Amicus Curiae Brief — Tamer Mahmoud, et al., Petitioners v. Thomas W. Taylor, et al.

Supreme Court briefMar 10, 2025

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

No. 24-297

In the Supreme Court of the United States

TAMER MAHMOUD, ET AL.,

Petitioners,

THOMAS W. TAYLOR, ET AL.,

Respondents.

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

BRIEF OF AMICUS CURIAE

ETHICS AND PUBLIC POLICY CENTER

IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

ERIC N. KNIFFIN

Counsel of Record

MARY RICE HASSON

ETHICS AND PUBLIC

POLICY CENTER

1730 M Street N.W.

Suite 910

Washington, DC 20036

(202) 682-1200

ekniffin@eppc.org

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE............................ 1

INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF

ARGUMENT ........................................................ 2

ARGUMENT ............................................................... 4

The Board’s curriculum does more than

“encourage respect” for others; it teaches

radical claims as true and good. .......................... 4

A. The Board has chosen books that teach

gender ideology as true. ................................. 5

B. The Board’s guidance to educators

teaches that gender ideology is true............ 10

C. Board members’ comments reflect

animus toward parents who oppose

gender ideology............................................. 11

II. The challenged curriculum aligns with

“gender ideology.”............................................... 13

A. Gender ideology has a problematic

intellectual pedigree..................................... 14

B. Gender ideology is not based in science. ..... 18

C. Gender ideology is rejected by the

American people. .......................................... 19

III. Gender ideology is radically at odds with

Catholic teaching on the human person. .......... 21

CONCLUSION ......................................................... 31

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

Cases

Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah,

508 U.S. 520 (1993) ................................................ 13

Edwards v. Aguillard,

482 U.S. 578 (1987) ................................................ 20

Eknes-Tucker v. Governor of Ala.,

114 F.3th 1241 (11th Cir. 2024) ............................ 20

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado C.R.

Comm’n,

584 U.S. 617 (2018) .......................................... 13, 14

Mozert v. Hawkins Cnty. Bd. of Educ.,

827 F.2d 1058 (6th Cir. 1987) ................................ 20

State v. Loe,

692 S.W.3d 215 (Tex. 2024). ............................ 14, 15

Other Authorities

Andrew T. Walker, God and the Transgender

Debate (2017)............................................................ 1

Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation ........ 24

Carl R. Trueman, Strange New World: How

Thinkers and Activists Redefined Identity and

Sparked the Sexual Revolution (2022) .................... 2

Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) ................. 32

iii

Catholic Diocese of Arlington, A Catechesis on the

Human Person & Gender Ideology (2021),

https://personandidentity.com/wpcontent/uploads/2021/08/Catholic-Diocese-ofArlington-A-Catechesis-on-the-Human-Personand-Gender-Ideology.pdf ....................................... 31

Congregation for Catholic Education, Male and

Female He Created Them: Toward a Path of

Dialogue on the Question of Gender Theory in

Education (2019) .................................................... 26

Courtney Mares, Pope Francis: Gender Ideology Is

‘One of the Most Dangerous Ideological

Colonizations’ Today, Catholic News Agency,

March 11, 2023....................................................... 25

David Crawford & Michael Hanby, The Abolition

of Man and Woman, WSJ, June 24, 2020 ............. 18

Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dignitas

Infinita: On Human Dignity, April 2, 2024 .......... 27

EPPC, Amicus Briefs: “Gender Transition”

Interventions ............................................................ 2

EPPC, Person & Identity Project, Catholic

Teaching, Church Documents, and Diocesan

Policies .................................................................... 30

G.K. Marinov, In Humans, Sex Is Binary and

Immutable, 33 Acad. Questions 279 (2020) .......... 16

Gender Spectrum, Principles of Gender-Inclusive

Puberty and Health Education (2019) .................. 16

Genesis 5:2 ................................................................. 24

Human Rights Campaign, Moms for Equality:

Jodie Patterson on How Her Trans Son Changed

Her Life, May 11, 2018, (last visited March 8,

2025) ......................................................................... 9

Jarislav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, Vol. 1:

The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100600) (1975) .............................................................. 23

John B. Buescher, Gnosticism vs. The Incarnation:

The Ancient Battle Renewed, Catholic World

Report, June 8, 2015 .............................................. 23

Juliana Menasce Horowitz, Parents Differ Sharply

by Party Over What Their K-12 Children Should

Learn in School, Pew Research, October 26,

2022 ........................................................................ 21

Junno Arocho Esteves, World in ‘Profound

Anthropological Crisis,’ Pope Says, Catholic

News Service, May 19, 2022 .................................. 24

Lindsay Weisner, Psy.D., The Link Between

Autism and Gender Diversity, Psychology

Today, Aug. 7, 2023 ................................................. 7

Luona Lin et al., Race and LGBTQ Issues in K-12

Schools, Pew Research, February 22, 2024 .... 21, 22

Luona Lin, et al, Race and LGBTQ Issues in the

Classroom, Pew Research, Feb. 22, 2024 .............. 21

Mary Rice Hasson, Erasing Females in Language

and Law, 11 J. Christian Legal Thought 44

(2021) ................................................................ 18, 19

Montgomery County Public School, LGBTQ+

Information (For Students and Staff), (last

visited March 8, 2025) ........................................... 16

Natalie Pompilo, How One Woman Became an

‘Accidental Advocate’ for Transgender Rights,

Delaware Today, Oct. 10, 2017................................ 6

Poll: Majority of Parents Oppose Transgender

Ideology in Schools, Decision Magazine, January

13, 2025 .................................................................. 20

Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace,

Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the

Church (2006)......................................................... 24

Pope Francis, Laudato Si (2015)............................... 26

Pope Francis: ‘I Prayed for Peace in Fatima

Without Publicity,’ Vatican News, Aug. 2023 ....... 25

Press Release, Parents Defending Education,

Parents Defending Education Poll: Parents

Support Girls-Only Spaces in Schools, Oppose

Parental Exclusion Policies and Grading for

Equity (Jan. 6, 2025).............................................. 20

Rachel Giese & Chris Wodskou, The Story of John

Money: Controversial Sexologist Grappled with

the Concept of Gender, CBC News, July 5, 2015 .. 16

Richard Green, Robert Stoller’s Sex and Gender: 40

Years On, 39 Archiv. Sex. Behav. 1457 (2010) ..... 15

Russell Moore, Just How Secular Should America

Be?, N.Y. TIMES, June 18, 2020 ............................. 23

Ryan T. Anderson, When Harry Became Sally

(2018) ........................................................................ 1

Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex (Constance

Border and Sheila Malovany-Chevallier, trans.,

2011). ...................................................................... 15

Team LPAC, Deshanna Neal,

https://www.teamlpac.com/ourcandidates/deshanna-neal ....................................... 6

Terry Goldie, The Man Who Invented Gender:

Engaging the Ideas of John Money (2014). ........... 15

The Transgender Language Primer, (last updated

Mar. 4, 2021) .......................................................... 17

Theresa Farnan, Our World Has Lost the Catholic

Understanding of Human Anthropology, Our

Sunday Visitor, June 2, 2023 .................................. 2

USCCB, “Gender theory”/“Gender ideology” –

Select Teaching Resources ..................................... 29

USCCB, Committee on Doctrine, Doctrinal Note on

the Moral Limits to Technological Manipulation

of the Human Body, March 20, 2023 ..................... 30

USCCB, Created Male and Female: An Open Letter

from Religious Leaders, Dec. 15, 2017 .................. 29

INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE 1

The Ethics and Public Policy Center (“EPPC”) is a

nonprofit research institution applying the JudeoChristian moral tradition to critical issues of public

policy, law, culture, and politics. In pursuit of its

mission, EPPC equips Americans to address today’s

ethical, political, and cultural questions with firm

commitment to human dignity, natural law, and our

constitutional freedoms.

With stunning speed, gender ideology has

permeated American culture, influencing medicine,

business, media, government, and education. The

results are far-reaching, threatening religious liberty

and parental rights, stifling free speech, and driving

an unprecedented rise in youth “transgender”

identification. Gender ideology is sowing confusion

and undermining personal well-being, creating an

urgent need for clarity, education, and compassionate

guidance.

EPPC Fellows write and advocate on issues related

to gender ideology. 2 EPPC Senior Fellow Mary Rice

1 Pursuant to Rule 37.6, no counsel for any party authored this

brief in whole or in part, nor did any such counsel or party make

any monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or

submission of this brief.

2 Relevant publications from EPPC Fellows include:

•

Ryan T. Anderson, When Harry Became Sally (2018);

•

Andrew T. Walker, God and the Transgender Debate (2017);

•

Carl R. Trueman, Strange New World: How Thinkers and

Activists Redefined Identity and Sparked the Sexual

Revolution (2022);

Theresa Farnan, Our World Has Lost the Catholic

Understanding of Human Anthropology, Our Sunday

Hasson launched EPPC’s Person and Identity Project 3

to equip parents and faith-based institutions to

promote the truth of the human person and to meet

the challenges of gender ideology.

Amicus files this brief to show the ideological

nature of Respondents’ challenged curriculum and the

fundamental conflict between gender ideology and the

Christian faith regarding the nature of the human

person, thus explaining why the Board’s refusal to

honor parental opt-out requests substantially burdens

Petitioners’ religious exercise.

INTRODUCTION AND

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT

Respondents—the Montgomery County Board of

Education and its officials (“the Board”)—deny that

compelling Petitioners’ children to participate in its

use of “LGBTQ-inclusive” storybooks burdens

Petitioners’ religious exercise. Respondents’ denial

rests heavily on the Board’s claim that its sexuality

and gender curriculum does not take a position on

gender ideology at all—it merely “promotes equity,

respect, and civility,” fosters “a student’s ability to

empathize, connect, and collaborate with diverse

peers,” and “encourage[s] respect for all.”

Visitor, June 2, 2023,

https://www.oursundayvisitor.com/our-world-has-lost-thecatholic-understanding-of-human-anthropology;

•

Amicus briefs on gender identity authored by EPPC fellows

are available at EPPC, Amicus Briefs: “Gender Transition”

Interventions, https://eppc.org/amicus-briefs/#16%E2%80%9Cgender-transition%E2%80%9D-interventions-.

3 Person and Identity Project, About Us,

https://personandidentity.com/about/.

Pet.App.589a, 640a. This case would look very

different were that true. But it is not.

Judge Quattlebaum, in his dissent from the

decision below, got it right: the Board’s sexuality and

gender curriculum “goes far beyond mere exposure to

objectionable viewpoints.” Pet.App.64a–65a. The

Board has mandated the use of books written by

LGBTQ+ activists that present gender ideology as

fact. These books teach elementary school children

that children may decide for themselves whether they

are boys or girls based on what they “feel like.”

Pet.App.470a. This claim is presented as true,

something children are expected to affirm and apply to

themselves. Moreover, the Board instructs children

that Petitioners’ religions (which teach children that

their bodies are good and should be received as a gift)

are “wrong” and “harmful.”

This brief draws on the expertise and scholarship

of Amicus’ Person and Identity Project to highlight, in

the words of Justice Blacklock of the Texas Supreme

Court, the “irreconcilably conflicting visions” of the

human person that lie at the heart of this case. That

is, the conflict between the Transgender Vision of the

person, taught by the Board’s curriculum, and the

Traditional Vision, taught by Petitioners’ religions.

Part I shows that the Board’s curriculum does more

than just “focus on tolerance, empathy, and respect for

different views.” It teaches radical claims about the

human person and morality as true. It tells children

that anyone who opposes this new anthropology

(including Petitioners) is “wrong” and motivated by

“fear,” “ignorance,” or “hate.” Moreover, Board

members’ comments reveal their animus towards

those who, like Petitioners, sought an opt-out for

religious reasons.

Part II demonstrates that the Board’s curriculum

fits squarely within “gender ideology,” a radical

worldview promoted in the academy, popular culture,

and political discourse but strongly opposed by

scientists, religious leaders, and parents.

Finally, Part III counters the Board’s claim that

religious opposition to gender ideology is xenophobic

and reflexive. To the contrary, Petitioners’ opposition

and desire for an opt out reflects these parents’ sincere

religious convictions about the human person. Amicus

offers a brief overview of Christian anthropology and

Catholic teaching to illuminate why, from the faith

perspective of the Christian Petitioners, the gender

ideology embedded in the Board’s curriculum is “an

anthropology opposed to faith and to right reason” and

why forced exposure to this curriculum substantially

burdens their religious exercise.

ARGUMENT

I. The Board’s curriculum does more than

“encourage respect” for others; it teaches

radical claims as true and good.

According to the Board, its sexuality and gender

curriculum doesn’t seek to indoctrinate at all—it

merely strives to “provide a culturally responsive

curriculum that promotes equity, respect, and civility”

and to “prepare students to confront and eliminate

stereotypes related to individuals’ actual or perceived

characteristics, including gender identity and sexual

orientation.”

Pet.App.589a

(cleaned up).

Its

curriculum merely “creates and normalizes a fully

inclusive environment for all students,” helping them

“empathize, connect, and collaborate with diverse

peers and encourag[ing] respect for all.” Pet.App.278a.

But the Board’s chosen LGBTQ+ children’s books,

its instructions to teachers, and its directors’

derogatory comments about objecting religious

parents tell a different story. The gender ideology

curriculum is not neutral or “inclusive.” It reinforces

rather than confronts gender “stereotypes.” More

importantly, the Board’s curriculum teaches children

that gender ideology is true, good, and loving. It sends

a clear message that those who oppose this

anthropology, for personal or religious reasons, are

ignorant, bigoted, and even hateful.

A. The Board has chosen books that teach

gender ideology as true.

There are plenty of books available that teach

children to respect people who look, act, and believe

differently than they do. The Board’s “Newly Approved

LGBTQ-Inclusive Texts,” Pet.App.234a–253a, have a

different goal: their purpose and effect is to teach

children that gender ideology is true and loving, while

traditional and religious convictions about identity,

sexual difference, sexuality, and marriage are false

and “hurtful.” Pet.App. 630a, 635a.

Two picture books (My Rainbow and Born Ready),

which were approved by the Board for kindergarten

classrooms, show this most clearly:

My Rainbow shares the personal story of author

DeShanna Neal and DeShanna’s child Trinity.

Pet.App.357a–389a. DeShanna Neal is “a nationally

known transgender rights champion,” 4 uses they/their

pronouns, and in 2022 became “the first out nonbinary

person elected to the Delaware legislature.” 5

According to one interview with Neal, Trinity “was

classified as male at birth based on anatomy, but * * *

[h]er true self emerged a few years later, when the 3year-old announced, ‘I am a girl.’” 6 Trinity is also

autistic. 7 According to Neal, “The day my daughter’s

therapist asked us to choose between a happy little girl

and a dead little boy, we knew what had to be done.” 8

Neal has expressed significant animus toward parents

and politicians who advocate for treating children

according to their sex. 9

Natalie Pompilo, How One Woman Became an ‘Accidental

Advocate’ for Transgender Rights, Delaware Today, Oct. 10, 2017,

https://delawaretoday.com/life-style/how-one-woman-became-anaccidental-advocate-for-transgender-rights/.

Team LPAC, Deshanna Neal, https://www.teamlpac.com/ourcandidates/deshanna-neal (last visited March 8, 2025).

6 Pompilo, How One Woman Became an ‘Accidental Advocate’ for

Transgender Rights.

Ibid. There is a significant “correlation between gender

diversity, gender dysphoria, and autism.” Lindsay Weisner,

Psy.D., The Link Between Autism and Gender Diversity,

Psychology

Today,

Aug.

2023,

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-venn-diagramlife/202307/the-link-between-autism-and-gender-diversity

(summarizing recent studies).

8 Ibid. But see Tr. of OA at 88:9–14, United States v. Skrmetti,

No. 23-477 (Dec. 4. 2024) (J. Alito noting that “on page 195 of the

Cass report, it says: There is no evidence that gender-affirmative

treatments reduce suicide”).

9 See Ibid. In the interview, DeShanna offered an impression of

people who “oppos[e] equality issues”: DeShanna “sh[ook] her

arms in the air and yell[ed]” in her “Kermit the Frog” voice, “No!

My Rainbow seems calculated to catch children off

guard, to confuse and disorient them. On the first

page, Trinity is wearing earrings and a baby blue

dress. Pet.App.361a. The first sentence of the book

introduces

Trinity

with

female

pronouns.

Pet.App.362a. Nothing prepares children for Trinity’s

lament, a few pages in, that “I can’t be a girl;” Trinity’s

mother seems caught off guard as well: “Why is that?”

Pet.App.365a.

Children are caught off guard again on the next

page, where Trinity says, “I don’t think you

understand, Mom. I’m a transgender girl.”

Pet.App.367a. Trinity’s mom “blinked with surprise.”

Pet.App.370a. Mom and brother look perplexed—the

same look the Board’s kindergarten teachers likely

saw on their students’ faces. Pet.App.367a, 269a.

My Rainbow does not tell the reader how Trinity

learned the phrase “transgender girl” or what it

means—or how a “transgender girl” differs from “a

girl” or a boy (although the book does convey that

there’s a difference between a “transgender girl” and a

“cisgender girl” Pet.App.371a).

But one message comes through loud and clear: a

“transgender” identity should be celebrated. The

family affirms Trinity’s transgender identity by using

female pronouns, letting Trinity wear dresses, and

making Trinity a rainbow-colored wig. Pet.App.379a–

387a. My Rainbow tells the reader that “Trinity’s

gender” is “part of what made her a masterpiece, just

No! We hate it! We hate it!” Ibid. When DeShanna mimics

Senator Ted Cruz’s advocacy for sex-separated school bathrooms,

DeShanna “gives the Texas Republican a nasal, whining voice

and makes rodent-like hand gestures.” Ibid.

like her autism and her Black skin.” Pet.App.370a. In

other words, a “transgender girl” is a “masterpiece.”

The characters in the book uniformly treat Trinity

as a girl. Most young children probably wouldn’t

understand that Trinity was male until after the book

is over, after the teacher answers students’ questions

about what “transgender girl” and “cisgender girl”

mean. It is easy to predict that children would feel

pressured by their public school teacher to accept the

storyline that “transgender” is a “masterpiece” and

that sex can change. It is easy to predict that children

who hadn’t already been indoctrinated by gender

ideology would be confused and embarrassed about

what their parents had taught them, at home and at

church.

Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named

Penelope was written by Jodie Patterson.

Pet.App.448a–482a. Patterson is an LGBT human

rights activist and the immediate past chair of the

Human Rights Campaign. 10 Patterson “is the mother

of five children, two of whom are self-proclaimed

gender nonconformists—one transgender and another

genderqueer.” Pet.App.481a. Patterson promised her

transgender child, “I’ll make sure the world moves out

of your way so that you can be you.” 11

10 Jodi Patterson, Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named

Penelope

(Charnelle

Pinkney

Barlow

illust.

2021),

https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/611926/bornready-by-jodie-patterson-illustrated-by-charnelle-pinkneybarlow/.

11 Human Rights Campaign, Moms for Equality: Jodie Patterson

on How Her Trans Son Changed Her Life, May 11, 2018,

https://www.hrc.org/news/moms-for-equality-jodie-patterson-onhow-her-trans-son-changed-her-life.

Born Ready reflects this promise. The book tells the

story of a five-year-old girl who identifies as a boy. In

the book, Penelope gets angry “[b]ecause everybody

thinks I’m a girl.” Penelope tells her mom, “Inside I’m

a boy. When I close my eyes and dream, I’m a boy.”

Pet.App.454a. “I don’t feel like a boy. I AM a boy.”

Pet.App.458a. So she asks her mom, “Help me be a

boy.” Pet.App.459a. Penelope’s mom responds, “We

will make a plan to tell everyone we love what we

know. * * * You are a boy.” Pet.App.461a.

Penelope’s teacher also models the “correct” way to

respond to such a child:

“Your parents told me you are a boy. Is that

true?”

“I think like a boy. I feel like a boy. I might look

different from other boys, but yes, I’m sure I’m

a boy.”

“Well, Penelope . . . today you’re my teacher!”

Pet.App.470a.

In contrast, Penelope’s “Big Brother” (who “acts

like he knows everything,” Pet.App.451a) teaches

children the “wrong” way to respond. Big Brother

objects to Mom’s announcement: “This doesn’t make

sense. You can’t become a boy. You have to be born

one.” Pet.App.465a. But Mom corrects Big Brother:

“Not everything needs to make sense. This is about

love.” Pet.App.465a.

What lessons do these books teach to

impressionable children? That children can decide

whether they are boys or girls based on how they feel

and it is wrong to get in their way. That it is wrong to

believe that people are “born” either boys or girls and

that this biological fact is beyond a child’s power to

change. In other words, the authoritative message the

impressionable child receives from the state (in the

person of a public school teacher) is that gender

ideology is good and true and traditional religious

beliefs about sexual difference are bad and false.

B. The Board’s guidance to educators

teaches that gender ideology is true.

The Board’s “Sample Student Call-Ins” document

instructs teachers on how to respond to a student, like

Penelope’s “Big Brother,” who says, “You can’t become

a boy. You have to be born one.” Teachers should say

this is a “hurtful” observation that “shouldn’t” be made

in class. Pet.App.630a. Teachers are to tell children,

“Sometimes when we learn information that’s

different from what we always thought it can be

confusing and hard to process.” Pet.App.630a.

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. When someone's

transgender, they guessed wrong; when

someone's cisgender, they guessed right. Our

body parts do not decide our gender. Our

gender comes from our inside—we might feel

different than what people tell us we are. We

know ourselves best. When someone tells us

what their gender is, we believe them because

they are the experts on themselves.

Pet.App.630a–631a (emphases added).

Teaching that a biological male can “be” a female,

that subjective beliefs or wishes override biological

reality, and that “body parts” have no meaning is not

merely advancing “diversity” and “inclusion”; it is

teaching that “gender ideology” is true, that refusing

to acquiesce is hurtful and wrong, and that faith

traditions that teach otherwise are also wrong.

C. Board members’ comments reflect animus

toward parents who oppose gender

ideology.

The Board’s commitment to gender ideology is also

reflected in its animus towards parents, including

Petitioners, who sought to protect their children from

the Board’s LGBTQ+ curriculum. In justifying their

refusal to honor parents’ requests to opt out from their

gender ideology curriculum, Board members maligned

these parents’ integrity and goodwill:

•

Board Member Harris claimed that parents

requesting a religious opt-out were “just

telling [their child], ‘here’s another reason to

hate another person’” and likened them to

“white supremacists” and “xenophobes.”

Pet.App.187a, 107a.

•

Harris accused a student supporting opt-outs

of “parroting” his parents’ “dogma.”

Pet.App.106a.

•

At the January 12, 2023 board meeting, one

parent expressed concern that the Board’s

approach “implied that parents’ religious and

family traditions are wrong.” Pet.App.100a.

Two weeks later, a District elementary

school principal claimed that requests for an

accommodation were motivated not by

sincere religious convictions but by “fears.”

Pet.App.186a.

•

The same principal also claimed that a

parent asking that his or her child not be

exposed to the District’s gender ideology

curriculum was no different from a parent

opposing books with Jewish, Muslim, and

African-American characters. Pet.App.484a.

•

Another Board member said that parents’

concerns about the District’s gender ideology

curriculum confirm that “ignorance and hate

does exist within our community.”

Pet.App.102a.

As these comments demonstrate, the Board tacitly

concedes that—at least on this point—the Board and

Petitioners agree: the Board’s curriculum promoting

gender ideology is fundamentally incompatible with

Petitioners’ religious convictions about human nature

and human flourishing. The Board believes that its

curriculum is correct and good, and that students and

parents who oppose it are hateful xenophobes. And it

believes that the children of parents who hold the

“wrong” beliefs need to be exposed to the Board’s

ideological take on human nature.

Board members are entitled to their personal

convictions about religious parents in Montgomery

County and what major world religions teach about

the human person. But “[t]he Constitution ‘commits

government itself to religious tolerance, and upon

even slight suspicion that proposals for state

intervention stem from animosity to religion or

distrust of its practices, all officials must pause to

remember their own high duty to the Constitution and

to the rights it secures.’” Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v.

Colorado C.R. Comm’n, 584 U.S. 614, 638-639 (2018)

(quoting Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v.

Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 547 (1993)). “The Free Exercise

Clause bars even ‘subtle departures from neutrality’

on matters of religion.” Id. at 638 (quoting Lukumi,

508 U.S. at 534). The Board’s comments and conduct

fall short of this constitutional bar.

II. The challenged curriculum

“gender ideology.”

aligns

with

At the heart of this lawsuit is a conflict between

two different views of what it means to be a human

person. Last summer, Justice Blacklock of the

Supreme Court of Texas penned a concurrence in State

v. Loe, 692 S.W.3d 215, 239 (Tex. 2024) to describe

these contrasting views:

The first vision—call it the Traditional Vision—

holds that a boy is a boy, a girl is a girl, and

neither feelings and desires nor drugs and

surgery can change this immutable genetic

truth, which binds us all. Within the

Traditional Vision, human males and females

do not “identify” as men and women. We are

men and women, irreducibly and inescapably,

no matter how we feel. * * *

The second vision—call it the Transgender

Vision—holds that we all have a “sex assigned

at birth,” which usually corresponds to our

physical traits but which may or may not

correspond to our inwardly felt or outwardly

expressed “gender identity.” It holds that a

person’s gender identity is a constitutive part of

his or her humanity and that when a person’s

biological sex and gender identity diverge, often

gender identity should be given priority.

Loe, S.W.3d at 239–240. Justice Blacklock emphasized

that these two anthropologies paint “irreconcilably

conflicting visions” of what it means to be a human

person and how we—individually, and as a society—

ought to respond to “children experiencing confusion

and distress about the normal biological development

of their bodies.” Id. at 239.

A. Gender ideology has a problematic

intellectual pedigree.

To understand the conflict at the heart of this

lawsuit, it is important to understand gender

ideology’s history and central claims. Gender ideology

developed over the latter half of the twentieth century.

In 1949, French existentialist philosopher Simone de

Beauvoir wrote, “One is not born, but rather becomes,

woman,” foreshadowing second-wave feminism and

the coming gender revolution. 12 Psychologist John

Money, who worked with transsexuals in the 1950s

and ’60s, popularized the use of the term “gender” to

denote behavioral (as opposed to biological) differences

between males and females. 13 Money and his colleague

Robert Stoller theorized that it was possible for an

individual to have a social identity, a “gender” identity

that diverged from the biological reality of the person’s

sexed body. 14 Furthermore, Money “believed that if

you were a biological male and believed yourself to be

12 Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex 283 (Constance Border &

Sheila Malovany-Chevallier, trans., 2011).

13 Terry Goldie, The Man Who Invented Gender: Engaging the

Ideas of John Money (2014).

14 Richard Green, Robert Stoller’s Sex and Gender: 40 Years On,

Archiv.

Sex.

Behav.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20703787/.

1457

(2010).

a female that it was an idée fixe—it was so important

to you as a person that it could not be contradicted.” 15

Under this worldview, it is less violent and more

“affirming” to help the patient change his or her body

than to help the patient change his or her mind.

The Board’s curriculum reflects gender ideology’s

move from academia to school classrooms. 16 The

Board’s “LGBTQ+ Information” webpage 17 links to a

“Gender Inclusive Schools Toolkit” produced by

Gender Spectrum, an organization formed to promote

gender ideology and “gender-inclusive puberty

education.”

Sex ed that is “gender-inclusive” avoids the terms

“males” and “females,” and instead refers to “bodies

with a penis and testicles or bodies with a vulva and

ovaries” so teachers can talk about sex “without

assuming that there are only two sexes.” 18

No longer content with proposing their novel ideas

for consideration, gender ideologues now claim that a

biologically-based definition of sex is not only incorrect

Rachel Giese & Chris Wodskou, The Story of John Money:

Controversial Sexologist Grappled with the Concept of Gender,

CBC NEWS, July 5, 2015, https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/thestory-of-john-money-controversial-sexologist-grappled-with-theconcept-of-gender-1.3137670.

16 G.K. Marinov, In Humans, Sex Is Binary and Immutable, 33

Acad. Questions 279 (2020), https://www.nas.org/academicquestions/33/2/in-humans-sex-is-binary-and-immutable.

17 Montgomery County Public School, LGBTQ+ Information (For

Students

and

https://www2.montgomeryschoolsmd.org/LGBTQ/.

Staff),

18 Gender Spectrum, Principles of Gender-Inclusive Puberty and

Health Education 12 (2019), https://bit.ly/45NP9i2.

but oppressive. The online “Trans Language Primer”

defines “sex” as:

A binary system (wo/man) set by the medical

establishment to reinforce white supremacy

and gender oppression, usually based on

genitals and sometimes chromosomes. 19

Gender ideology is a radical construct built on

radical

philosophical

and

metaphysical

presuppositions. David Crawford and Michael Hanby,

professors at the Pontifical John Paul II Institute for

Studies on Marriage & Family at the Catholic

University of America, unfolded these presuppositions

in an essay for the Wall Street Journal:

The unstated premise [of gender ideology] is

that the relationship between our embodiment

as male and female and our personal

subjectivity (as expressed in “identity”) is

essentially arbitrary. * * * These assumptions

further imply that * * * to be a woman is a

mental state, that we really are Cartesian

“ghosts in the machine.” * * *

These are metaphysical judgments * * *

highly questionable philosophical propositions

with [profound] implications for society

[because] [i]t is impossible to redefine human

nature for only one person. When a fourth-grade

girl is required to affirm in thought, word and

deed that a boy in her class is now a girl, this

does not simply affirm the classmate’s

The

Transgender

Language

Primer,

https://web.archive.org/web/20210304155343/https://www.transl

anguageprimer.org/primer/#sex.

right to self-expression. It calls into

question the meaning of “boy” and “girl”

as such. * * * If each of us is defined by a

“gender identity” only arbitrarily related to our

male and female bodies * * * then there is no

longer any such thing as man or woman[.] * * *

What we are dealing with is nothing less than a

war on reality itself.

* * * There is no

totalitarianism so total as that which claims

authority over the meaning of nature. 20

EPPC’s Mary Rice Hasson has likewise stated that

gender ideology “has become a government-promoted

anthropology, an alternative belief system that

proposes its own (false) ‘truth’ about the human

person.” 21 As Hasson notes, public schools have been a

chief means through which government has advanced

this “alternative belief system”:

Public schools in most states have been deeply

engaged in promoting gender ideology for over a

decade

already

through

anti-bullying

initiatives, diversity and inclusion programs,

LGBTQ-inclusive sex education and, in a few

states, LGBTQ curriculum mandates. The

teachers’ unions, state schools of education, and

the education establishment have all embraced

20 David Crawford & Michael Hanby, The Abolition of Man and

Woman,

WSJ,

June

24,

2020

(emphases

added),

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-abolition-of-man-and-woman11593017500.

21 Mary Rice Hasson, Erasing Females in Language and Law, 11

J. Christian Legal Thought 44, 46 (2021), available at

https://eppc.org/publication/erasing-females-in-language-andlaw/.

the LGBTQ agenda for years. Except for a few

brave holdouts here and there, local school

boards have toppled like dominoes, caving

under intense pressure (and threats of lawsuits

from the ACLU, Lambda Legal, and other

activist litigators) to enact transgenderinclusive policies and “gender identity”

protections.

Id. at 48.

B. Gender ideology is not based in science.

Gender identity advocates claim that the “best

science” is on their side. L.W. Br. at 38, United States

v. Skrmetti, No. 23-477 (Aug. 27, 2024). However, the

“accepted standards of care” trans-activists rely on,

issued by WPATH, are based on “ideology, not

science.” Eknes-Tucker v. Governor of Ala., 114 F.3th

1241, 1261 (11th Cir. 2024) (Lagoa, J., concurring in

the denial of rehearing en banc).

Were a debate between these two anthropologies to

come down to matters of science, there is little doubt

the Traditional Vision of the human person would win.

The Traditional Vision is rooted in science, common

experience, and reason; the Transgender Vision is

rooted in feelings and stereotypes. See Br. for EPPC as

Amicus Curiae at 16–23, United States v. Skrmetti,

No. 23-477 (Oct. 15, 2024). As such, whatever

Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987) and Mozert

v. Hawkins Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 827 F.2d 1058 (6th Cir.

1987) might have to say about religious liberty claims

against public school science curricula, they have no

bearing here. Unlike those cases, Petitioners here are

not challenging a science curriculum, but an ideology

that demonizes long-held beliefs (scientific, cultural,

and religious) about human nature and sexual

difference—in short, about what it means to be a

human person. Furthermore, this ideology is not

merely in tension with what Petitioners believe and

have a religious duty to impart to their children; the

Board’s LGBTQ+ curriculum teaches that Petitioners’

religious convictions are ignorant, hateful, and

bigoted.

C. Gender ideology is rejected by the

American people.

The Board knew full well that its “LGBTQinclusive” storybooks were not popular with District

parents. It believed that allowing parents to opt out

would result in “high student absenteeism.”

Pet.App.98a. It feared the opt outs would be so

pronounced that remaining students would suffer

“social stigma and isolation.” Ibid. After the Board

announced its about-face, over 1,000 parents signed a

petition asking the Board to restore their notice and

opt-out rights. Pet.Br.14.

The District parents’ concerns are shared by

American parents broadly. A recent survey, released

January 2025, found that 74% of American parents

oppose “teachers providing instruction on sexual

orientation and gender identity in elementary

school.” 22 Such opposition has grown over the past

Poll: Majority of Parents Oppose Transgender Ideology in

Schools,

Decision

Magazine,

January

13,

2025.

https://decisionmagazine.com/poll-majority-of-parents-opposetransgender-ideology-in-schools/;

Press

Release,

Parents

Defending Education, Parents Defending Education Poll: Parents

Support Girls-Only Spaces in Schools, Oppose Parental Exclusion

Policies and Grading

for Equity

(Jan. 6, 2025),

https://defendinged.org/press-releases/parents-defending22

year, building on a strong, consistent base of

opposition from parents and teachers who object to

teaching children about “sexual orientation and

gender identity” in elementary school.

In 2024, Pew Research conducted extensive polling

on this issue among both teachers and parents. 23 Pew

found that the “majority of elementary school teachers

(62%) say elementary school students should not learn

about gender identity in school,” and 55% of

elementary teachers say “parents should be able to opt

their children out of learning” about “sexual

orientation or gender identity.” 24 In 2022, another Pew

survey found that parents of K-12 children either want

their children to learn that being a boy or a girl “is

determined by the sex they were assigned at birth”

(31%) or not to learn about “gender identity” at all in

school (37%). 25 That’s a consensus of 68% opposing

gender ideology in schools, with only 31% of parents

education-poll-parents-support-girls-only-spaces-in-schoolsoppose-parental-exclusion-policies-and-grading-for-equity/.

23 Luona Lin et al., Race and LGBTQ Issues in K-12 Schools, Pew

Research,

February

22,

2024.

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2024/02/22/race-andlgbtq-issues-in-k-12-schools/.

24 Luona Lin et al., Race and LGBTQ Issues in the Classroom,

Pew

Research,

Feb.

22,

2024,

https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2024/02/22/race-andlgbtq-issues-in-the-classroom/.

25 Juliana

Menasce Horowitz, Parents Differ Sharply by Party

Over What Their K-12 Children Should Learn in School, Pew

Research, October 26, 2022, https://www.pewresearch.org/socialtrends/2022/10/26/parents-differ-sharply-by-party-over-whattheir-k-12-children-should-learn-in-school/#no-consensusamong-parents-about-what-they-want-their-children-to-learnabout-gender-identity-or-slavery.

seeking classroom instruction for their children in

“gender identity” content similar to the Board’s

curriculum. 26

More generally, 54% of Americans overall “say

parents should be able to opt their children out of

learning about sexual orientation or gender

identity.” 27 This is not surprising. Common sense says

that parents should have the right to opt their children

out from sensitive, controversial content like gender

ideology.

III. Gender ideology is radically at odds with

Catholic teaching on the human person.

Petitioners’ brief ably expresses the parents’

sincere religious objections to the Board’s LGBTQ+

curriculum. Pet.Br.16–18. This final section of this

amicus brief complements Petitioners’ arguments and

testimony by demonstrating that religious opposition

to gender ideology is neither xenophobic nor a reflexive

reaction to something new and different. Rather, this

religious opposition is based on religious convictions

about the nature of the human person that have been

held by each Petitioner’s religious tradition for

millennia. As one Christian leader explained:

[O]ne need not agree with Christians or

Muslims or Orthodox Jews or others on

marriage and sexuality to see that such views

are not incidental to their belief systems. They

did not emerge out of a political debate, and

they won’t be undone by political power. * * *

One cannot simply uproot them and expect

26 Ibid.

27 Lin et al., Race and LGBTQ Issues in K-12 Schools.

these people to adjust their consciences to fit the

new cultural expectation. 28

Each of the religious traditions represented by

Petitioners has a compelling story to tell. However,

this part of the brief focuses on the Catholic Church’s

teaching on the human person. Amicus draws upon

the expertise of its Person & Identity Project, whose

mission is “to assist the Catholic Church in promoting

the Catholic vision of the human person and

responding to the challenges of gender ideology.” 29

Affirming the importance and goodness of the

human body has always been central to the Catholic

faith. In the second century A.D., bishops condemned

“Gnosticism,” a philosophy that taught people to seek

happiness and salvation through transcending their

material bodies. 30 In response, the early Christian

Church affirmed that Jesus Christ was both truly God

and truly man, and that implicit in the Incarnation is

the good news that our bodies are good and an

essential part of what it means to be a human person. 31

As St. Athanasius of Alexandria taught in his treatise,

On the Incarnation,

28 Russell Moore, Just How Secular Should America Be?, N.Y.

Times,

June

18,

2020,

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/18/opinion/supreme-courtreligious-freedom.html.

Person

and

Identity

Project,

https://personandidentity.com/about/.

About

Us,

See Jarislav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition, Vol. 1: The

Emergence of the Catholic Tradition (100-600) 81-97 (1975).

See John B. Buescher, Gnosticism vs. The Incarnation: The

Ancient Battle Renewed, Catholic World Report, June 8, 2015,

https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2015/06/08/gnosticism-vsthe-incarnation-the-ancient-battle-renewed/.

For we were the purpose of his embodiment,

and for our salvation he so loved human beings

as to come to be and appear in a human body. 32

This teaching on the dignity of the human person

and the goodness of the human body remains

foundational to Catholic teaching. 33 The Catholic faith

embraces each person’s sexual identity, male or

female, as a gift from God: “Male and female he

“Equal

dignity”

but

created

them.” 34

complementary, the Catholic Church teaches that

man and woman exist in a “reciprocal relationship,” a

gift to one another, “entrusted [with] not only the work

of procreation and family life, but the creation of

history itself.” 35

Throughout its history, the Catholic Church has

developed its doctrine to address the challenges that

each age brings. Today, the Church sees the world

“undergoing a profound anthropological crisis, a crisis

of meaning.” 36 As such, Pope Francis, the United

States Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB), and

dozens of American bishops have expounded on the

Christian view of the human person and why it is

32 Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation § 4, available at

https://ccel.org/ccel/athanasius/incarnation/incarnation.ii.html.

33 See Pontifical Council of Justice and Peace, Compendium of the

Social Doctrine of the Church ¶ 144 (2006) (“Compendium”).

34 Genesis 5:2.

35 Compendium ¶¶ 146, 147.

Junno Arocho Esteves, World in ‘Profound Anthropological

Crisis,’ Pope Says, Catholic News Service, May 19, 2022,

https://cruxnow.com/vatican/2022/05/world-in-profoundanthropological-crisis-pope-says.

incompatible with gender ideology—the belief system

endorsed and promoted by the Board.

Pope Francis calls gender ideology “one of the

most dangerous ideological colonizations” today. 37 He

sees this “anthropology of gender” as “extremely

dangerous because it eliminates differences, and that

erases humanity, the richness of humanity, both

personal, cultural, and social.” Ibid. Attempts to erase

biological differences are part of “a Gnostic heresy.” 38

Pope Francis’ encyclical letter Laudato Si compares

gender ideology with human failures to respect the

environment, the natural order:

Human ecology also implies another profound

reality: the relationship between human life

and the moral law, which is inscribed in our

nature and is necessary for the creation of a

more dignified environment. Pope Benedict XVI

spoke of an “ecology of man”, based on the fact

that “man too has a nature that he must

respect and that he cannot manipulate at

will.” It is enough to recognize that our body

itself establishes us in a direct relationship with

the environment and with other living beings.

The acceptance of our bodies as God’s gift is

37 Courtney Mares, Pope Francis: Gender Ideology Is ‘One of the

Most Dangerous Ideological Colonizations’ Today, Catholic News

Agency,

March

11,

2023,

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/253845/pope-francisgender-ideology-is-one-of-the-most-dangerous-ideologicalcolonizations-today.

38 Pope Francis: ‘I prayed for Peace in Fatima Without Publicity,’

Vatican

News,

Aug.

2023,

https://www.vaticannews.va/en/pope/news/2023-08/pope-francisportugal-wyd-inflight-press-conference.html.

vital for welcoming and accepting the entire

world as a gift from the Father and our common

home, whereas thinking that we enjoy

absolute power over our own bodies turns,

often subtly, into thinking that we enjoy

absolute power over creation. Learning to

accept our body, to care for it and to respect its

fullest meaning, is an essential element of any

genuine human ecology. Also, valuing one’s own

body in its femininity or masculinity is

necessary if I am going to be able to recognize

myself in an encounter with someone who is

different. In this way we can joyfully accept the

specific gifts of another man or woman, the

work of God the Creator, and find mutual

enrichment. It is not a healthy attitude which

would seek “to cancel out sexual difference

because it no longer knows how to confront it. 39

Under Pope Francis’ leadership, the Vatican’s

Congregation for Catholic Education in 2019

published Male and Female He Created Them:

Towards a Path of Dialogue on the Question of Gender

Theory in Education. 40 The document seeks to help

educators respond to the “educational crisis” caused by

gender ideology, which it calls “an anthropology

Pope Francis, Laudato Si ¶155 (2015) (emphases added)

(citations

omitted),

https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/docume

nts/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html.

Congregation for Catholic Education, Male and Female He

Created Them: Toward a Path of Dialogue on the Question of

Gender

Theory

Education

(2019),

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccatheduc/do

cuments/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_20190202_maschio-efemmina_en.pdf.

opposed to faith and to right reason.” Id. ¶ 1. It

recognizes the challenge of pursuing “dialogue” with

“ideologies of gender” that seek “to assert themselves

as absolute and unquestionable, even dictating how

children should be raised.” Id. ¶ 6.

The Congregation implores Catholics to respond “to

anthropologies characterized by fragmentation and

provisionality” with the Christian tradition’s own

“integral anthropology, capable of harmonizing the

human person’s physical, psychic and spiritual and

identity.” Id. ¶ 55.

In 2024, the Vatican’s Dicastery for the Doctrine of

the Faith released a document on human dignity,

which describes the claims of gender ideology as a

profound rejection of God’s authority and goodness.

Gender ideology contradicts and undermines the

central feature of the Christian faith: the individual’s

relationship with God. “Desiring a personal selfdetermination, as gender theory prescribes, apart

from this fundamental truth that human life is a gift,

amounts to a concession to the age-old temptation to

make oneself God, entering into competition with the

true God of love revealed to us in the Gospel.” 41

The United States Conference of Catholic

Bishops (USCCB) has likewise warned Catholics that

gender ideology conflicts with God’s design for

creation. In 2017, USCCB committee chairmen led an

interreligious coalition of Christian and Muslim

leaders that published “Created Male and Female: An

41 Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Dignitas Infinita: On

Human

Dignity,

April

2024,

https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/docum

ents/rc_ddf_doc_20240402_dignitas-infinita_en.html.

Open Letter from Religious Leaders.” That statement

reads, in part:

We acknowledge and affirm that all human

beings are created by God and thereby have an

inherent dignity. We also believe that God

created each person male or female; therefore,

sexual difference is not an accident or a flaw—

it is a gift from God that helps draw us closer to

each other and to God. What God has created is

good. “God created mankind in his image; in the

image of God he created them; male and female

he created them” (Gen. 1:27).

A person’s discomfort with his or her sex, or the

desire to be identified as the other sex, is a

complicated reality that needs to be addressed

with sensitivity and truth. Each person

deserves to be heard and treated with respect;

it is our responsibility to respond to their

concerns with compassion, mercy and honesty.

As religious leaders, we express our

commitment to urge the members of our

communities to also respond to those wrestling

with this challenge with patience and love.

Children especially are harmed when they are

told that they can “change” their sex or, further,

given hormones that will affect their

development and possibly render them infertile

as adults. Parents deserve better guidance on

these important decisions, and we urge our

medical institutions to honor the basic medical

principle of “first, do no harm.” Gender ideology

harms individuals and societies by sowing

confusion and self-doubt. The state itself has a

compelling interest, therefore, in maintaining

policies that uphold the scientific fact of human

biology and supporting the social institutions

and norms that surround it.

The movement today to enforce the false idea—

that a man can be or become a woman or vice

versa—is deeply troubling. It compels people to

either go against reason—that is, to agree with

something that is not true—or face ridicule,

marginalization, and other forms of retaliation.

We desire the health and happiness of all men,

women, and children. Therefore, we call for

policies that uphold the truth of a person's

sexual identity as male or female, and the

privacy and safety of all. We hope for renewed

appreciation of the beauty of sexual difference

in our culture and for authentic support of those

who experience conflict with their God-given

sexual identity. 42

In 2019, the USCCB released a collection of “Select

Teaching Resources” from popes and other authorities

to help educators and pastors deal with gender

ideology. 43

Finally, in March 2023, the USCCB’s Committee

on Doctrine published a document “On the Moral

Limits to Technological Manipulation of the Human

USCCB, Created Male and Female: An Open Letter from

Religious

Leaders,

Dec.

15,

2017,

https://www.usccb.org/topics/promotion-defensemarriage/created-male-and-female.

43 USCCB, “Gender theory”/“Gender ideology” – Select Teaching

Resources,

https://www.usccb.org/resources/Gender-IdeologySelect-Teaching-Resources_0.pdf.

Body,” expressing Catholic moral teaching on so-called

“gender affirmation” surgeries. 44

Individual Catholic Bishops have developed

their own pastoral documents and policies related to

gender ideology. The Person & Identity Project’s

website hosts statements from over forty dioceses in

the United States alongside related statements from

the Vatican, the USCCB, and bishops around the

world. 45

In some of these documents, bishops explain that

the duty to resist gender ideology is itself a duty to love

those struggling with their gender identity. For

example, the pastoral letter from the Bishop of

Arlington, Virginia states as follows:

Those asserting a transgender identity and/or

seeking to “transition” often adopt new names

and pronouns that reflect their desired identity

and insist that others must use the chosen

names and pronouns. Such use might seem

innocuous and even appear to be an innocent

way of signaling love and acceptance of a

person. In reality, however, it presents a

profound crisis: We can never say

something contrary to what we know to be

true. To use names and pronouns that

44 USCCB, Committee on Doctrine, Doctrinal Note on the Moral

Limits to Technological Manipulation of the Human Body, March

20,

2023,

https://www.usccb.org/resources/Doctrinal%20Note%202023-0320.pdf.

45 EPPC, Person & Identity Project, Catholic Teaching, Church

Documents,

and

Diocesan

Policies,

https://personandidentity.com/resources/church-documents/.

contradict the person’s God-given identity is to

speak falsely.

The faithful should avoid using “genderaffirming” terms or pronouns that convey

approval of or reinforce the person’s rejection of

the truth. It is not harsh or judgmental to

decline to use such language. In the broader

culture, Catholics may experience significant

pressure

adopt

culturally-approved

terminology. However, in no circumstances

should anyone be compelled to use language

contrary to the truth. The right to speak the

truth inheres in the human person and cannot

be taken away by any human institution.

Attempts by the state, corporations, or

employers

compel

such

language,

particularly by threats of legal action or job loss,

are unjust. We must love in the truth, and truth

must be accurately conveyed by our words. At

the same time, clarity must always be at the

service of charity, as part of a broader desire

to move people towards the fulness of the

truth. 46

The Board’s curriculum teaches impressionable

elementary school children—those young enough to be

read to from a picture book—that if a boy says he is

girl, then he is a girl, and if a girl says she is a boy,

Catholic Diocese of Arlington, A Catechesis on the Human

Person & Gender Ideology (2021) (emphases added),

https://personandidentity.com/wpcontent/uploads/2021/08/Catholic-Diocese-of-Arlington-ACatechesis-on-the-Human-Person-and-Gender-Ideology.pdf.

then she is a boy. This moral command must be

followed even if it “doesn’t make sense,” because “[n]ot

everything needs to make sense. This is about love.”

Pet.App.465a.

As shown above, Catholic teaching on these

matters is diametrically opposed to the affirmations

the Board aims to ingrain in Petitioners’ children. The

Catholic Church teaches that “to love is to will the

good of the other,” 47 and that one does not will the good

of the other by affirming or cooperating in something

one knows to be harmful and false. Contrary to Board

members’ claims and to what its curriculum teaches,

these religious convictions are neither hateful nor

xenophobic. They reflect deeply held religious

convictions about the truth of the human person and,

by extension, the best way to love people suffering

from gender dysphoria.

CONCLUSION

The Board is not just promoting inclusion and

diversity. It is endeavoring to teach as true an

ideological belief system about what it means to be

human. The Board’s claims are based on propositions

that the Catholic Church has for nearly two thousand

years taught as wrong and dangerous. The Board’s

decision to compel elementary school students to

participate in its instruction on gender and sexuality

puts Petitioners to a Hobson’s choice: They must either

let the local public system teach their children that

what their parents and church say about what it

means to be human is false—and bigoted—or else

withdraw their children and find an alternative

schooling option that will not demonize their

47 Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992) ¶ 1766.

convictions. That is not right. The First Amendment

demands more.

The decision below should be reversed.

Respectfully submitted.

ERIC N. KNIFFIN

Counsel of Record

MARY RICE HASSON

ETHICS AND PUBLIC

POLICY CENTER

1730 M Street, N.W.

Suite 910

Washington, DC 20036

(202) 682-1200

ekniffin@eppc.org

Counsel for Amicus Curiae

MARCH 10, 2025

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.