There has been an influx of LGBTQ+ (to infinity & beyond) content in children's & young adult publishing, which is inappropriately sexualised & full of ideological gender woo. Pastel pink & purple colour schemes on covers & blobby human figures seem to predominate.
It's good that parents are resisting: this is not censorship, but providing age appropriate reading & teaching materials.
This is excellent. I wonder if a lawsuit can be brought for all LGBTQ+++++++ flags, signs, days of silence with taped mouths etc that are constantly in hallways and classrooms. How about we focus on reading writing math science and history.
This is not the final decision, but the speed at which the preliminary injunction came out is good and strongly hints that the case will succeed on its merits in this judge's court, at any rate.
If kindergarten teachers would just do what they have always done: crafts, alphabet, activities, animal stories, none of this would have had to happen in the first place.
We agree the speed is a good sign. And yes, this was all completely avoidable on the part of the LPS, and any other school that decides to fight religious parents on this issue.
There's a real irony here. It is the left that has been reciting the "diversity is our strength" mantra; but in the schools they try to enforce a gender ideology mono-culture. And they got opposed, in Maryland, by a collection of people from a diverse set of religions: the original appellants were Muslim, but then some Eastern Orthodox parents, and then Roman Catholic signed on. Which all goes to show, once more, how insincere and incoherent the whole "diversity" dogma is.
There has been some action in this case, misreported on by the media. The parent complained that the school was violating the preliminary injunction with two specific books "Pink is for Boys" by Robb Pearlman and "Except When They Don't" by Laura Gehl. The school decided to take it to court and won; the judge "judged" that the books didn't fall into the category that the preliminary injunction was about. Here is a link to the ruling https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/massachusetts/madce/1:2025cv13047/290421/51/0.pdf .
I haven't looked at the books, and so I have no opinion on whether the judge was justified in the assessment of the books' message.
It is pretty clear that the school is trying to harass the parent, though, by pushing books that the parent will object to but that can be plausibly argued don't fall within the parameters of the preliminary injunction.
You are correct there has been action, though it's a bit different than you described. As part of the PI, the father was supposed to identify other books/materials to which he objected. You can read this here: https://malibertylegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/12-30-2025-Amended-PI-Order.pdf The LPS then disputed two of those books, Pink is for Boys and Except When they Don't, saying they didn't fit under the PI. The judge agreed with the LPS, but only on those two books. The case is still ongoing and (to my best knowledge) the PI stands for the rest of the materials he objected to.
That said, it certainly seems that the school is harassing the parent. While these two books are not as overtly LGBTQ-related as the other ones, it's common sense that some parents would prefer their children maintain a more traditional view of gender, and not be taught that, for instance, it's fine for boys to paint their nails. It would be very easy for the district to opt this child out of these books, but evidently they would rather pay more attorneys fees instead.
Substantially agree. The important point is that the papers are trying to make it seem like the parent lost the battle, when actually this was just a skirmish about the preliminary injunction and the battle, when the case is actually to be heard, is still to come.
Agree, especially in regards to the article's headline. The article itself was a bit more even-handed, but as you rightly point out, it's paywalled so a lot of people can't read it.
There has been an influx of LGBTQ+ (to infinity & beyond) content in children's & young adult publishing, which is inappropriately sexualised & full of ideological gender woo. Pastel pink & purple colour schemes on covers & blobby human figures seem to predominate.
It's good that parents are resisting: this is not censorship, but providing age appropriate reading & teaching materials.
This is excellent. I wonder if a lawsuit can be brought for all LGBTQ+++++++ flags, signs, days of silence with taped mouths etc that are constantly in hallways and classrooms. How about we focus on reading writing math science and history.
This is not the final decision, but the speed at which the preliminary injunction came out is good and strongly hints that the case will succeed on its merits in this judge's court, at any rate.
If kindergarten teachers would just do what they have always done: crafts, alphabet, activities, animal stories, none of this would have had to happen in the first place.
We agree the speed is a good sign. And yes, this was all completely avoidable on the part of the LPS, and any other school that decides to fight religious parents on this issue.
There's a real irony here. It is the left that has been reciting the "diversity is our strength" mantra; but in the schools they try to enforce a gender ideology mono-culture. And they got opposed, in Maryland, by a collection of people from a diverse set of religions: the original appellants were Muslim, but then some Eastern Orthodox parents, and then Roman Catholic signed on. Which all goes to show, once more, how insincere and incoherent the whole "diversity" dogma is.
There has been some action in this case, misreported on by the media. The parent complained that the school was violating the preliminary injunction with two specific books "Pink is for Boys" by Robb Pearlman and "Except When They Don't" by Laura Gehl. The school decided to take it to court and won; the judge "judged" that the books didn't fall into the category that the preliminary injunction was about. Here is a link to the ruling https://cases.justia.com/federal/district-courts/massachusetts/madce/1:2025cv13047/290421/51/0.pdf .
The important point, though, is that the case hasn't yet been heard, this was a case about the implementation of the preliminary injunction. The papers, e.g, Boston Herald, are putting up deceptive headlines, behind paywalls: https://www.bostonherald.com/2026/02/13/massachusetts-father-cannot-opt-his-kindergartner-out-of-books-about-gender-stereotypes/ . I went to the source, i.e., the judge's decision to find out for myself.
I haven't looked at the books, and so I have no opinion on whether the judge was justified in the assessment of the books' message.
It is pretty clear that the school is trying to harass the parent, though, by pushing books that the parent will object to but that can be plausibly argued don't fall within the parameters of the preliminary injunction.
You are correct there has been action, though it's a bit different than you described. As part of the PI, the father was supposed to identify other books/materials to which he objected. You can read this here: https://malibertylegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/12-30-2025-Amended-PI-Order.pdf The LPS then disputed two of those books, Pink is for Boys and Except When they Don't, saying they didn't fit under the PI. The judge agreed with the LPS, but only on those two books. The case is still ongoing and (to my best knowledge) the PI stands for the rest of the materials he objected to.
That said, it certainly seems that the school is harassing the parent. While these two books are not as overtly LGBTQ-related as the other ones, it's common sense that some parents would prefer their children maintain a more traditional view of gender, and not be taught that, for instance, it's fine for boys to paint their nails. It would be very easy for the district to opt this child out of these books, but evidently they would rather pay more attorneys fees instead.
Substantially agree. The important point is that the papers are trying to make it seem like the parent lost the battle, when actually this was just a skirmish about the preliminary injunction and the battle, when the case is actually to be heard, is still to come.
Agree, especially in regards to the article's headline. The article itself was a bit more even-handed, but as you rightly point out, it's paywalled so a lot of people can't read it.
Also, thanks for the link.