Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing opt out seems like a no brainer.

Where is the line between kids not being exposed to gay characters in books and kids not being exposed to gay people in schools?

AP:

“The stories include a family’s attendance at a pride parade, a girl’s introduction to her uncle’s husband-to-be, a prince’s love for a knight amid their battle against a dragon, a girl’s anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl and a transgender boy’s decision to share his gender identity with his family.”

In this case, I believe the line has been crossed from education to promotion.

It will be fun to see how this logic works in history classes in the south when they start excising discussions of slavery and civil rights.

Slavery and civil rights are historical facts. Again, you are distorting two different issues. Just as we allow an opt out for sex ed and it hasn’t led to “excising discussions of slavery in the south”, so can Maryland allow an opt out here.

Where’s the line? It’s a historical fact that Harvey Milk was assassinated for fighting for LGBTQ rights. How is that less historical than teaching that MLK Jr. was assassinated for fighting for rights during the racist Jim Crow era?

What about a teacher having a photo of their spouse of the same gender on their desk? Can parents opt out of having a gay teacher too?

This isn’t an ideology. This is people’s lives…

The line is defined by age (Harvey Milk belongs in a high school level history or government class) and material. No one is trying to ban books. They simply want to opt out their elementary age kids which is their right. Why is it so important to you to introduce these topics to three year olds against a parent’s objection?

Okay let’s play this out then. I as a parent think it’s important to not reinforce the gender binary to my child. I think it’s important to teach them that there’s no such thing as “girls toys/clothes/etc” and “boys toys/clothes/etc.” And yet at some point in kindergarten there was a lesson where they were identifying themselves as girls and boys. Can I opt my kid out of that? Or only if the curriculum is progressive because it acknowledges that gender is a social construction?

The equivalent would be the teacher reading a book about a girl identifying as a girl and launching a discussion about the importance of maintaining a gender binary in society. Yes you should be able to opt out of such a lesson.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing opt out seems like a no brainer.

Where is the line between kids not being exposed to gay characters in books and kids not being exposed to gay people in schools?

AP:

“The stories include a family’s attendance at a pride parade, a girl’s introduction to her uncle’s husband-to-be, a prince’s love for a knight amid their battle against a dragon, a girl’s anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl and a transgender boy’s decision to share his gender identity with his family.”

In this case, I believe the line has been crossed from education to promotion.

Agree. I have no problem with books that feature same gender parents. But when you start reading books romanticizing kids’ relationships (girls having crushes on a girl classmate) or kids changing genders, that crosses the line for me. Gender identity and romantic relationships between kids shouldn’t be topics taught in schools

So, a book like Junie B Jones which talks about her crushes on boys should be banned too right?

No books are being banned here.

That’s quite literally what this is. If a parent “opts out” of having their kid have access to these materials how does a teacher reasonably do that? They take the materials out of the classroom. It’s not like they’ll have a section in their libraries where they say “sorry Jimmy, that’s off limits to you”

It quite literally is not. The book will still be read to the class with the children whose parents opted out not joining them just like a sex ed class isn’t banned simply because some kids have families that opt out. No book is being removed from the school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing opt out seems like a no brainer.

Where is the line between kids not being exposed to gay characters in books and kids not being exposed to gay people in schools?

AP:

“The stories include a family’s attendance at a pride parade, a girl’s introduction to her uncle’s husband-to-be, a prince’s love for a knight amid their battle against a dragon, a girl’s anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl and a transgender boy’s decision to share his gender identity with his family.”

In this case, I believe the line has been crossed from education to promotion.

It will be fun to see how this logic works in history classes in the south when they start excising discussions of slavery and civil rights.

Slavery and civil rights are historical facts. Again, you are distorting two different issues. Just as we allow an opt out for sex ed and it hasn’t led to “excising discussions of slavery in the south”, so can Maryland allow an opt out here.

Where’s the line? It’s a historical fact that Harvey Milk was assassinated for fighting for LGBTQ rights. How is that less historical than teaching that MLK Jr. was assassinated for fighting for rights during the racist Jim Crow era?

What about a teacher having a photo of their spouse of the same gender on their desk? Can parents opt out of having a gay teacher too?

This isn’t an ideology. This is people’s lives…

The line is defined by age (Harvey Milk belongs in a high school level history or government class) and material. No one is trying to ban books. They simply want to opt out their elementary age kids which is their right. Why is it so important to you to introduce these topics to three year olds against a parent’s objection?

Okay let’s play this out then. I as a parent think it’s important to not reinforce the gender binary to my child. I think it’s important to teach them that there’s no such thing as “girls toys/clothes/etc” and “boys toys/clothes/etc.” And yet at some point in kindergarten there was a lesson where they were identifying themselves as girls and boys. Can I opt my kid out of that? Or only if the curriculum is progressive because it acknowledges that gender is a social construction?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing opt out seems like a no brainer.

Where is the line between kids not being exposed to gay characters in books and kids not being exposed to gay people in schools?

AP:

“The stories include a family’s attendance at a pride parade, a girl’s introduction to her uncle’s husband-to-be, a prince’s love for a knight amid their battle against a dragon, a girl’s anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl and a transgender boy’s decision to share his gender identity with his family.”

In this case, I believe the line has been crossed from education to promotion.

Agree. I have no problem with books that feature same gender parents. But when you start reading books romanticizing kids’ relationships (girls having crushes on a girl classmate) or kids changing genders, that crosses the line for me. Gender identity and romantic relationships between kids shouldn’t be topics taught in schools

So, a book like Junie B Jones which talks about her crushes on boys should be banned too right?

No books are being banned here.

That’s quite literally what this is. If a parent “opts out” of having their kid have access to these materials how does a teacher reasonably do that? They take the materials out of the classroom. It’s not like they’ll have a section in their libraries where they say “sorry Jimmy, that’s off limits to you”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing opt out seems like a no brainer.

Where is the line between kids not being exposed to gay characters in books and kids not being exposed to gay people in schools?

AP:

“The stories include a family’s attendance at a pride parade, a girl’s introduction to her uncle’s husband-to-be, a prince’s love for a knight amid their battle against a dragon, a girl’s anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl and a transgender boy’s decision to share his gender identity with his family.”

In this case, I believe the line has been crossed from education to promotion.

Agree. I have no problem with books that feature same gender parents. But when you start reading books romanticizing kids’ relationships (girls having crushes on a girl classmate) or kids changing genders, that crosses the line for me. Gender identity and romantic relationships between kids shouldn’t be topics taught in schools

So, a book like Junie B Jones which talks about her crushes on boys should be banned too right?

No books are being banned here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing opt out seems like a no brainer.

Where is the line between kids not being exposed to gay characters in books and kids not being exposed to gay people in schools?

AP:

“The stories include a family’s attendance at a pride parade, a girl’s introduction to her uncle’s husband-to-be, a prince’s love for a knight amid their battle against a dragon, a girl’s anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl and a transgender boy’s decision to share his gender identity with his family.”

In this case, I believe the line has been crossed from education to promotion.

It will be fun to see how this logic works in history classes in the south when they start excising discussions of slavery and civil rights.

Slavery and civil rights are historical facts. Again, you are distorting two different issues. Just as we allow an opt out for sex ed and it hasn’t led to “excising discussions of slavery in the south”, so can Maryland allow an opt out here.

Where’s the line? It’s a historical fact that Harvey Milk was assassinated for fighting for LGBTQ rights. How is that less historical than teaching that MLK Jr. was assassinated for fighting for rights during the racist Jim Crow era?

What about a teacher having a photo of their spouse of the same gender on their desk? Can parents opt out of having a gay teacher too?

This isn’t an ideology. This is people’s lives…

The line is defined by age (Harvey Milk belongs in a high school level history or government class) and material. No one is trying to ban books. They simply want to opt out their elementary age kids which is their right. Why is it so important to you to introduce these topics to three year olds against a parent’s objection?

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/

So basically they believe their right to bigotry isn't being respected?

Enough with the flippant and unwarranted name calling. These families range from Muslim to orthodox and their sincerely held religious beliefs do not deserve to be slandered by you.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing opt out seems like a no brainer.

Where is the line between kids not being exposed to gay characters in books and kids not being exposed to gay people in schools?

AP:

“The stories include a family’s attendance at a pride parade, a girl’s introduction to her uncle’s husband-to-be, a prince’s love for a knight amid their battle against a dragon, a girl’s anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl and a transgender boy’s decision to share his gender identity with his family.”

In this case, I believe the line has been crossed from education to promotion.

Agree. I have no problem with books that feature same gender parents. But when you start reading books romanticizing kids’ relationships (girls having crushes on a girl classmate) or kids changing genders, that crosses the line for me. Gender identity and romantic relationships between kids shouldn’t be topics taught in schools

So, a book like Junie B Jones which talks about her crushes on boys should be banned too right?

You seen unaware of what Maryland’s policy is. 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.“

Stop pretending this was a matter of reading a book to kids about a family with two moms. It’s about instruction related to the books that parents not only object to, but object to the timing of the introduction of the material (elementary age).

Like sex ed (also valuable instruction), an opt out is warranted.

No I think many parents don't feel the school system is the appropriate place for activists to push the latest cutting edge social issues. Calling people bigots was enough to cow them into submission for some years but it's no longer working, sorry.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing opt out seems like a no brainer.

Where is the line between kids not being exposed to gay characters in books and kids not being exposed to gay people in schools?

AP:

“The stories include a family’s attendance at a pride parade, a girl’s introduction to her uncle’s husband-to-be, a prince’s love for a knight amid their battle against a dragon, a girl’s anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl and a transgender boy’s decision to share his gender identity with his family.”

In this case, I believe the line has been crossed from education to promotion.

Agree. I have no problem with books that feature same gender parents. But when you start reading books romanticizing kids’ relationships (girls having crushes on a girl classmate) or kids changing genders, that crosses the line for me. Gender identity and romantic relationships between kids shouldn’t be topics taught in schools

So, a book like Junie B Jones which talks about her crushes on boys should be banned too right?

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/

So basically they believe their right to bigotry isn't being respected?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing opt out seems like a no brainer.

Where is the line between kids not being exposed to gay characters in books and kids not being exposed to gay people in schools?

AP:

“The stories include a family’s attendance at a pride parade, a girl’s introduction to her uncle’s husband-to-be, a prince’s love for a knight amid their battle against a dragon, a girl’s anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl and a transgender boy’s decision to share his gender identity with his family.”

In this case, I believe the line has been crossed from education to promotion.

It will be fun to see how this logic works in history classes in the south when they start excising discussions of slavery and civil rights.

Slavery and civil rights are historical facts. Again, you are distorting two different issues. Just as we allow an opt out for sex ed and it hasn’t led to “excising discussions of slavery in the south”, so can Maryland allow an opt out here.

Where’s the line? It’s a historical fact that Harvey Milk was assassinated for fighting for LGBTQ rights. How is that less historical than teaching that MLK Jr. was assassinated for fighting for rights during the racist Jim Crow era?

What about a teacher having a photo of their spouse of the same gender on their desk? Can parents opt out of having a gay teacher too?

This isn’t an ideology. This is people’s lives…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing opt out seems like a no brainer.

Where is the line between kids not being exposed to gay characters in books and kids not being exposed to gay people in schools?

AP:

“The stories include a family’s attendance at a pride parade, a girl’s introduction to her uncle’s husband-to-be, a prince’s love for a knight amid their battle against a dragon, a girl’s anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl and a transgender boy’s decision to share his gender identity with his family.”

In this case, I believe the line has been crossed from education to promotion.

Agree. I have no problem with books that feature same gender parents. But when you start reading books romanticizing kids’ relationships (girls having crushes on a girl classmate) or kids changing genders, that crosses the line for me. Gender identity and romantic relationships between kids shouldn’t be topics taught in schools

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing opt out seems like a no brainer.

Where is the line between kids not being exposed to gay characters in books and kids not being exposed to gay people in schools?

AP:

“The stories include a family’s attendance at a pride parade, a girl’s introduction to her uncle’s husband-to-be, a prince’s love for a knight amid their battle against a dragon, a girl’s anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl and a transgender boy’s decision to share his gender identity with his family.”

In this case, I believe the line has been crossed from education to promotion.

It will be fun to see how this logic works in history classes in the south when they start excising discussions of slavery and civil rights.

Slavery and civil rights are historical facts. Again, you are distorting two different issues. Just as we allow an opt out for sex ed and it hasn’t led to “excising discussions of slavery in the south”, so can Maryland allow an opt out here.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Allowing opt out seems like a no brainer.

Where is the line between kids not being exposed to gay characters in books and kids not being exposed to gay people in schools?

AP:

“The stories include a family’s attendance at a pride parade, a girl’s introduction to her uncle’s husband-to-be, a prince’s love for a knight amid their battle against a dragon, a girl’s anxiety about giving a valentine to another girl and a transgender boy’s decision to share his gender identity with his family.”

In this case, I believe the line has been crossed from education to promotion.

It will be fun to see how this logic works in history classes in the south when they start excising discussions of slavery and civil rights.