Judge rules dad can’t opt-out of gender storybooks for his 5-yr-old son
A federal judge in Massachusetts has ruled that a concerned father cannot shield his 5-year-old son from two kindergarten storybooks that challenge traditional gender norms.
The decision comes from U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV, who determined this week that the books in question—Pink Is For Boys and Except When They Don’t—do not cross the legal line that would require Lexington Public Schools to grant a religious opt-out.
The father, identified in court papers as Alan L., previously secured a preliminary injunction allowing his son to skip more than a dozen classroom materials tied to LGBTQ+ themes. That earlier ruling was hailed by parental rights advocates as a major constitutional victory. But now, the court has drawn a distinction: lessons about “gender stereotypes,” the judge said, are not the same as instruction on gender identity or sexual orientation.
According to online retail descriptions, Pink Is For Boys “rethinks and reframes the stereotypical blue/pink gender binary and empowers kids and their grown-ups to express themselves in every color of the rainbow,” inviting children to enjoy everything from “racing cars and playing baseball” to “loving unicorns and dressing up.”
The second book, Except When They Don’t, is described as a “stereotype-breaking book” that “invites children to examine what they’re told ‘boy’ and ‘girl’ activities are and encourages them to play with whatever they want to and to be exactly who they are!” It is also “published in partnership with GLAAD to accelerate LGBTQ inclusivity and acceptance.”
In his memorandum, Judge Saylor concluded that “because the book teaches about gender stereotypes, not gender identity, it does not violate plaintiff’s religious faith, as defined in the complaint, and therefore falls outside the scope of the preliminary injunction.”
He further defined “LGBTQ+” in the ruling as meaning people who “‘[are of] a sexual orientation that is nonheterosexual, including lesbians, gay men, bisexual people, and asexual people; people who are transgender or non-binary; people who are intersex; and queer people.’”
The court ultimately ruled that “defendants are not required to provide an opportunity for plaintiff to opt his child out of classroom instruction using the books Pink Is For Boys by Robb Pearlman and Except When They Don’t by Laura Gehl.”
Attorneys for the school district framed the decision as a necessary boundary on parental demands. Sasha Gill, representing Lexington Public Schools, said the ruling makes clear “that parents do not have carte blanche in seeking opt-outs for religious reasons and that opt-out requests need only be granted when the identified materials directly conflict with parents’ stated beliefs.”
“It’s not about how the curricular materials are marketed to the public or whether they have a connection to groups that advocate beliefs the parent finds objectionable,” Gill said. “The question is how the materials are actually presented to students, something the Supreme Court made very clear in Mahmoud.”
Gill argued that broad opt-out requests create heavy administrative burdens, saying that for this one child, staff members have spent “an unthinkable amount of time trying to ensure two same-sex characters in a storybook aren’t standing too close to each other, lest they be considered gay-appearing enough. It’s an incredible burden to put on public schools.”
The decision comes from U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV, who determined this week that the books in question—Pink Is For Boys and Except When They Don’t—do not cross the legal line that would require Lexington Public Schools to grant a religious opt-out.
The father, identified in court papers as Alan L., previously secured a preliminary injunction allowing his son to skip more than a dozen classroom materials tied to LGBTQ+ themes. That earlier ruling was hailed by parental rights advocates as a major constitutional victory. But now, the court has drawn a distinction: lessons about “gender stereotypes,” the judge said, are not the same as instruction on gender identity or sexual orientation.
According to online retail descriptions, Pink Is For Boys “rethinks and reframes the stereotypical blue/pink gender binary and empowers kids and their grown-ups to express themselves in every color of the rainbow,” inviting children to enjoy everything from “racing cars and playing baseball” to “loving unicorns and dressing up.”
The second book, Except When They Don’t, is described as a “stereotype-breaking book” that “invites children to examine what they’re told ‘boy’ and ‘girl’ activities are and encourages them to play with whatever they want to and to be exactly who they are!” It is also “published in partnership with GLAAD to accelerate LGBTQ inclusivity and acceptance.”
In his memorandum, Judge Saylor concluded that “because the book teaches about gender stereotypes, not gender identity, it does not violate plaintiff’s religious faith, as defined in the complaint, and therefore falls outside the scope of the preliminary injunction.”
He further defined “LGBTQ+” in the ruling as meaning people who “‘[are of] a sexual orientation that is nonheterosexual, including lesbians, gay men, bisexual people, and asexual people; people who are transgender or non-binary; people who are intersex; and queer people.’”
The court ultimately ruled that “defendants are not required to provide an opportunity for plaintiff to opt his child out of classroom instruction using the books Pink Is For Boys by Robb Pearlman and Except When They Don’t by Laura Gehl.”
Attorneys for the school district framed the decision as a necessary boundary on parental demands. Sasha Gill, representing Lexington Public Schools, said the ruling makes clear “that parents do not have carte blanche in seeking opt-outs for religious reasons and that opt-out requests need only be granted when the identified materials directly conflict with parents’ stated beliefs.”
“It’s not about how the curricular materials are marketed to the public or whether they have a connection to groups that advocate beliefs the parent finds objectionable,” Gill said. “The question is how the materials are actually presented to students, something the Supreme Court made very clear in Mahmoud.”
Gill argued that broad opt-out requests create heavy administrative burdens, saying that for this one child, staff members have spent “an unthinkable amount of time trying to ensure two same-sex characters in a storybook aren’t standing too close to each other, lest they be considered gay-appearing enough. It’s an incredible burden to put on public schools.”
70-79, M
