Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
The left is teaching children to be LGBTQ
Executive Summary
The claim "The left is teaching children to be LGBTQ" is not supported by the available evidence: education groups and advocacy organizations describe inclusive curricula, history lessons, and supportive policies designed to reflect students’ lived experiences and reduce harm, not to convert or instruct children to adopt sexual orientations or gender identities. Multiple recent reports and resources show schools adding LGBTQ+ content to curricula to promote empathy, safety, and accurate history, even as courts and legislatures debate parental opt-outs and restrictions; the facts point to education about LGBTQ+ people, not indoctrination into being LGBTQ [1] [2] [3].
1. Why people say 'teaching kids to be LGBTQ' — and what the materials actually do
Claims that schools are "teaching children to be LGBTQ" arise from concern about increased visibility of LGBTQ+ topics in K–12 education, but reviews of educator resources show content focused on history, inclusion, and analysis skills, not identity conversion. The NEA partnership with Making Gay History produces classroom materials that center empathy, nonfiction analysis, and historical perspective, and teachers report using these to help students relate to lived experiences rather than to encourage identity change [1]. GLSEN and similar organizations promote inclusive curricula as "windows and mirrors" for students; their stated aim is to create safer environments and foster understanding across student populations, not to persuade children to adopt specific sexual orientations or gender identities [2]. Statistical reporting indicates many schools still lack positive LGBTQ+ representation—only about 19.4% teach positive LGBTQ+ history—so the overall trend is toward inclusion, not widespread indoctrination [4].
2. The legal and policy battleground shifting classroom content and parental rights
Recent legal developments have changed the operational reality in schools: a June 27, 2025 Supreme Court ruling affirmed parents’ rights to opt children out of LGBTQ-themed lessons on religious grounds, which underscores that curriculum decisions are contested and subject to legal constraints [3]. That decision does not validate the claim that schools are actively indoctrinating children; rather, it recognizes parental religious objections and will likely increase exclusions and localized disputes over what constitutes age-appropriate instruction. At the same time, advocacy groups highlight that attempts to restrict LGBTQ content often coincide with book bans and classroom censorship, with tens of thousands of titles removed since 2021 and a disproportionate share relating to LGBTQ themes, signaling a broader policy tug-of-war over representation versus restriction [3].
3. Evidence on educator intent and classroom practice: inclusion, support, and gaps
Research and guidance from education and health organizations show a consistent pattern: schools and districts that adopt LGBTQ-inclusive materials aim to reduce bullying, improve mental health outcomes, and ensure nondiscriminatory environments. Reports detail professional development needs—many teachers feel unprepared to address LGBTQ topics—and document examples of districts implementing liaisons, training, and policy changes to protect gender-nonconforming students [5] [6]. These documented practices prioritize student safety and affirmation; they respond to higher rates of victimization and poor health outcomes among LGBTQ youth. The existence of inclusion efforts and the stated protective intent of such policies counters assertions that the objective is to cause students to adopt LGBTQ identities; the empirical goal is risk reduction and support.
4. What opponents highlight and the political framing of curriculum debates
Opponents of LGBTQ inclusion frame visibility as advocacy that improperly influences children, producing political mobilization and legal challenges emphasizing parental rights and religious liberty [3]. Policy spotlights by civil rights and policy groups characterize measures to remove LGBTQ content as "curriculum censorship" and warn of hostile school climates created by bans, pointing to nondiscrimination as an antidote [7]. Both sides present clear agendas: proponents emphasize safety and representation, while opponents emphasize parental authority and moral objections. The observable fact is that debates are driven more by competing values and political goals than by concrete evidence that classrooms are instructing students to become LGBTQ.
5. Big-picture synthesis: what the facts support and what remains contested
Taken together, the documentation supports three clear points: schools and education groups are increasingly providing materials that normalize LGBTQ history and presence to promote inclusion; legal and policy decisions are actively reshaping who decides curriculum and who can exclude students from lessons; and adversarial political framing inflates fears of "being taught to be LGBTQ" despite a lack of evidence for deliberate indoctrination. The measurable gaps—low prevalence of positive LGBTQ history instruction and teacher training shortfalls—show that inclusion efforts are limited and defensive rather than pervasive and prescriptive [4] [6]. The claim that "the left is teaching children to be LGBTQ" is a political shorthand that does not match the documented content, intent, or scale of educational materials and policies described in these sources [1] [7].