Today the Supreme Court ruled that parents must be given the option to opt their young children out of LGBT readings in Maryland, at least while the case is ongoing.
The case concerned a new curriculum adopted in 2022 for prekindergarten through the fifth grade by the Montgomery County Public Schools, Maryland’s largest school system…
At first, the school system gave parents notice when the storybooks were to be discussed, along with the opportunity to have their children excused. But school administrators soon eliminated the advance notice and opt-out policy, saying it was hard to administer, led to absenteeism and risked “exposing students who believe the storybooks represent them and their families to social stigma and isolation.”
Parents of several faiths sued, saying the books violated the First Amendment’s protection of the free exercise of religion. The books, their complaint said, “promote one-sided transgender ideology, encourage gender transitioning and focus excessively on romantic infatuation.”
I wrote about the oral arguments for this case back in April. There were originally 7 books selected for the curriculum as a push for greater equity, though two were later dropped. Here’s a summary of the books in question though Pride Puppy and My Rainbow were later removed from the curriculum.
Pride Puppy, is a picture book directed at three- and four-year-olds. It describes a Pride parade and what a child might find there. The book invites students barely old enough to tie their own shoes to search for images of “underwear,” “leather,” “lip ring,” “[drag] king” and “[drag] queen,” and “Marsha P. Johnson,” a controversial LGBTQ activist and sex worker.
My Rainbow, a picture book for all elementary ages, tells the story of an autistic boy who identifies as a transgender girl. When his mother points to her own short hair, he responds: “People don’t care if cisgender girls like you have short hair. But it’s different for transgender girls. I need long hair!” The mother decides that her child knows best and sews him a rainbow-colored wig.
Intersection Allies is a picture book intended for “Kindergarten through Grade 5.” It invites children to ponder what it means to be “transgender” or “non-binary” and asks “[w]hat pronouns fit you?” By “standing together,” the book claims, we will “rewrite the norms.”
In another book, What Are Your Words?, an uncle visits “their” niece/nephew, whose pronouns are “like the weather. They change depending on how I feel.” The child spends the day agonizing over the right pronouns. Only at the end of the day, while watching fireworks, does the child finally conclude that “I’m like fireworks! * * * My words finally found me! They and them feel warm and snug to me.” At least for “today.”
Another—Love, Violet—also for “Kindergarten through Grade 5,” is about two young girls and their same-sex playground romance. One of the girls “blush[es] hot” when pressed about her “SPECIAL” valentine. Teachers are encouraged to have a “think aloud” moment to ask students how it feels when they “don’t just ‘like’” but “like like” someone.
Born Ready, for all elementary ages, tells the story of a biological girl named Penelope who identifies as a boy. When Penelope’s brother questions how someone can “become” a boy, his mother chides him that “[n]ot everything needs to make sense. This is about love.” Teachers are told to instruct students that, at birth, doctors “guess about our gender,” but “[w]e know ourselves best.”
Finally, Jacob’s Room to Choose is about two young children who identify as transgender. Their teacher uses a game to persuade their classmates to support gender-free bathrooms. After relabeling the bathroom doors to welcome multiple genders, the children parade with placards that proclaim “Bathrooms Are For Every Bunny” and “[choose] the bathroom that is comfy.”
The school board argued in defense of the books that they weren’t intended to be instruction about gender and sexuality.
“The storybooks themselves do not instruct about gender or sexuality,” the brief said. “They are not textbooks. They merely introduce students to characters who are L.G.B.T.Q. or have L.G.B.T.Q. family members, and those characters’ experiences and points of view.”
In its decision today, the majority didn’t buy that argument.
A few short descriptions will serve to illustrate the general tenor of the storybooks. Intersection Allies tells the stories of several children from different backgrounds, including Kate, who is apparently a transgender child. One page shows Kate in a sex-neutral or sex-ambiguous bathroom, and Kate proclaims: “My friends defend my choices and place. A bathroom, like all rooms, should be a safe space.” Id., at 323a. Intersection Allies includes a “PageBy-Page Book Discussion Guide” that asserts: “When we are born, our gender is often decided for us based on our sex . . . . But at any point in our lives, we can choose to identify with one gender, multiple genders, or neither gender.” Id., at 349a–350a. The discussion guide explains that “Kate prefers the pronouns they/their/them” and asks “What pronouns fit you best?”…
Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope tells the story of Penelope, a child who is initially treated as a girl. The story is told from the perspective of Penelope, who at one point says “If they’d all stop and listen, I’d tell them about me. Inside I’m a boy.” Id., at 454a. When Penelope’s mother later assures her that “‘If you feel like a boy, that’s okay,’” Penelope responds: “‘No, Mama, I don’t feel like a boy. I AM a boy.’” Penelope tells her mother:
“‘I love you, Mama, but I don’t want to be you. I want to be Papa. I don’t want tomorrow to come because tomorrow I’ll look like you. Please help me, Mama. Help me to be a boy.’”
Penelope’s mother then agrees that she is a boy, and Penelope says: “For the first time, my insides don’t feel like fire. They feel like warm, golden love.” Later, after the family starts treating Penelope as a boy, Penelope’s brother complains that “‘You can’t become a boy. You have to be born one.’” This comment draws a rebuke from Penelope’s mother: “‘Not everything needs to make sense. This is about love.’”
In addition to the books themselves, which are clearly teaching a specific viewpoint, teachers held a professional development workshop to prepare for questions that might arise from the kids (ages 5-11) about the books.
If a student claims that a character “can’t be a boy if he was born a girl,” teachers were encouraged to respond: “That comment is hurtful.” Id., at 630a. And if a student asks “[w]hat’s transgender?”, it was recommended that teachers explain: “When we’re born, people make a guess about our gender and label us ‘boy’ or ‘girl’ based on our body parts. Sometimes they’re right and sometimes they’re wrong.” Ibid. The guidance document encouraged teachers to “[d]isrupt the either/or thinking” of their students.
Think about that. They were prepared to shame into silence any 6-year-olds with more common sense than their adult teachers. Later on the decision states:
Like many books targeted at young children, the books are unmistakably normative. They are clearly designed to present certain values and beliefs as things to be celebrated and certain contrary values and beliefs as things to be rejected…
…consider the messages sent by the storybooks on the subject of sex and gender. Many Americans, like the parents in this case, believe that biological sex reflects divine creation, that sex and gender are inseparable, and that children should be encouraged to accept their sex and to live accordingly. But the challenged storybooks encourage children to adopt a contrary viewpoint. Intersection Allies presents a transgender child in a sex-ambiguous bathroom and proclaims that “[a] bathroom, like all rooms, should be a safe space.” The book also includes a discussion guide that asserts that “at any point in our lives, we can choose to identify with one gender, multiple genders, or neither gender” and asks children “What pronouns fit you best?” (boldface in original). The book and the accompanying discussion guidance present as a settled matter a hotly contested view of sex and gender that sharply conflicts with the religious beliefs that the parents wish to instill in their children.
The book Born Ready presents similar ideas in an even less veiled manner…To young children, the moral implication of the story is that it is seriously harmful to deny a gender transition and that transitioning is a highly positive experience. The book goes so far as to present a contrary view as something to be reprimanded.
The court says the dissent by Justice Sotomayor is trying to airbrush the record and ignore the plain intent of the books.
We similarly disagree with the dissent’s deliberately blinkered view that these storybooks and related instruction merely “expos[e] students to the ‘message’ that LGBTQ people exist” and teach them to treat others with kindness. See post, at 1, 31 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.). In making this argument, the dissent ignores what anyone who reads these books can readily see. It ignores the messages that the authors plainly intended to convey. And, what is perhaps most telling, it ignores the Board’s stated reasons for inserting these books into the curriculum and much of the instructions it gave to teachers. Only by air-brushing the record can the dissent claim that the books and instruction are just about exposure and kindness.
The parents in this case weren’t seeking to ban books or have them removed from the curriculum. They were only seeking the ability to opt their kids out.
But I think the dishonesty of the proponents of these books is what’s really striking here. To claim that these normative messages about sex and gender aren’t instruction when delivered to 1st graders is simply absurd. No one involved would possibly believe that if the books in question presented the opposite viewpoint, i.e. that boys can’t become girls and vice versa. If those books existed and were being read to young children, you’d see a very different reaction on the left as to whether or not such readings were instruction or just exposure to different ideas.
