From the beginning, the case that became Mahmoud v. Taylor has felt close to home. Three religious families have objected to their children being exposed to picture books like Love, Violet that include LGBTQIA+ characters and topics–even though there are LGBTQIA+ children and children from LGBTQIA+ families in those same classrooms already. I identify with these families because they remind me of how I was raised… as a devout Evangelical pastor’s daughter… I was also queer.
Background of blue sky and white church steeple. White text: ““Books show that we are connected…. Only in mutual care can we all thrive. LGBTQ+ books like mine don’t encourage children to change their religions, their values or their orientations, but to love their neighbors as themselves.“ C.S. Wild, U.S. News & World Report, April 21, 2025”
Blue sky background with white steeple of a church. Heading: “U.S. News and World Report, Commentary. Supreme Court Case on LGBTQ+ Storybooks Raises Questions for All Parents. My dad was an Evangelical pastor. I wish I’d grown up with books featuring LGBTQ+ characters” By Charlotte Sullivan Wild | April 21, 2025, at 7:06 PM. Small image of the Supreme Court justices all holding the nine picture books named in Mahmoud v Taylor, art (c) Sarah S. Brannen, author of Uncle Bobby’s Wedding
Love, Violet art (c) 2022 Charlene Chua, FSG-BYR, used with permission.
“Once Upon a Ban: A Conversation with Charlotte Sullivan Wild, Author of Love, Violet” Crumpled paper background in rosy violet. White box with text and hand-drawn pink and red hearts, photo of the author smiling, leaning with arms on her knees, with longe, dark blonde, wavy hair, wine red dress and scarf.
We heard the oral arguments of #MahmoudvTaylor at SCOTUS this week. Even after the shocking mischaracterizations several justices made of our books (we want to believe they read them but…?), I was most struck by what seemed forgotten in this conversation: actual children, especially LGBTQ+ children and children from LGBTQ+ families.
As the lawyer for the plaintiffs told Justice Thomas, their case is focused the rights of six parents–not children. And not children’s First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free speech and learning, freedom from religion-based oppression, and equal protection.
So today I’m extra thankful to #OnceUponABan for this conversation that returns us to the heart of the matter.
Quotation from an Interview with Once Upon a Ban. “What if children could grow up with ordinary, realistic images of Q+ people? Children might feel kindness is normal, rather than bullying. And Q+ children could see themselves, from the beginning, as not alone.”
Inclusive books have the power to help children see each other and feel less alone. Stories can help us imagine a more loving, accepting world, one with room for religion and LGBTQ+ people.
Image from #OnceUponABan: On white-gray marble table, the picture book “Love, Violet” beside pink and purple markers, scissors, pink paper scraps, and a handmade pink heart valentine reading: “For Mira, Love Violet”
Thanks for reading! As always, thanks to Charlene Chua for the gorgeous book art (c) 2022 and to FSG-BYR and Macmillan Kids Books for bringing Love, Violet into the world!
(c) 2025 Julie McLaughlin, used with permission. Characters from the picture book Pride Puppy! by Robin Stevenson and Julie McLaughlin smile in front of the U.S. Supreme Court building, pulling a wavy-striped wagon full of the nine picture books named in Mahmoud v. Taylor.
Erasing the Innocence of Queer Childhood (and Families)
It is bizarre to have my picture book about childhood experiences described as obscene adult material in the court files of Mahmoud v. Taylor, a landmark case headed to the U.S. Supreme Court on April 22, 2025. But not unexpected.
The case names nine LGBTQ+ picture books, including Love, Violet, and describes them in ways that sound oddly similar to the hate mail I’ve received (sans slurs and the ALL CAPS). Our books are carefully designed for small children. Yet one would not guess that based on the Reply Brief for Petitioners. They suggest MCPS’s legal argument for including our books means the district would also allow classes on “porn literacy,” “sex play with friends,” nudity, and even “simulated sexual acts” in elementary classrooms (p. 7).
WHAT?! NO.
These words are designed to shock. I regret to reprint them here. They do not reflect any reality in any public school. Nor the innocent content of our books. Read them for yourself and see! (Violet story time.)
(c) Julie McLaughlin, From What Would Julie Draw, refuting mischaracterizations of Pride Puppy! by Robin Stevenson, 2021
Regarding Love, Violet, the petitioners cherry pick a phrase from when Violet is being teased. The brief implies her blush is sexual–an intentional mis-reading that invents an adult layer not present in a story about a seven-year-old child.
Imposing any sexual meaning on anything about a child is a violation. This isn’t just dishonest. It erases the innocence of LGBTQ+ childhood and family life. It suggests that no matter our actions, LGBTQ+ people are never innocent. It perpetuates a harmful stereotype used to oppress us. Hence the hate mail.
Graphic created by Julie McLaughlin to compare misrepresentations of Love, Violet in Mahmoud v. Taylor with the actual spread, (c) 2022 Charlene Chua, Love, Violet, FSG. Used with permission.
This tactic is an old and effective one. It obliterates our humanity–and the innocence of queer childhood and families–with scary images. It’s how people justify erasing us.
Dana Rudolph in the Mombian blog highlights the history of this stereotype that has been used to justify censorship for generations and discusses the Love, Violet example.
Mombian: “Author Responds to Misrepresentation of Book in U.S. Supreme Court Case.” Purple background with shadow of SCOTUS building, the cover of the picture book Love, Violet, rainbow strip footer with Mombian logo. “Read more at Mombian.com”
Reality check, please!
Here is a picture of me from around the age of my first crush on a girl in pre-K. It consisted of amazement that she was so wonderful, and going speechless in her presence. That’s it. My brother had a crush on a girl at about the same age. We’ve laughed about the similarities of our sweetly-innocent experiences. Why should his crush be cute and mine be—to quote one hate message sans the CAPS–“all about sex”? It isn’t logical. Orientation, gender, and biological sex have nothing to do with actions. They are part of our identities–at every age.
Young picture of me in blonde pigtales and green yarn bows, with a green dress. My smiling mouth is open wide as though speaking.
In the early days of the lawsuit, I confess even I was shocked at the petitioners’ and media’s descriptions of the vibrant alphabet book Pride Puppy!. And I know better.
I read it twice in a row, studied every image. This was the sweetest story! How had they pretended it was anything else? Yet now nearly every article about this case repeats a handful of objects from the appendix, rearranged, to suggest something “salacious” that isn’t there. I checked! Illustrator Julie McLaughlin shatters this slander by simply sharing images of this adorable book. Author Robin Stevenson was deluged with hate mail and death threats based on a mischaracterization of her work. Meanwhile, children are missing out on this educational book.
(c) 2021 Julie McLaughlin, Pride Puppy! Cover of a crowd of diverse people in rainbow clothes, with Pride flags marching together, led by a child and puppy. The title is in rainbow colors.
These lies come from bias against LGBTQ+ people as a group. There is no way around it–this is more than disagreeing. Otherwise, a lawsuit like this would also object to books with characters of other religions or worldviews, too. This objection is to people of certain innate identities. The objection is that in our books, LGBTQ+ are allowed to exist without being punished or reduced to unequal gendered roles. This bias is about upholding inequality based on one aspect of our identities. (That’s another essay for another day–but worth thinking about.)
Denying the innocence and youth of LGBTQ+ children and family members denies our full humanity. It says: Only our categories matter–not our humanness. But everyone one of our books celebrates the complexity of our identities–that we are never just one thing. In contrast, smearing LGBTQ+ pepole as a group, denying the innocence of LGBTQ+ children says: It’s okay to judge, persecute, and erase people based on prejudices about identity categories.
That erasure is not just immoral, it puts children in danger. But our books show children they are not alone. They let classmates see each other as just that–classmates, fellow humans, with similar hopes and fears. Restricting our books, even for some, rejects the idea of kindness for everyone.
The next time you hear of any book being described as “dangerous,” consider what the accusation also says about real children, real people, and their right to live and learn and read. Speak up! Defend books! Defend our shared humanity! Defend the innocence of LGBTQ+ childhood and families!
Inclusive books are the solution to prejudice and bias!
(c) 2025 Andy Passchier, characters from What Are Your Words, by Katherine Locke, holding up signs in front of the Supreme Court building. The signs and clouds read: “Defend the right to read,” “Supreme Court,” “Protect our words!,” “Let us read!”
***
Spot and call out dangerous myths used to justify injustice:
LIE: Anything about LGBTQ+ people is about sex.
LIE: LGBTQ+ people are never children or innocent
LIE: Queerness is an “ideology” or “lifestyle” – not innate
LIE: LGBTQ+ stories are part of a “Marxist plot” to destroy familes.
(Hmm – Many of the challenged books celebrate the love of families. Do only some families count? Does gender matter more than actions?)
In less than two weeks the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case Mahmoud v. Talyor, which asks whether public schools can include LGBTQIA+ books without advance notice to families and the option for children to leave class and not learn about LGBGTQIA+ people. This case names nine picture books, including Love, Violet.
Here are links about the case, responses, and relevant resources. I will continue to update this list. But first, if you wish to support inclusive books and education…
SCOTUS Rally for Inclusive Education at the Supreme Court of the United States: Tuesday, April 22, 2025 * 8 AM – 2 PM (rainbow edges, background image of SCOTUS building and seals from sponsors, QR code)
Research brief: “Anti-LGBTQ+ School Policies and LGBTQ+ Young People: Attending a school with even one anti-LGBTQ+ policy is associated with higher rates of anxiety, depression, and past-year suicide attempts for young LGBTQ+ students.”
Thank you for all you are doing to support young learners and their literature!
“The Supreme Court justices read the nine picture books in Mahmoud v. Taylor, (c) 2025 Sarah S. Brannen, author of UNCLE BOBBY’S WEDDING
“Statement by Authors and Illustrators of Books in Supreme Court case Mahmoud v. Taylor.” Image: On a faded image of the Supreme Court building are the covers of the nine picture books named in the case.
Today, the following statement from the authors and illustrators of the books named in the Supreme Court case Mahmoud v. Taylor was released on PEN America.
Statement by authors and illustrators of books in Supreme Court case Mahmoud v. Taylor
On January 17, 2025, the Supreme Court of the United States announced that it will hear Mahmoud v. Taylor, a case brought by a group of parents from Montgomery County, Maryland, against the Board of Education for the County school district. The case revolves around the district’s decision to include certain books with LGBTQ+ characters and themes in the elementary school curriculum. The parents argue that their religious rights are being violated by not being able to opt their children out of class when such books are to be used. We, as authors and illustrators of the books, strongly support the school district and its decision to include our books in the curriculum.
We created our books with love and care. Children and their parents need to see families like their own in books. We have all had the experience of meeting a child and their family who are delighted by our books. We have been told about children hugging our books and carrying them everywhere they go. We have heard emotional stories from adults who wish they had had our books when they were growing up. These were the books we ourselves needed when we were young.
We stand in support of the Montgomery County School District. We oppose censoring or segregating books, like ours, that feature LGBTQ+ people. All families deserve to be seen and heard. To act otherwise is harmful and sends a devastating message to students: that their lives and families are so offensive and dangerous that they can’t even be discussed in school.
Specifically targeting books about one group of families and children is discriminatory and leaves this group vulnerable to mistreatment and bullying. A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs in this case would undermine teachers in their efforts to create safe, inclusive classrooms where all children learn to treat each other with respect and kindness. Research shows that representation is linked to better educational outcomes.
Every child deserves the freedom to read. The freedom to read leads to the freedom to learn. Children need to know that there are other people like them in the world, that they aren’t alone, that their hopes and fears are shared by others. And they need the freedom to read about different people with different views, from diverse ethnic backgrounds and abilities. The freedom to read means that children are free to have their own thoughts and beliefs and to make their own choices. It helps prepare them to be good citizens, to navigate and succeed in a complex and diverse world.
Our most basic duty as members of society is to respect and care for each other, no matter how similar or different we may be. Children want to see themselves in books; all children need to see many different kinds of people in books.
Sarah Brannen, author of Uncle Bobby’s Wedding
Chris Case, illustrator of Jacob’s Room to Choose
Carolyn Choi, author of IntersectionAllies: We Make Room for All
LaToya Council, author of IntersectionAllies: We Make Room for All
Daniel Haack, author of Prince & Knight
Ian Hoffman, author of Jacob’s Room to Choose
Sarah Hoffman, author of Jacob’s Room to Choose
Stevie Lewis, illustrator of Prince & Knight
Katherine Locke, author of What Are Your Words?
Julie McLaughlin, illustrator of Pride Puppy
DeShanna Neal, author of My Rainbow
Trinity Neal, author of My Rainbow
Andy Passchier, illustrator of What Are Your Words
Jodie Patterson, author of Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope
Chelsea Johnson Rabb, author of IntersectionAllies: We Make Room for All
Ashley Seil Smith, illustrator of IntersectionAllies: We Make Room for All
Robin Stevenson, author of Pride Puppy
Charlotte Sullivan Wild, author of Love, Violet
From PEN America, Feb. 20, 2025: “Mahmoud v. Taylor Supreme Court Case” with images of the nine picture books named in the case.
Recent Comments