The Supreme Court case, Mahmoud v Taylor, a dispute between parents and the Montgomery County Public School District in Maryland over the inclusion of queer-themed storybooks in the elementary school English language arts curriculum, may be a watershed moment in parental rights. I begin with a brief background of the case and then critique the position of those critical of community and parental opposition to the inclusion of queer politics in public instruction.
In 2022, the Maryland district introduced picture books to expose young children to gender nonconformity and transgender identities—among them Pride Puppy, described Publishers Weekly as an “engaging introduction to Pride parades for the youngest readers successfully [that] testifies to the warmth and power of queer community,” and Born Ready, celebrated by Kirkus Reviews as “[a] triumphant declaration of love and identity” that “shines with joy and affirmation.”
Initially, parents could opt their children out of lessons involving these books. However, in March 2023, the school board eliminated this option, citing concerns about stigmatizing students represented by the books, high absenteeism, and logistical challenges. The first two objections are odd and curious. The possibility that students represented by the books might be stigmatized is a problem created by the inclusion of these materials in instruction. That’s ironic. The second problem of high absenteeism suggests that educators are eager to make sure every child receives instruction in the doctrine (more on that in a moment). The third flies in the face of other opt-outs the district allows.
After the district moved to require all students read and reflect on these books, a coalition of Catholic, Muslim, and Ukrainian Orthodox parents sued, arguing that the mandatory exposure to these materials violated their First Amendment right to freely exercise their religion by conflicting with their beliefs about gender and sexuality. The parents argued that the policy forced them to choose between the integrity of their faith and withdrawing their children from public schools. Many of them either did not have the timing and training to homeschool or the money to sent their children to private schools.
The school district countered that the books were not part of sex education, which students were allowed to opt out of, but literacy-focused, aimed at fostering respect in a pluralistic community, and that exposure to differing views did not coerce students to abandon their beliefs. (What does exposure to queer doctrine have to do with literacy I don’t know.) Critics of the parents’ position raised concerns about the practical implications of broad opt-out rights, fearing they could disrupt curricula and extend to other topics, complicating public education.
Lower courts, including the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, had previously ruled against the parents, finding no evidence that the curriculum compelled them to change their beliefs (the facts contradict this finding, as instructional materials require students to accept the doctrine). However, during oral arguments on April 22, 2025, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority appeared sympathetic to the parents’ claims, questioning why the district could not accommodate religious objections through opt-outs, since, as noted, Maryland allows such provisions for sex education.
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson engaged in pointed questioning about the parents’ options for avoiding the Montgomery County Public School District’s curriculum. She specifically probed the practical implications of the parents’ demand for an opt-out, asking whether they could simply enroll their children in private schools or homeschool if they objected to the public school’s curriculum. Jackson implied that the parents’ religious objections did not necessitate a constitutional violation if other schooling options were available.
She also challenged the parents’ claim that the lack of an opt-out forced them to violate their beliefs, emphasizing that public schools serve diverse communities and must balance competing interests.
If diverse communities matter, then what about the Catholic, Muslim, and Ukrainian Orthodox communities? We see the same privileging of the queer community with respect to women’s activities and spaces. Trans rights are paramount; the rights of girls and women are sacrificed on the alter of queer doctrine. The myriad of exclusive communities that make up Western society are all subordinated to the cult of gender ideology. Their beliefs and principles must give way to queer doctrine.
Jackson’s questioning aligned with the school district’s position that the curriculum was about fostering literacy and respect, not indoctrinating students. This line of inquiry contrasted with the conservative justices’ focus on the district’s refusal to accommodate religious objections, highlighting a divide in how the court viewed the balance between parental rights and public education’s goals. But is there really a divide here? Why are parental rights and the goals of public education necessarily in contradiction? Shouldn’t public education reflect the goals of parents and the community? Isn’t that what democracy would look like? Indeed, there is an elite assumption of the value of technocratic control over education, which is indeed at loggerheads with the interests of working families in maintaining cultural integrity.
There is an interesting paradox in Jackson’s argument—or at least the position of her ilk. Recall the Supreme Court case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), which involved a baker refusing to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple due to religious objections. I presume Jackson was sympathetic to the couple in that case. Jackson’s cameo in the Broadway musical & Juliet suggests an affinity. We know the crowd in question was sympathetic to the couple. That same crowd would likely agree with Jackson about the parents pulling their kids from Montgomery County Public School District.
Presume I am right about that. The point I wish to make concerns an obvious double standard: the same crowd that believes it’s a grave injustice to find another baker after the first one declines to make a cake with a message he finds objectionable at the same time believes it’s perfectly reasonable for parents to find a different school that won’t teach their five-year-old boys can be girls.
To be sure, public education is a very different animal than a cake shop, but that makes the double standard even more remarkable. There is no compulsory cake purchasing in America. A private baker cannot—or at least shouldn’t be—compelled to violate his conscience. Customers are free to take their business elsewhere. Education, in contrast, is compulsory. The children are a captive audience. This takes us into deep ethical waters. If the school is public, then it must conform to Constitutional principle. The First Amendment protects freedom of conscience and speech. Private schools may offer religious instruction; indeed, parents choose them with that expectation. Public schools shall not; they cannot compel students to accept ideas that contradict their conscience—nor should they teach ideas that deny objective reality.
Let’s pursue the matter of principle. Imagine a Muslim child being told in social studies that Christianity is the only true religion, with dissent punished by the teacher. Consider an atheist child being told that belief in God is mandatory and the denial of God’s existence will be disciplined. These scenarios seem outrageous—but they are analogous to what is occurring in the Maryland case. In Montgomery county, guidance on curriculum implementation instructs teachers to discipline students who assert that there are only two genders or who refuse to comply with pronoun policies aligned with gender ideology.
Imagine a male teacher insisting students refer to him using feminine pronouns. Are parents expected to accept that a teacher may demand their children affirm a known falsehood? There are only two genders, after all. The male teacher is a man whatever he thinks of himself. He is, of course, free to think of himself in any way he wishes; he is not, however, not free to compel children or their parents to think of him in that way. Yet school policy demands that students misgender him—and furthermore insists that refusing to misgender him is itself misgendering (it doesn’t get more Orwellian than that). This isn’t a hypothetical, for the record; it’s happening.
This is professional malpractice; it’s indoctrination, not education. Public education should not be in the business of pressing falsehoods into young minds or promoting as truth that which is controversial, disputed, or unscientific. Teaching the speed of light? That’s appropriate, even if its nuances are beyond a child’s understanding. But claiming there are more than two genders or that a mammal can change its sex takes children into the realm of fantasy. Imagine a public-school math teacher insisting that 2+2=5 and punishing students for disagreeing. Imagine a science teacher promoting geocentrism and disciplining students who assert heliocentrism. These scenarios sound absurd—but they mirror what’s happening in Maryland’s largest school district.
To return to the matter of high absenteeism, why the insistence that every child be instructed in gender ideology? There is only one reason I can see: to ensure, for the sake of a political agenda, that every child is exposed to queer doctrine. This is the very definition of ideological indoctrination. It moreover calls into question the fitness of educators for their roles, and not just on grounds of competence. Is this why they entered the classroom—to groom children into accepting a particular ideology? If one wonders whether men become priests to be around children, then one must also consider the possibility that at least some teachers choose a career path that puts them close to children. (Did you note the decline in pearl clutching on the left over pedophile? Rather conspicuous in its absence if you’re paying attention.)
To be clear, gender ideology is not always analogous to religious instruction. Religion is, by nature, unfalsifiable. Gender is falsifiable. However, the subjective concept of gender identity à la Stoller is unfalsifiable, and this is where the ideology veers into quasi-religious territory. However, whether one considers gender ideology a religion or simply an ideology that contradicts objective fact, no child should be compelled to receive such instruction—especially not when it’s falsely framed as science.
The parents in the Maryland case were not even asking to remove gender ideology from the curriculum; they merely wanted to opt out. Even this was deemed unacceptable by the school district. Opting out should be the bare minimum, but gender ideology should not be taught in public schools at all—for the same reason that creationism or Christianity as-truth should not be: whether religious or pseudoscientific, such teachings have no place in a secular, public education system.
So again, why the insistence? I have racked my brain to think of some educational imperative to teach queer doctrine and all I can come up with it is using it as an example of how to think critically about pseudoscientific claim—and this could only be an exercise for more advanced students. One can smell the protests if any school district in America were to dare to use queer doctrine as the paradigm of pseudoscience.
The danger here is very real. A parent cannot fully protect their child from indoctrination when teachers have them for hours every day on most days of the week. These are children—they can be made to believe nearly anything (see the California McMartin Preschool case if you need an eye-opener). It’s one thing for peers on the playground to talk about gender ideology—or claim to be a dinosaur or a dog. It’s something else entirely for an adult in authority to teach a child that a man can be a woman.
Frankly, to believe something so absurd to the degree that one would teach it in school is disqualifying in itself. But setting aside the question of competence, it is not the role of teachers to instruct children in such beliefs, nor is it the role of public schools to override parental authority in service of a political agenda and the fetishes of the queer community. Believe what you want on your own time. But take down the flags, cancel the curriculum, and remove the books from public schools and libraries. These should be ideological-neutral spaces. The First Amendment demands it.
freedom and reason 