We fought hard for queer representation. SCOTUS just took it from those who need it mostLast week, the Supreme Court of the United States handed down a 6-3 decision in the case of Mahmoud v. Taylor. The case was brought by Maryland parents against their school district over the ability to opt their children out of lessons that featured storybooks containing LGBTQ+ characters or discussion of sexual orientation and gender identity. The Court ruled in favor of the parents, claiming that the books normalized LGBTQ+ identities that conflicted with the religious beliefs of the parents. That decision will deny representation to young LGBTQ+ children, make children of queer families feel othered, and set back social acceptance for LGBTQ+ people. Related Christians sued over PrEP coverage because it supports homosexual behavior. SCOTUS shut them down. Three of the Republican-appointed justices sided with the Democratic-appointed justices to save the coverage. If parents want to opt out of a curriculum that teaches their child to be part of a rich, multicultural society, they already have that freedom: its called homeschooling. America is supposed to be a melting pot, not a buffet. Opting out of being taught about segments of our society is simply opting out of society itself. We want to work to promote understanding of our fellow humans, whatever they might look like. That can only happen if everyone is willing to participate in society. Dive deeper every day Join our newsletter for thought-provoking commentary that goes beyond the surface of LGBTQ+ issues Subscribe to our Newsletter today When a child is excused from the room because a book has a gay character, what does that say to the kid who has two dads? When its a trans character, what does that mean for the child who is sitting there struggling with their gender identity? This sort of action will do serious harm to both the mental health of children and their families and to societys ability to understand those who might not be like them in the world.The importance of seeing queer characters in storybooks cant be overstated, and this ruling denies that opportunity to many students, likely meaning schools are less likely to include those texts. Over the last several decades, weve fought a long, hard battle to get positive LGBTQ+ representation in media. Same-sex sexual activity was illegal not too long ago. The laughter at the AIDS crisis still rings in the ears of many in the community. And twenty years ago, knowledge of trans identities in the mainstream public was effectively zero.While we clearly have a lot of problems today, social acceptance for LGBTQ+ people has come a long way. That progress has come synergistically with advancements in queer representation in media. The increased visibility of LGBTQ+ identities in film, TV, and books has helped to bring us to where we now are as a society. Thirty years ago, trans people on TV were the butts of jokes so much so that 1994s Ace Ventura: Pet Detective could hinge its whole story on a heinous joke about a trans woman. Today, trans characters can appear on screen as fully realized characters with nuanced stories that dont necessarily revolve around their gender identity. Books are where children begin to learn about the nuances of family and the world beyond their immediate community. Whether its And Tango Makes Three or I am Jazz, books that present LGBTQ+ identities and queer families for young readers can be crucial to helping children understand themselves, their families, and those around them, without worrying that no one has ever felt the way they do before. With positive education, all of that can happen without them having to live in doubt and ignorance for years, only to find the answers to their questions about themselves when theyre 18 or older. This representation is arguably most important for children, who may already have questions but lack the words to articulate them, and those who are likely to be pulled out of these classes by their parents are among those who need them the most. Their parents are going to try to keep their children ignorant.While Republicans would like to paint this sort of thing as indoctrination, these books are simply teaching children about the real world they live in. Remember that the books in question must all be vetted by experts in library science and child development before they can be included in classroom education.Last weeks SCOTUS decision treats the existence of LGBTQ+ people as a matter of opinion that is up for debate: if they dont fit with your ideology, you can just pretend they dont exist. Its the same as the decades weve had to hear gender identity and sexual orientation referred to as a lifestyle or a choice. This isnt about judging people for what they do, but for who they are. Of course, all of this is particularly galling as Republicans across the country work to get Christian texts mandated on classroom walls.If parents can choose to opt out of their kids hearing that LGBTQ+ identities exist, then what else are parents going to be able to opt out of on religious grounds because of this SCOTUS ruling? The right has already worked to mute the teaching of history around slavery and the history of racism in the U.S. The door is open for parents to say nearly anything is against their religion if they dont approve of it, and to simply pick and choose what they want from the public school system for their children.Sotomayor highlighted this issue and the choice to remove children from their place in society in her dissent:[Public schools] offer to children of all faiths and backgrounds an education and an opportunity to practice living in our multicultural society. That experience is critical to our Nations civic vitality. Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents religious beliefs. Freedom of speech does not mean the ability to limit someone elses speech, and freedom of religion doesnt mean the freedom to impose your religion on others.The Supreme Court released a wealth of decisions in the last two weeks; perhaps most notable for the trans community was the Skrmetti ruling. Both of these rulings have shown a strong interest in politics and interfering in cultural movements. If the Court was trying to interpret the laws and freedoms of the United States, which is supposedly its job, it got these ones wrong.Subscribe to theLGBTQ Nation newsletterand be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.