Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Except the kids being opted out are the ones that need to know it’s ok and normal to be gay or be part of a gay family.

You know what my kids conversations are on this very issue, they don't care that you're gay, they don't care who you kiss, they don't want to talk about it because they don't want to talk about sex stuff. It's really that simple for kids, you just don't get it. Why are we overcomplicating kids, if they don't want to be part of it I'm sure they have genuine feelings why that is, and their feelings matter just as much as the LGBT kids' feelings matter.

Acknowledging the EXISTENCE of gay people is NOT THE SAME as talking about sex. What in the actual f@ck is wrong with you people? Do you think about sex every time a heterosexual couple is mentioned in a book? Every time a coworker mentions their spouse? You're absolutely obsessed with sex, while at the same time being terrified of it. It's mind boggling.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is just the start of the next four years eroding the long-fought rights of LGBT people. What’s next? We’re only allowed to talk about the achievements of straight white men? Oh, wait.

Its not a right. No rights are lost, merely indoctrination. When will you all stop with this?

Anonymous wrote:This is just the start of the next four years eroding the long-fought rights of LGBT people. What’s next? We’re only allowed to talk about the achievements of straight white men? Oh, wait.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Except the kids being opted out are the ones that need to know it’s ok and normal to be gay or be part of a gay family.

You know what my kids conversations are on this very issue, they don't care that you're gay, they don't care who you kiss, they don't want to talk about it because they don't want to talk about sex stuff. It's really that simple for kids, you just don't get it. Why are we overcomplicating kids, if they don't want to be part of it I'm sure they have genuine feelings why that is, and their feelings matter just as much as the LGBT kids' feelings matter.

Acknowledging the EXISTENCE of gay people is NOT THE SAME as talking about sex. What in the actual f@ck is wrong with you people? Do you think about sex every time a heterosexual couple is mentioned in a book? Every time a coworker mentions their spouse? You're absolutely obsessed with sex, while at the same time being terrified of it. It's mind boggling.

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.

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”

If a book can be procured through other means, such as a public library, book story or Amazon, that by definition means it is not banned.

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?

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Except the kids being opted out are the ones that need to know it’s ok and normal to be gay or be part of a gay family.

You know what my kids conversations are on this very issue, they don't care that you're gay, they don't care who you kiss, they don't want to talk about it because they don't want to talk about sex stuff. It's really that simple for kids, you just don't get it. Why are we overcomplicating kids, if they don't want to be part of it I'm sure they have genuine feelings why that is, and their feelings matter just as much as the LGBT kids' feelings matter.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What is the problem with Jack and Jill? Why do they have to force Jack and John down the throats of 7 year olds during drag queen story hours at school? Give me a break. Gen Z now reports and insane rate of LGBTQ compared to other generations. It's clear they're brainwashing kids and are confusing them due to indoctrination at such a young age. It is mass hysteria and a trendy fad to be an alphabet soup for your sexual identity. Why should schools be forced to teach this indoctrination? Parents can choose to let their kids have reading hour with Village People at home or outside school.

+1.

What exactly is an LBGTQ book?

One that casually mentions teacher Ms. Smith has a wife? Fine whatever.

One that teaches 7 years they can choose to be a boy or girl or neither? No way I am keeping my kid in that school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Except the kids being opted out are the ones that need to know it’s ok and normal to be gay or be part of a gay family.

Not the school’s role.

What are you so frightened of?

If your kid is gay, transgender, reading or not reading a book is not going to change anything about his or her sexual preferences.

OTOH. That book and a sense of acceptance might save him or her from suicide.

Haven't self identification or being GPBT massively increased in recent years?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/611864/lgbtq-identification.aspx#:~:text=The%20figure%20increased%20to%204.5,included%20in%20the%20LGBTQ%2B%20estimate.

There's a huge generational divide. It's an interesting question if the rate was always really the same or as it has become more socially acceptable more people have shifted their orientation.

Anonymous wrote:What is the problem with Jack and Jill? Why do they have to force Jack and John down the throats of 7 year olds during drag queen story hours at school? Give me a break. Gen Z now reports and insane rate of LGBTQ compared to other generations. It's clear they're brainwashing kids and are confusing them due to indoctrination at such a young age. It is mass hysteria and a trendy fad to be an alphabet soup for your sexual identity. Why should schools be forced to teach this indoctrination? Parents can choose to let their kids have reading hour with Village People at home or outside school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

Except the kids being opted out are the ones that need to know it’s ok and normal to be gay or be part of a gay family.

Not the school’s role.

What are you so frightened of?

If your kid is gay, transgender, reading or not reading a book is not going to change anything about his or her sexual preferences.

OTOH. That book and a sense of acceptance might save him or her from suicide.

Haven't self identification or being GPBT massively increased in recent years?

https://news.gallup.com/poll/611864/lgbtq-identification.aspx#:~:text=The%20figure%20increased%20to%204.5,included%20in%20the%20LGBTQ%2B%20estimate.

There's a huge generational divide. It's an interesting question if the rate was always really the same or as it has become more socially acceptable more people have shifted their orientation.

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?