by the El Reportero staff
By the time most children reach kindergarten, their biggest worries tend to revolve around crayons, nap time, and which sticker they’ll earn for good behavior. In Seattle, however, some five-year-olds are now being introduced to one of the most divisive cultural debates of our time: gender identity.
According to materials on the Seattle Public Schools (SPS) website, students from kindergarten through fifth grade are taught that “gender” is not rooted in biological sex but exists across a broad emotional spectrum. Through the district’s “Gender Book Kit,” children encounter ideas that many adults still vigorously debate.
One of the kindergarten books, Introducing Teddy, tells the story of a teddy bear named Thomas who announces that he is actually a “girl teddy” named Tilly. In video footage circulating online, SPS Health Education Specialist Brennon Ham reads the story aloud, concluding with the message that people should be free to “do whatever makes us feel good.” The lesson defines gender as a person’s internal feeling about being “a boy, a girl, neither, both, or somewhere in between.”
First graders move on to My Princess Boy, a story about a boy who enjoys wearing dresses and dancing like a ballerina. Students are taught vocabulary such as “compassion” and “acceptance.” Other books in the collection include Jacob’s New Dress, I Am Jazz, and It Feels Good to Be Yourself, which introduces children to characters who are transgender, both genders, or neither.
By third grade, students are taught that sex is “assigned at birth” and that “gender identity” is something separate and self-defined. Children also learn about “gender expression” as an open-ended way of displaying that identity. The word “ally” is framed as someone who actively supports others who are different.
The district developed these materials in 2017, before today’s political climate turned gender ideology into a national flashpoint. Even so, the backlash has been intense. Critics argue that this is not age-appropriate education but ideological activism imposed on families without meaningful parental consent.
This local dispute now mirrors a national battle. In recent months, federal officials have warned states and school systems about promoting the idea that gender is a “social construct.” Under President Trump, efforts were made to restrict federal funding to institutions that promote gender ideology, prompting hospitals and school programs in several states to reverse course on pediatric gender-transition policies. The issue remains tangled in court challenges, state statutes, and agency regulations that shift with each election cycle.
Supporters of early gender education say these lessons reduce bullying and help vulnerable children feel seen. Opponents counter that introducing such complex identity frameworks to children who are still mastering basic reading skills risks planting confusion rather than clarity. Many parents argue they were never notified that such materials would be used, raising transparency concerns in already polarized school communities. Others worry that dissenting viewpoints are quietly labeled as intolerance.
Medical research has only intensified the divide. Long-term studies suggest that a majority of children who experience gender confusion ultimately come to identify with their biological sex by late adolescence. Critics warn that prematurely “affirming” childhood discomfort as a fixed identity may lock children into pathways they might otherwise outgrow.
While Seattle’s classroom lessons do not involve medical treatment, critics argue they act as the gateway to a system that increasingly medicalizes childhood distress. Puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and surgeries carry known risks and uncertain long-term consequences. Despite years of use, evidence remains contested as to whether such interventions meaningfully reduce suicide risk or severe psychological distress. Still, many families feel pressured to choose immediate affirmation over cautious waiting.
At its core, this debate is about authority: who decides what values children absorb — schools, parents, or the state? When public education presents disputed social theories as settled fact, trust with families erodes. Compassion and respect can be taught without redefining human biology. Schools that move too far ahead of community consensus risk turning classrooms into ideological battlegrounds rather than learning environments.
Seattle’s Gender Book Kit may have been created with good intentions. But good intentions do not eliminate the responsibility to protect children from ideological overreach. A five-year-old lacks the tools to evaluate identity politics. As school districts across the country continue to experiment with these lessons, one question remains: Are we safeguarding children — or enrolling them into cultural battles they never chose?
– With reports by Emily Mangiaracina.
