth your social activist agenda.

It always interesting when folks throw out the phrase social activist as though that is a bad thing. They forgot that the founding fathers are social activist, the suffragist are social activist, Abolitionist are social activist, Etc etc. I’m pretty sure social activist consider themselves in good company of people who people and movements that have had transformational change good for humanity.

Oh yes the whole founding father’s argument again. Show me where they read pornography to children and didn’t let parents opt out.

Also if you label yourself an activist then don’t tell me that you don’t have an agenda that you want to impose on my kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There are 2 genders.

And all those troublesome intersex people, but why let biological reality get in the way of a dumb slogan?

That’s high school level biology/genetics curriculum, not kindergarten.

+1 just had this discussion with my 17 yr old DD who has a few gay friends, one who is her bff since 8. She said ES is not age appropriate to bring up these topics.

My older kid had a bff in ES whose parents were gay. It was just matter of fact for them - oh, my bff has two moms, and that was it. ES children don't delve too deeply into the whys and hows. They just accept it. There is no reason to teach them about the rest of the alphabet soup of genders at this age.

Agreed, children should be just have time to be innocent and childlike and loving without being exposed to everything all at once. Next thing you know MCPS will be telling 5 year olds about drugs and prostitution because some kids have homeless parents and drugs and prostitution are part of the homeless lifestyle.

+1

Just because some folks make certain lifestyle choices, hardly means that you start telling elementary school kids about it.