What Do They Mean By "Gender Ideology"?

One of the key terms of the culture panic crowd is "gender ideology." No gender ideology in schools! Don't indoctrinate our children with that gender ideology! The teachers are all busy pushing that gender ideology?

But what does that mean, exactly? One might guess that its meaning is something along the lines of "Now that we have overturned Roe v. Wade, we need a new hot-button issue to mobilize the base," but I'm not sure anyone at Heritage is going to fess up to that. So what is the explanation for the"gender ideology" thing?

The Heritage Foundation, one of our country's leading producers of culture panic, is willing to provide an explanation, courtesy of Jay W. Richards, director of the DeVos Center for Life, Religion, and Family at the Heritage Foundation, where he is a fellow (his conservative credentials are deep). It's an instructive piece. 

Richards frames the piece with the notion that reporters working on culture panic stories ask what the term means and where it comes from , and he's pretty sure the whole business (which includes outfits like the Associate Press and Wikipedia) is "part of a larger media campaign to discredit this and related terms." His argument is basically that everyone understands what it means.

Richards shares a definition of the term that he once popped out on Twitter: 

Gender ideology is the theory that the sex binary doesn’t capture the complexity of the human species, and that human individuals are properly described in terms of an “internal sense of gender” called “gender identity” that may be incongruent with their “sex assigned at birth.”

Though he says he would replace "theory" with the less forceful "view." 

You may be looking at his definition and thinking, "Well, that sounds like a True Thing. What's his problem?" Well, he'll tell you.

Richards accuses "gender ideologues" of playing "verbal shell games" with words like "gender" and "sex." "Fender," he argues, is now treated as short for "gender identity" and "sex" has become "sex assigned at birth" which in his view turns sex into a social construct instead of "the real biological difference between male and female human beings." Okay. It may frustrate him to be left without terms that reflect reality as he understands it, but redefining terms to fit the view you hold is a long-time advocacy tool of all sides of all issues (he can ask Chris Rufo how it works). 

As Richards lays out his objections, it's clear that we have here, at root another version of a basic right wing complaint. 

The plain truth: Gender ideology does not accommodate the reality of sex—the reproductive strategy of mammals including human beings. Sex, in this reckoning, is not an objective truth about men and women. We are not male or female by virtue of our body structure or the fact that our bodies are oriented around the production of sperm or eggs. Human beings, are, in essence, psychological selves with internal senses of gender—like disembodied gendered souls. These “gender identities” are independent of, and can be incongruent with, the bodies that God gave us and that medicine has come to associate with “male” and female.” These “sex” categories are mere conventions, says the gender ideologue, not facts.

Richards says that "gender acolytes" will "rarely speak so bluntly," because he is apparently certain that to just say what he just said would offend and upset people. I'm not so sure. It seems like a fairly food definition; what's less clear is why it's objectionable. 

The standard right wing complaint seen here is one we've seen again and again-- there is One Objective Truth and we know it and people who disagree are stupid or nuts or evil. Learning to be in the world is all about learning the One Objective Truth about everything (as discovered by some dead white guys); "critical thinking" is about learning how to unfailing arrive at the One Objective Truth. People who talk about different points of view are just trying to cause trouble. This has animated endless arguments since the Mayflower docked, and it is the foundational principle behind the classical school movement. 

The other argument here is a less common one, but Richards seems to be arguing that human beings are just flesh and bone, and talk about psychological selves or souls is just silly. God gave us a body, but our psychological selves, our souls, come from... somewhere else? There's a more obvious flaw with this part of the argument-- God does in fact give people bodies that are a wide variety of intersex (also, am I in trouble because I wear glasses and had cataract surgery to correct the eyes that God gave me at birth). But I am fascinated to see the christianist Heritage Foundation arguing against the idea of souls and asserting that we are just meat sacks, and the nature of the meat sacks determines all that we are. 

Ultimately Richards falls back on depending on "what you know to be true" in resisting the gender ideologues who try to tell you that human beings are varied and different, because "you know" they aren't. Nor does one have to search far to find the same right wing folks arguing that not only are there just two sexes, but the correct ways to be a real man or woman are limited to only a few choices (go get to making some babies, missy). 

We're talking about fundamentally different ways to view the world, which is why these arguments inevitably land in schools and debates about whether students should be taught about how to navigate through a rich and complicated world or whether they should be taught that for every question, there is one Right and True answer and all others should be avoided and suppressed-- not even mentioned or acknowledged to exist. It is one thing to disagree with a point of view, and a whole other thing to insist that it not even be mentioned. Maybe, the hope goes, if we can commandeer education and teach only the One Objective Truth and suppress all the rest, children will grow up to see the world as we do. Good luck with that.

ICYMI: Star Wars Edition (5/4)

If you don't know, I don't think I can explain it to you.

If you are of a Certain Age, you have a story. In the summer of 1977 we didn't have a movie theater in my county, so I trekked down to Butler, 45 minutes or so away. The within a week, I went back again. It was part of the new phenomenon of Star Wars-- Jaws had invented the summer blockbuster just two years earlier, the movie that everybody had to see, but Star Wars was the movie you had to see more than once, just to see everything and hear everything. I was a broke college student but I still went three times (the third in Hampton Beach while on a summer trip with friends) and it still didn't seem like enough.

There are things you just can't understand second-hand, and most of them, unfortunately, are things that suck. But some are moments of uplift and excitement that stick with you for a long time. One more amazing part of being human in the world.

Here are your bits of reading from the week.

Drawing a Line

Jennifer Berkshire looks at how communities are stepping up to protect immigrant members.

Will the U.S. Supreme Court Approve Oklahoma’s Proposed Religious Charter School?

Jan Resseger looks at the big decision coming down the road. I sure wish it was a harder decision to predict.

The Rise of the Unqualified: Inside the Kakistocracy Running American Education

Julian Vasquez Heilig has been writing up a storm lately. Here he explains why, exactly, kakistocracy sucks.

The New Teacher of the Year Shares Her Secrets for an Engaging English Class

She's from Pennsylvania, and she has some non-silly ideas. Sarah Sparks reports at Education Week.

Tina Descovich must leave Ethics Commission after Senate again fails to take up nomination

A Moms for Liberty co-founder doesn't make it onto a state ethics commission? What a surprise. Okay, in Florida, land of infinite grifter tolerance, it is kind of a surprise.

K12 Education, Meet Trump 2.0 Chaos.

The indispensable Mercedes Schneider tries to assemble a timeline of Trumpian education shenanigans.

San Diego's Edtech Lollapalooza

Thomas Ultican takes a look at ASU+GSV and its varied AI grifting.

Court says no rights violated when Michigan school told girl to remove hat with image of a gun

Dad sends third grade daughter to school with a hat bearing an image of a AR-15ish gun and "come and take it" in all caps. School told her to take it off. Dad sued. He seems like a swell guy.

Are Women the Cause of Reluctance to Read?

Well, no. But Nancy Flanagan explains herself a bit more thoroughly than that.

How would the Trump Administration budget impact American education?

Steve Nuzum looks at the Trump wishlist for the budget and what it would mean to education (spoiler alert: nothing good). 

Separation of Church and State: Critical for Public Schools and America!

Not sure it can be said too many times, but separation of church and state is a good thing. Here comes Nancy Bailey to make sure it's said again.

Exceeding Student Expectations of Teachers: A Way to Achieve “Good” Teaching

Larry Cuban looks at the importance of expectations for academics and behavior.

Battle lines being drawn

Benjamin Riley is taking names of those organizations that have decided that technofascism is super cool and totally fine with them.

As Predicted: Florida’s Voucher Expansion is Gutting Public Education

Sue Kingery Woltanski reports on the progress of Florida's program to end public education. 

And now, Happy May the Fourth

Join my newsletter. It's free and easy.

"Religious Liberty" is the new "State's Rights"

Last week Adam Laats reminded us of why conservatives are so worked up about Harvard's tax-exempt status. It goes back to a 1980s case that tells us a lot about the moment we're living in, and why "religious liberty" is the new "state's rights."

Bob Jones University was founded as part of the culture panic wave of a century ago, a wave of right-wing anguish centered around evolution and the Scopes Trial. Bob Jones University would be a bulwark against modern naughty culture. As Laats quotes Bob Jones himself, “Fathers and mothers who place their sons and daughters in our institution can go to sleep at night with no haunting fear that some skeptical teachers will steal the faith of their precious children.”

Resisting modern evils meant, when the fifties rolled around, resisting desegregation. Bob Jones University remained stubbornly committed to keeping Black folks out, well into the 1970s refusing to bend and staying proudly unaccredited (note that college accreditation is yet another Trump/Project 2025 target) by refusing to bend and accept Black folks on its campus. 

It tried some tricks (let a Black employee register for one class) and then even accepted a few Black men as students (as long as they were married and therefor less of a threat to the purity of white co-eds). Then the Carter administration got aggressive, threatening to remove the university's tax-exempt status, as well as those of other segregated universities.

The 1980 GOP platform and candidate Reagan promised to stop this use of the IRS to attack the schools. Not that he could publicly argue in 1980 that keeping Black folks off a campus was a perfectly okay goal. Instead, using BJU's fictitious desegregation as a fig leaf, he instead declared that this was all about religious freedom.

So when Donald Trump declared the launch of a Religious Liberty Commission, he was following a well-established right wing playbook. 

What religious liberty is being protected? The freedom to discriminate.

The Supreme Court has ploughed the road for this for over a decade. From Hobby Lobby on through Masterpiece Cake Shop and up to the trinity of cases being invoked in the St. Isidore Catholic charter case, SCOTUS has been insisting that the Free Exercise clause beats the Establishment clause. And not only is Free Exercise the part that matters, but no Christian can freely exercise their religion unless they are free to A) discriminate against people they disapprove of and B) get supported by tax dollars to do it. 

There's a case from Maine working its way to decide just that-- the schools that won Carson and the right to collect voucher money for religious education now want to be free to collect that money while discriminating against LGBTQ students , a right that many other voucher states already recognize. Free Exercise for folks operating certain religious schools means the freedom to reject and degrade students of whom they disapprove.

So Trump's Anti-Christian Bias Task Force is set to root out any policies that get in the way of that Free Exercise. Martha McHardy reported on the first meeting for Newsweek:

Attorney Michael Farris, speaking on behalf of a Virginia church, said the IRS had investigated it for alleged violations of the Johnson Amendment, which requires churches to refrain from participating in political campaigns if they want to keep their tax-exempt status. Representatives from Liberty University and Grand Canyon University also claimed their institutions were unfairly fined because of their Christian worldview.

Additional allegations included the denial of religious exemptions to COVID-19 vaccine mandates for military personnel, biased treatment of Christian Foreign Service Officers, and efforts to suppress Christian expression in federal schools and agencies. Critics further accused the Biden administration of marginalizing Christian holidays while giving prominence to non-Christian observances, and of sidelining faith-based foster care providers.

Speakers also alleged that Christian federal employees were retaliated against for opposing DEI and LGBT-related policies that conflicted with their religious beliefs.

"Faith-based foster care providers" turn up in these complaints because of a Biden era policy that put protections in place for LGBTQ minors. But the religious freedom argument is that folks should be free to foster kids even if they believe certain types of kids are terrible sinners who need to be Straightened Out.

The claim that some folks are discriminated against for religious positions on "DEI and LGBTQ-related policies" is another way to say those folks aren't allowed to discriminate against persons on the basis of race or gender identity or sexual orientation. It's the same claim as the people who don't want to do their job issuing marriage licenses if gay marriage is involved, or who don't want to provide health care to naughty women who have sought an abortion. 

The Religious Liberty Commission edict follows a similar pattern. What's the complaint here?

Recent Federal and State policies have undermined this right by targeting conscience protections, preventing parents from sending their children to religious schools, threatening funding and non-profit status for faith-based entities, and excluding religious groups from government programs.

"Conscience protections" is another favored construction, as in "my conscience tells me that I shouldn't treat Those People like people and how dare you infringe on my right to do that."

The modern rejoinder to someone claiming that the Civil War was not about slavery, but about state's rights is to ask, "The state's right to do what?" The answer, of course, is "The state's right to perpetuate a system of enslavement." 

When someone on the far right starts talking about religious liberty, the question is "The liberty to do what?" The answer is, "The liberty to enjoy a position of high privilege from which we can decide which people we think are worthy of civil rights." Or more simply, "The liberty to discriminate against others without consequence." 

It all makes me sad because it is the worst testimony ever for the Christian faith. It's the kind of thing that makes my non-believing friends and relatives point and say, "See? Religious people are just as awful as anyone." There are actual Christians in the world, and they deserve better than this. There are people who daily wrestle with how to live out their faith in the world in challenging situations, and they deserve better than this. If your assertion is that you can't really, truly follow Christ unless you are freely enabled to treat certain people like shit, then you are talking about some Jesus that I don't remotely recognize. You are not talking about religious liberty; you're talking about toxic politics with some sort of faux Jesus fig leaf.

TX: Furry Panic Is Back

It has been three years and change since the Great Furry Panic first swept school policy circles. 

Patient Zero for this fake story seems to be Michigan's Midland Public Schools board meeting in December of 2021, at which a mother spoke claiming she was informed that litter boxes had been added in bathrooms for students who "identify as cats", calling it a "nationwide" issue and pointing to an "agenda that is being pushed" (a "nefarious" one). The co-chair of the Michigan GOP promoted the stories ("Parent heroes will TAKE BACK our schools), and before you could say crazy-pants disinformation campaign, the story was being covered by Buzzfeed, USA Today, and the New York Times.

There's also a theory that the post-Columbine practice of keeping an emergency bucket in the classroom  in case students are trapped there by another gunman. Some schools include kitty litter in their emergency bucket.

At any rate, the story spread through the far right dope-o-sphere. Folks started noting the spread of furry panic back at the beginning of 2022. There are schools, the story goes, that allow students to self-identify as animals, wear their furry costumes, eat sitting on the floor, do their business in litter boxes. So far there has not been a single factual foundation for any of these stories. Nor, for that matter, do the stories get it right when it comes to Furry culture and behavior (furries do not, for instance, wear their outfits to work and insist on acting as animals or pooping by their desks). But it didn't matter. 

2022 was a banner year for furry panic.

In Colorado, the GOP candidate for governor has tripled down on the claim that students are self-identifying as animals throughout the Denver with the support of their school districts, despite repeated debunking and denials. 

Minnesota also has a GOP gubernatorial candidate who repeated the litter box claim, despite debunking.

In Tennessee, school leaders had to take time to respond to a litter box claim by a state senator. 

South Carolina districts felt the need to respond to litter box stories. In Wyoming, parents told a board they were worried that furries were covered in equality policies. And Rhode Island. And Pennsylvania. And New York. And Illinois. And Oregon. Oh, and Marjorie Taylor Greene, too.

In Nebraska, in a rare apology, a state senator had to admit that the furry rumor he had repeated was baloney in March. In Texas, a GOP house candidate went with the relatively milder "lowered tables" story in January. A South Dakota school district had to explain to a parent in July that no, they would not be putting in litter boxes for furry students. Maine was battling back the litter box rumors in May. In April, a Wisconsin school district had to explain that they have no "furry protocol."

The whole hoax even has its own Wikipedia page. 

There has never been a single confirmed incident, ever.

And yet.

Texas has HB 54, "Relating to the display of and allowance for non-human behaviors in Texas schools." Also known as the "Forbidding Unlawful Representation of Roleplaying in Education (F.U.R.R.I.E.S.) Act." The bill has five legislators signed on as authors, and a whopping 51 co-authors. Governor Greg Abbott backs the bill. There are 22 pages of public comments compiled, and some of them are just as silly as you expect.

[W]e are tired of DEI, distractions, and affirmation of FURRY behavior in schools. Children should be learning how to read and excel in math, not playing make-believe at school. Please specifically write into the Code of Conduct that this behavior is not acceptable in schools or in society. In all K-12 schools.
Keatha Brown

Moms for Liberty, Montgomery TX

Children attend school are there to learn reading, writing, math, science, etc. I do respect each person has their own individual style when they dress but what I don't approve of is children attending school dressed like an animal and pretending, acting and portraying that they are indeed an animal. Its a distraction to other children attending classes at school and teachers and staff already have enough challenges in schools and they don't need these additional types of behaviors to deal with. Children shouldn't be acting like animals, making sounds like animals, wanting to eat like or dressing like animals. If they truly feel like they are an animal, they should be referred to a mental health professional. This would also go along the lines of a child wanting to be an alien
Jennifer White

Moms For Liberty Williamson County Round Rock, TX

Please support HB 54. I have been in education over 45 years. Non- human behaviors should not be accepted or catered to in public schools. What cat learns to read?
Susan Perez
Citizens for Education Reform
Lubbock, TX

And more in the same vein. The vast majority of the comments are opposed to the bill, hitting it with terms like "silly," "ridiculous," "stupid," and "waste of time." The Libertarian Party of Texas opposes it. Many accused the legislature of trying to solve a non-existent problem. Many tell stories of small children who like to play in ways that sometimes include animal noises. The parent of an autistic child explains how fur-like materials soothe the child. 

The bill itself is remarkably specific in defining "non-human behavior" with nine or so items on the list of "behaviors of accessories" not typically "displayed by a member of the homo sapiens species."  No animal noise, tails, ears, or licking yourself for "purposes of grooming or maintenance." There are exceptions for Halloween and school mascots or plays. 

But it's worth noting that the bill goes way beyond the standard furry litter box panic to target any sort of animal-ish behavior-- ears on headbands, tails, animal noises (like children don't make inhuman noises on a regular basis). 

The bill comes from Rep. Stan Gerdes. Gerdes was endorsed last year by Greg Abbott when he was up against Tom Glass, who was endorsed by AG Ken Paxton. Gerdes did vote for vouchers, but he also voted for the impeachment of Paxton. He previously worked under Rick Perry both when Perry was Texas governor and as US Secretary of Energy. He won his first election to the House in 2022, then again last year. Both campaigns were pricey-- $600K in 2022 and almost a million in 2024 (just for the primary). 

At Tuesday night's hearing, he claimed that the bill was in response to stories about furries that have been denied by the district superintendent. Asked if he could cite a single confirmed instance of a school making furry accommodations, Gerdes said he could not, even though he originally came out swinging, as reported by Benjamin Wermund at the Houston Chronicle:

When Gerdes introduced the legislation last month, he said he fully expected members of the subculture he was targeting to show up at the Capitol "in full furry vengeance" when the bill was heard.

"Just to be clear - they won't be getting any litter boxes in the Texas Capitol," the Smithville Republican said in a press release announcing the bill.

But there were no so-called furries or litter boxes at the late-night hearing Tuesday. Instead, the four people who showed up to testify against the measure included a public school teacher and a Texan who worried the measure could affect students with disabilities.

Rep. James Talarico labeled the bill as one more attempt by Abbott and his crew to discredit public schools:

That's because if you want to defund neighborhood schools across the state, you have to get Texans to turn against their public schools. So you call librarians groomers, you accuse teachers of indoctrination, and now you say that schools are providing litter boxes to students. That's how all of this is tied together.

 It's a bill designed to create furor over a non-existent problem. Currently the bill is sitting in committee, and if there is a lick of sense left in some corners of Texas, it will never emerge from there. 

Do Teachers Need To Be Liked?

A recent Robert Pondiscio post took me right back to many, many teacher lounge debates. "Do students need to like their teachers to learn?" was the question both in his post and in my lounge, and it seemed to come up again every time a student teacher passed through our halls.

The frequency with which this came up for newbies led me to think that maybe being liked is one of the answers that young teachers land on as they search for an answer to "How do I know whether I'm succeeding here?" This is one of the challenges that come with teaching being a solitary profession-- teachers have no place to get feedback except from students. But if you are looking for affirmation of your professional conduct from a child--well, that is not a great way to do adulting.

Teaching also comes with the challenge of being a profession in which relationships are very important, but they also mostly have to be created out of whole cloth by the adult in the room, and there isn't much in life that prepares us for that. 

So out of all that young teachers may land on, "Well, if I can get the kids to like me..." It doesn't help that so many fictional teacher models center on a beloved hero teacher who we get to see being beloved but not so much actually teaching.

But trying to get young humans to like you just leads to all sorts of problems. Heck, it leads to all sorts of problems among the young humans. The key to social success in high school is confidence, and "Please like me" energy projects the opposite. In a teacher, it projects both a lack of confidence and weakness, and while younger students may take pity on you, older students will not. And if they figure out you can be played by threats that are simply coded versions of "If you don't give us our way, we won't like you," you are done.

Teachers will sometimes land on other unproductive approaches to creating the relationship. For instance, "rule through fear" crowd. But mostly what you teach through that approach is some combination of sneakiness and resentment. Your students may comply when they are in front of you, but you'd better be careful about when you turn your back. Can they learn this way? Maybe, but I wouldn't bet on it. 

So what is the answer? Respect and competence.

Treat the students with respect. Know what you're doing. I would add "be kind," but that term is too open to misinterpretation, so let's leave it for now.

The experts say that one sign that a marriage is doomed is when contempt sneaks in. Same is true for the classroom; when you show contempt for your students, it's game over. The opposite of contempt is respect-- you treat them like they are functional, capable human beings deserving of decent treatment. And here's a hugely important fact lost to many in our current political climate-- you don't have to like someone to treat them with respect. You don't have to agree with someone to treat them with respect. You just have to recognize that they are human, and as such, deserve a certain base level of respect. 

Respect for students goes hand in hand with providing them with competent teaching and high-but-realistic expectations. Throw in Not Wasting Student Time as well. 

As a teacher, you've stepped up to take on a particular role, and students will sooner or later judge you based on how well you fulfill that role. "He's a nice guy, but a lousy teacher" is not the dream. The dream is to teach the students, to help them increase their understanding of themselves and the world. 

Pondiscio says that students like teachers they learn from (not vice versa), and I guess that's sort of true. But every kind of person in the world is going to pass through your classroom, and some of them are not going to like you, ever. Trying to win them over is a waste of time, but modeling how to respectfully get the work done even when you don't necessarily like the person you're working with-- that's a lesson they (and the other students watching how things play out) can carry into the world. 

On Your Own

There are so many ways in which the education debates have simply been a warm up for broader attacks on government as a whole.

Take the latest from nepo baby RFK Jr. talking to TV grifter Dr. Phil, as reported by the New York Times:

“I would say that we live in a democracy, and part of the responsibility of being a parent is to do your own research,” the health secretary said, in response to a question from a woman in the audience who asked how he would advise a new parent about vaccine safety. “You research the baby stroller, you research the foods that they’re getting, and you need to research the medicines that they’re taking as well.”

"Do your own research" is supposed to ring with independence and a refusal to blindly follow the sheeple, combined with an implicit claim that your google search is probably just as good as what those so-called experts tell you. 

But what I really hear in this exchange is a rejection of collective responsibility. "Can you help me make a safe choice for my child?" the young mother asks. "Not going to do it," replied the damned Secretary of Health and Human Services of the richest nation in the history of the world. "Your kid is not my problem. Your kid is not anyone else's problem. Go figure it out yourself."

This has always been the message of the school voucher movement since those long-ago days when Milton Friedman dreamed of a country where education was just one more commodity in a government-free marketplace. "Go get an education for your kid yourself. It's nobody else's problem, nobody else's concern, nobody else's responsibility. Here's a little voucher; now shut up and go away."

This is the Big Theme of MAGA/Trump/DOGE/Etc-- "We are tired of being told we have to care about other people." That's it. That's the whole thing. "I don't want to have to spend a cent of my money on anyone who isn't me." From the DOGE non-saving inefficient roll-back of anything the government does that involves looking out for other people (including collecting information that could help them make decisions) all the way to J D Vance's bizarre claim that Jesus says the further away from you someone is, the less Jesus wants you to love them. 

In fact, not only would they like to not have their money taken to spend on other people, but maybe they can get some of other people's money to spend on themselves. 

They can always draw a crowd of people who believe in the legitimate concerns-- government is too often inefficient and wasteful, being free to make choices is good, public schools have too often failed some students-- but those folks rarely get to drive the bus because they never think it would go So Far and going So Far is what the actual drivers intended from the start.

"Do your own research" because nobody else is going to do it, and if you don't have the resources, well, don't worry about it because I'm sure whatever you do will be just as good as any scientist or expert or teacher would come up with. The important part is that you do the science, health, and education research yourself. And if this bold new do-it-yourself approach means that society is sorted into different tiers and classes based on who has the most resources to take care of themselves, well, that's how God meant it to be. The social safety net and government-supported programs have just been a means to lift up people (with my damn money) when those folks should be staying in their proper places, cranking out babies to serve as future meat widgets for our wealthy leaders (who are wealthy and leaders because of their demonstrated merit). 

For MAGA, the DeVos's, the Kochtopus, and the rest of that crowd, public schools are just one more way that dollars are stolen to try to lift the lessers out of their proper place in society. It's the businesses, the corporations, that deserve the support and assistance of the government. For individual persons? Do your own research, do your own science, do your own educating-- because the regime is tired of helping take care of you, and they are trying to convince us that disregard is freedom. 

A Day In The Post-Mahmoud Classroom

It looks like the Supreme Court, guided once again by A) a profoundly impaired understanding of how schools work and B) a belief that it's unconstitutional to interfere with a religious conservative's desire to organize the world to suit their beliefs-- will decide in favor of Maryland parents (carefully selected so that this won't look like just a white christianist thing) who want to be able to opt their children out of any lessons that suggest that LGBTQ persons exist in the world. 

To be clear, the idea of alternative assignments doesn't bother me-- I've offered them in my own class for works that push the envelope. But this case takes us into whole new territory. 

So let's take a look at the classrooms of the future should this ruling come through. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Okay, class. Today we're reading 'Pride Puppy,' the story of a puppy who gets lost at a Pride parade. That means that Pat, Sam, Eddie, and Xavier-- go down to the Special Room till I send someone to bring you back--"

"You mean the room that used to be the gym?"

"Yes, that's it. See you in a bit."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Mrs. Smith, I have a question about the Puppy story. Why did they--"

"Hold on a second, Ethel. Pat, Sam, Eddie, and Xavier-- head down to the room. This should only take a second."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Yes, this is Principal Shmershwerks. What can I do for you, Mrs. Smith. You're upset because Mr. Smith doesn't have any family pictures on his desk, and you figure that since only the gay teachers aren't allowed to put out family pictures, he must be one of the gay ones, and you would like him to...? Oh, either be less gay or you want Pat out of that class."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Okay. today we are going to-- what is it, Pat?"

"My mom says that the people on Page 16 look kind of gay to her, and she thinks I shouldn't have to read this book with the class."

"What do you mean, they look kind of -- never mind. Go to the room."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Okay, class. I see some of you were a bit confused by this early scene in The Sun Also Rises so let's look at the clues. When Jake first sees Brett in the novel, she's entering a cafe with some men described as having white hands and wavy hair. One makes a comment about seeing an--"

"Actual harlot!" 

"Right. And one calls another 'dear,' and Jake comments that 'I know they are supposed to be amusing, and one should be tolerant..."

Light bulbs go on around the room. "Ooooohh! It's a bunch of gay guys."

Six hands go up around the room. They hadn't figured out the LGBTQ content on their own.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Wait. Why are you being opted out of the entire unit on Marie Curie? She wasn't gay."

"But my folks say she is an unhealthy model because she didn't stay home and act as a proper helpmate for her husband. That's not the right way for a woman to--"

"Go."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"The following students will be going to the room for the next two weeks while we complete our unit on Walt Whitman--"

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Why are you students back already. I told you we'd be discussing Kate Chopin's The Awakening all week. Remember? Story of a woman unhappy to be a wife and mother, written by a lady author who wore pants?"

"Yes, we know. Sorry. But biology classes are doing evolution this week and the room is already full."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"I don't understand. Why are you opting out of this lesson?"

"This poem definitely refers to the world as a globe, but in my family, we believe that the earth is flat."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Yes, Pat?"

"Mrs. Smith, my family has a religious objection to eating meat, and this character clearly has a hamburger for lunch. Expect to hear from my father's lawyer over the lack of advanced warning."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

"So, Mrs. Jones, you want Pat opted out of lessons because of the pronouns?  Not just 'those gay pronouns,' but you have objections to all pronouns?"

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Yes, this is Principal Shmershwerks. Yes, hello Mrs. Wiggins. You want Sam moved out of Mrs. Smith's classroom because why?...Oh, because you saw Mrs. Smith's new haircut and it looks kind of butch."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Okay, class. According to the posting on today's opt out request list, Pat's family objects to the portrayal of geocentric orbit, Sam's family objects to the suggestion that God loves short people, Quinn's family objects to the portrayal of talking fish on religious grounds, three other families object to the use of caricatures on moral grounds, and Patsy's mother has moral objections to any use of the word 'oral'. All of these objections have been referred to the District Office of Moral and Religious Issues, which will consult with the State Office of Religious Concerns, and we'll let you know whether your religious issues are officially recognized by the state or not."

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------