MCPS elementary school principals signed an internal memo expressing concerns about LGBTQ curriculum last November

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way MCPS published curriculum with instructions to “make a shaming comment” to a child. Either someone internal to the school put their own spin into instructions, or the principals are reframing.

Regardless of how these religious groups try to spin this, MCPS isn’t trying to indoctrinate elementary kids regarding LGBTQ topics. They are trying to give them context about the other kids sitting next to them in the classroom, because they sure aren’t learning about it at home.

Like it or not, in public school in MCPS there will be children of every possible diversity in the classrooms, including children who are transgender and who have family members in the LGBTQ community.

Is a preK kid sitting next to a drag queen? Why are three and four year olds being taught about drag queens?

As per the current trend, if the preK kid says that zhey are a drag queen then we affirm it, so it is quite possible that some of them are.

Except that’s not true, but I’m sure you know that.
One or two books featuring a drag Queen will not make your kid a drag Queen…

True, but I don’t want to have to explain what a drag queen is. How do you even begin? It’s a man that dresses like a girl, except dresses aren’t just for girls because gender doesn’t exist. We adults can’t figure it out so how can we explain it to a child.

It's a man who dresses up for fun in fancy clothes, like princess costumes.

There, now you don't have to be afraid of "Pride Puppy" anymore! Hooray!

This is okay so long as you add “often the men make fun of women when they are doing the dress-up and it’s not very nice.”

And they often talk and engage in lewd and crude sexual play while in drag.

If you are taking a 5 year old to an adult show that speaks volumes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way MCPS published curriculum with instructions to “make a shaming comment” to a child. Either someone internal to the school put their own spin into instructions, or the principals are reframing.

Regardless of how these religious groups try to spin this, MCPS isn’t trying to indoctrinate elementary kids regarding LGBTQ topics. They are trying to give them context about the other kids sitting next to them in the classroom, because they sure aren’t learning about it at home.

Like it or not, in public school in MCPS there will be children of every possible diversity in the classrooms, including children who are transgender and who have family members in the LGBTQ community.

Is a preK kid sitting next to a drag queen? Why are three and four year olds being taught about drag queens?

As per the current trend, if the preK kid says that zhey are a drag queen then we affirm it, so it is quite possible that some of them are.

Except that’s not true, but I’m sure you know that.
One or two books featuring a drag Queen will not make your kid a drag Queen…

True, but I don’t want to have to explain what a drag queen is. How do you even begin? It’s a man that dresses like a girl, except dresses aren’t just for girls because gender doesn’t exist. We adults can’t figure it out so how can we explain it to a child.

It's a man who dresses up for fun in fancy clothes, like princess costumes.

There, now you don't have to be afraid of "Pride Puppy" anymore! Hooray!

This is okay so long as you add “often the men make fun of women when they are doing the dress-up and it’s not very nice.”

These are you issues. It's not hard to explain "drag queen" or "drag king" to a five-year-old. It's much harder, unfortunately, to solve the problems caused by people who define "liberty" as "my freedom to choose what your child can read."

If I ever find myself on the same side of an issue as people who use that definition of liberty, I'm going to immediately do a whole lot of self-examination. I would advise the MoCo CAIR people to do the same, if they asked me, which they haven't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way MCPS published curriculum with instructions to “make a shaming comment” to a child. Either someone internal to the school put their own spin into instructions, or the principals are reframing.

Regardless of how these religious groups try to spin this, MCPS isn’t trying to indoctrinate elementary kids regarding LGBTQ topics. They are trying to give them context about the other kids sitting next to them in the classroom, because they sure aren’t learning about it at home.

Like it or not, in public school in MCPS there will be children of every possible diversity in the classrooms, including children who are transgender and who have family members in the LGBTQ community.

Is a preK kid sitting next to a drag queen? Why are three and four year olds being taught about drag queens?

As per the current trend, if the preK kid says that zhey are a drag queen then we affirm it, so it is quite possible that some of them are.

Except that’s not true, but I’m sure you know that.
One or two books featuring a drag Queen will not make your kid a drag Queen…

True, but I don’t want to have to explain what a drag queen is. How do you even begin? It’s a man that dresses like a girl, except dresses aren’t just for girls because gender doesn’t exist. We adults can’t figure it out so how can we explain it to a child.

A drag queen is when a man does dress up for fun.. he might wear sparkly make up and glitter and wear a wig and then sometimes he tells jokes or sings songs for adults. And sometimes he’ll read a book to kids. It’s just for fun.
That’s literally what I said to my 4yo when we say a drag Queen at a restaurant in Rehoboth.

And, that's fine for when you go to the restaurant but for those of us not doing that, why does a four year old need to know?

Are we limiting the public school curriculum to a need-to-know basis, now?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I entirely agree. We are staunchly liberal and will never vote another way, but anything not strictly academic done by MCPS is just really badly done. Their required health class, for example. It used to be one semester, now it's two, but they haven't actually expanded the curriculum, so high schoolers find themselves forced to take a second semester of health, instead of more interesting things, to sit and listen to a repeat of health A. It's STUPID. Same for every wellness session - it's repetitive and boring and doesn't really get at the causes of tribalism and hate. If MCPS offered a mandatory high school certification for CPR, instead of health B, and offered high school students a chance to delve into recent history of civil rights and sexual orientation, with actual academic papers and debate, that might be interesting. But no. Everything is dumbed down drivel. My other kid in an IB middle school is required to read the most inane, obvious book every summer about some trendy topic. Last year, something about an LGBTQ+ finding acceptance in school, this year, a hate crime in school and the resulting restorative justice circle that makes everyone feel good again. Not one little bit of it is realistic or remotely sensitive or intelligent. These books seem made to appeal to the lowest common denominator of central office staff who has been hired to promote equity and inclusion but has no clue what's happening on the ground, and no clue how adolescents actually feel. It's all... excruciatingly cringeworthy. My 13 year old DD sees so clearly how moronic it is. It doesn't make her respect her school, or make her excited about attending school. And don't get me started on introducing those topics in elementary.

The academics are OK, and at least MCPS has some decent programs for gifted students and special needs students (my other kid participated in one of them). MCPS is by no means all bad. But this inclusion effort is really, really, pathetic.

This a state requirement.

Also, I personally find it excruciatingly cringeworthy when a person refers to a person who is LGBTQ+ as "an LGBTQ". Who does that?! So embarrassing.

You got offended over this? Get over yourself. Everyone looking for reasons to get bent out of shape.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way MCPS published curriculum with instructions to “make a shaming comment” to a child. Either someone internal to the school put their own spin into instructions, or the principals are reframing.

Regardless of how these religious groups try to spin this, MCPS isn’t trying to indoctrinate elementary kids regarding LGBTQ topics. They are trying to give them context about the other kids sitting next to them in the classroom, because they sure aren’t learning about it at home.

Like it or not, in public school in MCPS there will be children of every possible diversity in the classrooms, including children who are transgender and who have family members in the LGBTQ community.

Is a preK kid sitting next to a drag queen? Why are three and four year olds being taught about drag queens?

As per the current trend, if the preK kid says that zhey are a drag queen then we affirm it, so it is quite possible that some of them are.

Except that’s not true, but I’m sure you know that.
One or two books featuring a drag Queen will not make your kid a drag Queen…

True, but I don’t want to have to explain what a drag queen is. How do you even begin? It’s a man that dresses like a girl, except dresses aren’t just for girls because gender doesn’t exist. We adults can’t figure it out so how can we explain it to a child.

It's a man who dresses up for fun in fancy clothes, like princess costumes.

There, now you don't have to be afraid of "Pride Puppy" anymore! Hooray!

5 year old: why is a man wearing girl clothes?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way MCPS published curriculum with instructions to “make a shaming comment” to a child. Either someone internal to the school put their own spin into instructions, or the principals are reframing.

Regardless of how these religious groups try to spin this, MCPS isn’t trying to indoctrinate elementary kids regarding LGBTQ topics. They are trying to give them context about the other kids sitting next to them in the classroom, because they sure aren’t learning about it at home.

Like it or not, in public school in MCPS there will be children of every possible diversity in the classrooms, including children who are transgender and who have family members in the LGBTQ community.

Is a preK kid sitting next to a drag queen? Why are three and four year olds being taught about drag queens?

As per the current trend, if the preK kid says that zhey are a drag queen then we affirm it, so it is quite possible that some of them are.

Except that’s not true, but I’m sure you know that.
One or two books featuring a drag Queen will not make your kid a drag Queen…

True, but I don’t want to have to explain what a drag queen is. How do you even begin? It’s a man that dresses like a girl, except dresses aren’t just for girls because gender doesn’t exist. We adults can’t figure it out so how can we explain it to a child.

It's a man who dresses up for fun in fancy clothes, like princess costumes.

There, now you don't have to be afraid of "Pride Puppy" anymore! Hooray!

5 year old: why is a man wearing girl clothes?

Because he's dressing up, like you do on Halloween (or when you're playing pretend, or whenever the child dresses up). Really, it's not difficult. I have done it, and I am sure that you can too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way MCPS published curriculum with instructions to “make a shaming comment” to a child. Either someone internal to the school put their own spin into instructions, or the principals are reframing.

Regardless of how these religious groups try to spin this, MCPS isn’t trying to indoctrinate elementary kids regarding LGBTQ topics. They are trying to give them context about the other kids sitting next to them in the classroom, because they sure aren’t learning about it at home.

Like it or not, in public school in MCPS there will be children of every possible diversity in the classrooms, including children who are transgender and who have family members in the LGBTQ community.

Is a preK kid sitting next to a drag queen? Why are three and four year olds being taught about drag queens?

As per the current trend, if the preK kid says that zhey are a drag queen then we affirm it, so it is quite possible that some of them are.

Except that’s not true, but I’m sure you know that.
One or two books featuring a drag Queen will not make your kid a drag Queen…

True, but I don’t want to have to explain what a drag queen is. How do you even begin? It’s a man that dresses like a girl, except dresses aren’t just for girls because gender doesn’t exist. We adults can’t figure it out so how can we explain it to a child.

It's a man who dresses up for fun in fancy clothes, like princess costumes.

There, now you don't have to be afraid of "Pride Puppy" anymore! Hooray!

This is okay so long as you add “often the men make fun of women when they are doing the dress-up and it’s not very nice.”

And they often talk and engage in lewd and crude sexual play while in drag.

If you are taking a 5 year old to an adult show that speaks volumes.

Not necessary. Google is easy for even a 5 year old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I entirely agree. We are staunchly liberal and will never vote another way, but anything not strictly academic done by MCPS is just really badly done. Their required health class, for example. It used to be one semester, now it's two, but they haven't actually expanded the curriculum, so high schoolers find themselves forced to take a second semester of health, instead of more interesting things, to sit and listen to a repeat of health A. It's STUPID. Same for every wellness session - it's repetitive and boring and doesn't really get at the causes of tribalism and hate. If MCPS offered a mandatory high school certification for CPR, instead of health B, and offered high school students a chance to delve into recent history of civil rights and sexual orientation, with actual academic papers and debate, that might be interesting. But no. Everything is dumbed down drivel. My other kid in an IB middle school is required to read the most inane, obvious book every summer about some trendy topic. Last year, something about an LGBTQ+ finding acceptance in school, this year, a hate crime in school and the resulting restorative justice circle that makes everyone feel good again. Not one little bit of it is realistic or remotely sensitive or intelligent. These books seem made to appeal to the lowest common denominator of central office staff who has been hired to promote equity and inclusion but has no clue what's happening on the ground, and no clue how adolescents actually feel. It's all... excruciatingly cringeworthy. My 13 year old DD sees so clearly how moronic it is. It doesn't make her respect her school, or make her excited about attending school. And don't get me started on introducing those topics in elementary.

The academics are OK, and at least MCPS has some decent programs for gifted students and special needs students (my other kid participated in one of them). MCPS is by no means all bad. But this inclusion effort is really, really, pathetic.

This a state requirement.

Also, I personally find it excruciatingly cringeworthy when a person refers to a person who is LGBTQ+ as "an LGBTQ". Who does that?! So embarrassing.

It’s LGBTQIA+. You’re missing intersex and asexual who are people too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I entirely agree. We are staunchly liberal and will never vote another way, but anything not strictly academic done by MCPS is just really badly done. Their required health class, for example. It used to be one semester, now it's two, but they haven't actually expanded the curriculum, so high schoolers find themselves forced to take a second semester of health, instead of more interesting things, to sit and listen to a repeat of health A. It's STUPID. Same for every wellness session - it's repetitive and boring and doesn't really get at the causes of tribalism and hate. If MCPS offered a mandatory high school certification for CPR, instead of health B, and offered high school students a chance to delve into recent history of civil rights and sexual orientation, with actual academic papers and debate, that might be interesting. But no. Everything is dumbed down drivel. My other kid in an IB middle school is required to read the most inane, obvious book every summer about some trendy topic. Last year, something about an LGBTQ+ finding acceptance in school, this year, a hate crime in school and the resulting restorative justice circle that makes everyone feel good again. Not one little bit of it is realistic or remotely sensitive or intelligent. These books seem made to appeal to the lowest common denominator of central office staff who has been hired to promote equity and inclusion but has no clue what's happening on the ground, and no clue how adolescents actually feel. It's all... excruciatingly cringeworthy. My 13 year old DD sees so clearly how moronic it is. It doesn't make her respect her school, or make her excited about attending school. And don't get me started on introducing those topics in elementary.

The academics are OK, and at least MCPS has some decent programs for gifted students and special needs students (my other kid participated in one of them). MCPS is by no means all bad. But this inclusion effort is really, really, pathetic.

This a state requirement.

Also, I personally find it excruciatingly cringeworthy when a person refers to a person who is LGBTQ+ as "an LGBTQ". Who does that?! So embarrassing.

It’s LGBTQIA+. You’re missing intersex and asexual who are people too.

Also some don’t like when you leave out the other Q:
LGBTQQIA+

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teaching kids that some kids, like peppa, have two moms instead of a mom and a dad is hardly "indoctrinating" lol. No more so than when you see two het people walking down the street holding hands. Learning that people EXIST isnt shoving it down anyones throat.

Except that's not what they are teaching that different families look different and there are better books to teach that that he ones they choose.

When I send my kid to public school, I agree for my kid to be taught according to the curriculum duly chosen by the public school. I do not agree for my kid to be taught according to the curriculum randomly chosen by you, a random person commenting anonymously on an internet message board.

Cool, cool. Just so we are clear, if you lived in Florida, you would just go along with the Florida board of education's slavery as a jobs program, because that is what has been chosen by the public school system, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way MCPS published curriculum with instructions to “make a shaming comment” to a child. Either someone internal to the school put their own spin into instructions, or the principals are reframing.

Regardless of how these religious groups try to spin this, MCPS isn’t trying to indoctrinate elementary kids regarding LGBTQ topics. They are trying to give them context about the other kids sitting next to them in the classroom, because they sure aren’t learning about it at home.

Like it or not, in public school in MCPS there will be children of every possible diversity in the classrooms, including children who are transgender and who have family members in the LGBTQ community.

Is a preK kid sitting next to a drag queen? Why are three and four year olds being taught about drag queens?

Because progressives are trying to normalize this behavior. Like all religions, it is imperative to start them young.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Teaching kids that some kids, like peppa, have two moms instead of a mom and a dad is hardly "indoctrinating" lol. No more so than when you see two het people walking down the street holding hands. Learning that people EXIST isnt shoving it down anyones throat.

Except that's not what they are teaching that different families look different and there are better books to teach that that he ones they choose.

When I send my kid to public school, I agree for my kid to be taught according to the curriculum duly chosen by the public school. I do not agree for my kid to be taught according to the curriculum randomly chosen by you, a random person commenting anonymously on an internet message board.

Cool, cool. Just so we are clear, if you lived in Florida, you would just go along with the Florida board of education's slavery as a jobs program, because that is what has been chosen by the public school system, right?

I'm the PP you're responding to. If I lived in Florida, I wouldn't send my child to public school. In fact, I wouldn't live in Florida, because if I did live in Florida, I wouldn't send my child to public school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way MCPS published curriculum with instructions to “make a shaming comment” to a child. Either someone internal to the school put their own spin into instructions, or the principals are reframing.

Regardless of how these religious groups try to spin this, MCPS isn’t trying to indoctrinate elementary kids regarding LGBTQ topics. They are trying to give them context about the other kids sitting next to them in the classroom, because they sure aren’t learning about it at home.

Like it or not, in public school in MCPS there will be children of every possible diversity in the classrooms, including children who are transgender and who have family members in the LGBTQ community.

Is a preK kid sitting next to a drag queen? Why are three and four year olds being taught about drag queens?

As per the current trend, if the preK kid says that zhey are a drag queen then we affirm it, so it is quite possible that some of them are.

Except that’s not true, but I’m sure you know that.
One or two books featuring a drag Queen will not make your kid a drag Queen…

True, but I don’t want to have to explain what a drag queen is. How do you even begin? It’s a man that dresses like a girl, except dresses aren’t just for girls because gender doesn’t exist. We adults can’t figure it out so how can we explain it to a child.

It's a man who dresses up for fun in fancy clothes, like princess costumes.

There, now you don't have to be afraid of "Pride Puppy" anymore! Hooray!

But why does a 5 yr old need to learn that at 5? It's ridiculous. Drag queens try to be sexual. They usually dress in very provocative clothing, and some of them look downright scary with that makeup.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way MCPS published curriculum with instructions to “make a shaming comment” to a child. Either someone internal to the school put their own spin into instructions, or the principals are reframing.

Regardless of how these religious groups try to spin this, MCPS isn’t trying to indoctrinate elementary kids regarding LGBTQ topics. They are trying to give them context about the other kids sitting next to them in the classroom, because they sure aren’t learning about it at home.

Like it or not, in public school in MCPS there will be children of every possible diversity in the classrooms, including children who are transgender and who have family members in the LGBTQ community.

Is a preK kid sitting next to a drag queen? Why are three and four year olds being taught about drag queens?

As per the current trend, if the preK kid says that zhey are a drag queen then we affirm it, so it is quite possible that some of them are.

Except that’s not true, but I’m sure you know that.
One or two books featuring a drag Queen will not make your kid a drag Queen…

True, but I don’t want to have to explain what a drag queen is. How do you even begin? It’s a man that dresses like a girl, except dresses aren’t just for girls because gender doesn’t exist. We adults can’t figure it out so how can we explain it to a child.

It's a man who dresses up for fun in fancy clothes, like princess costumes.

There, now you don't have to be afraid of "Pride Puppy" anymore! Hooray!

This is okay so long as you add “often the men make fun of women when they are doing the dress-up and it’s not very nice.”

And they often talk and engage in lewd and crude sexual play while in drag.

If you are taking a 5 year old to an adult show that speaks volumes.

Not necessary. Google is easy for even a 5 year old.

If your 5 year old is googling that and you aren't supervising them, you have way bigger issues than this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no way MCPS published curriculum with instructions to “make a shaming comment” to a child. Either someone internal to the school put their own spin into instructions, or the principals are reframing.

Regardless of how these religious groups try to spin this, MCPS isn’t trying to indoctrinate elementary kids regarding LGBTQ topics. They are trying to give them context about the other kids sitting next to them in the classroom, because they sure aren’t learning about it at home.

Like it or not, in public school in MCPS there will be children of every possible diversity in the classrooms, including children who are transgender and who have family members in the LGBTQ community.

Is a preK kid sitting next to a drag queen? Why are three and four year olds being taught about drag queens?

Is it teaching three and four year olds about caterpillars when someone reads The Very Hungry Caterpillar to them? Maybe we should ban that book so little kids don't get the idea that caterpillars eat a piece of chocolate cake, a strawberry ice cream cone, a pickle, a slice of Swiss cheese, a slice of salami, a lollipop, a piece of cherry pie, a sausage, a cupcake and a slice of watermelon, and then get a stomach ache?

You're being pedantic and trying every excuse to justify this.