I have obtained a cache of documents from a source inside Portland Public Schools that exposes the nature of this curriculum. The lessons seek to turn the principles of academic queer theory into an identity-formation program for elementary school students; it has been adopted in many of the district’s K-5 classrooms.

The curriculum begins in kindergarten with an anatomy lesson featuring graphic drawings of children’s genitalia. The lesson avoids the terms “boy” and “girl” in favor of the gender-neutral variants “person with a penis” and “person with a vulva,” because, according to the curriculum, some girls can have penises and some boys can have vulvas. “Any gender and kid can have any type of body,” a related presentation reads.

In first and second grade, students are introduced to the key tenets of gender-identity theory. “Gender is something adults came up with to sort people into groups,” the curriculum states. “Many people think there are only two genders, girls and boys, but this is not true. There are many ways to be a boy, a girl, both or neither. Gender identity is about how you feel about yourself inside.” Next, students work through a lesson called “Our Names, Genders, and Pronouns.” The lesson tells them that “gender is like outer space because there are as many ways to be different genders as there are stars in the sky.” Students, the curriculum explains, can “change their name to match who they are, like their gender, culture, or just what they like better.” They can be “boys,” “girls,” “cisgender,” “transgender,” or “nonbinary,” and experiment with pronouns such as “they/them” and “ze/zir,” according to their personal preferences. “Only you can know what your gender is,” they are told.

The solution, according to Portland Public Schools, is to obliterate the “white colonizer” conception of sexuality, with its rigid male-female binary, and encourage students to inhabit “the infinite gender spectrum.” This means destroying the system of “cisheteronormativity” and promoting “queer” and “trans” identities. Teachers are told to eliminate the terms “girls and boys,” “ladies and gentlemen,” “mom and dad,” “Mrs. Mr., Miss,” and “boyfriend, girlfriend,” in favor of terms such as “people,” “folx,” “guardians,” “Mx.,” and “themfriend.” Students are shown photographs of “gender non-conforming” individuals and encouraged to celebrate the flags for “nonbinary,” “genderqueer,” “gender fluid,” and “Two-Spirit” identities. For some students, the subversion of the gender binary might also involve a gender transition. The curriculum provides a detailed explanation of how to “pause puberty” through “hormones and/or surgeries” and advice on adopting a “nonbinary” identity and set of pronouns.

By the end of fifth grade, the curriculum explicitly asks students to make a “commitment to change,” according to the dictates of gender ideology. Students receive a list of six commitments, including: “I commit to learning more about what LGBTQIA2S+ words mean and how they have changed over time”; “I commit to learning about the history and leadership of Black trans women”; “I commit to practicing pronouns and correcting myself EVERY time”; “I commit to attending QSA/GSA and being a leader at my school”; and “I commit to watching and reading books, movies, and TV shows that have LGBTQIA+ characters.” In other words, they commit to becoming political activists for queer theory and the broader sexual revolution.

“I grew up in China. At the time, adults had nothing else to read other than books written by Mao Zedong. A collection of Mao’s books was a typical wedding gift for the newlyweds. Naturally, there weren’t many choices for children’s books either. The few children’s books I read had no adorable characters, nor did any convey a sense of humor or wit. There wasn’t much color in the books either. Most of the drawings were black and white, just like our colorless, dull life under socialism. One story I still remember was “The Rooster Crows at Midnight.” It was about an evil landowner, Zhou, who was very cruel to laborers who worked for him. The story said the Chinese Communist Party liberated laborers and distributed land and livestock formerly owned by Zhou to these poor laborers. One night, children patrolling the village caught Zhou as he was trying to steal a chicken. I still remember the picture in the book that depicts the scene when Zhou got caught: he knelt on the floor, head dropped, back bent, and hands tied back; the children who surrounded him all pointed their shining spears at him, with an indignant look on their faces. The author of the book disclosed in an interview later that this book was based on a true story. In real life, Zhou confessed his crime in a struggle session and was beaten to death. That’s the story I remember from my childhood. I had many nightmares after reading it. The Chinese Communist Party even turned this story into a movie. The CCP wanted people to believe owning private property and having more wealth than other people is evil. This propaganda campaign was effective. Zhou, the demonized landowner, soon became synonymous with evil. In a totalitarian regime, children’s books aren’t meant to bring any joy or inspire a healthy imagination. Instead, their sole purpose is to instill the correct political ideology in young minds so we would be prepared to become devoted soldiers of Communism. Like everyone else, I despised Zhou, the evil landowner, until years later I learned that my great-grandfather had been a landowner also. My great-grandfather was always kind, generous, and hardworking. He earned his land inch by inch through sweat, tears, and even blood. The CCP took all his land and livestock away in the name of “land reform.” He had to endure many cruel struggle sessions, but miraculously, he survived. Learning the truth about my great-grandfather made me feel that the CCP had cheated me out of my childhood twice. Not only did I not have a normal childhood, but also I fell for the CCP’s lie that landowners like my great-grandfather were terrible people.”