Encinitas Union School District Pushing Transgenderism on Students

Free speech is trumping coercive transgender orthodoxy in at least one California school district.

The Encinitas Union School District in San Diego County was trying to force two fifth graders to take part in a class that glorified transgenderism with a book about a cross-dressing boy.  But a federal judge just ordered the District to allow them to “opt-out” of the gender ideology lessons in the “buddy classes,” where they are paired with younger students.

United States District Court for the Southern District of California Judge M. James Lorenz issued the injunction last week  in response to a lawsuit that the students’ parents filed on their behalf that claimed being forced to endure the classes violated their First Amendment Rights.

Lorenz ruled that compelling the students to “mouth support for views they find objectionable violates the First Amendment” and ordered that “buddy program class activities and materials shall not cover gender identity topics” unless “school officials “provide parents with advance notice and an opportunity to opt out.”

The judge discussed how in the class, one of the students, identified in court papers as P.D., was forced to mimic the transgender dogma the teacher was pushing with the book and accompanying video.  “In light of P.D.’s role in the class as his buddy’s mentor, P.D.’s presence next to his buddy during the read-along video presentation and subsequent tracing of his buddy’s shadow in the buddy’s chosen color implicitly conveyed P.D.’s endorsement of the message that gender can be a matter of one’s choice and subject to change – a message contrary to P.D.’s own beliefs and which he did not wish to convey to his buddy. P.D.’s required participation in the buddy class therefore directly and immediately affected P.D.’s freedom of speech.

The students and their families were represented by the First Liberty Institute and National Center for Law and Policy president Dean Broyles.  The lawsuit was filed in September 2024.

First Liberty Institute Counsel Kaya Toney said in a statement that,”No child should be forced to speak a message that violates his religious convictions. We are grateful for the court’s decision and will continue to fight to ensure that elementary children are not forced to participate in lessons about gender identity that violate their faith.”

Broyles told the California Globe that the ruling was a victory for free speech.

“The basis of Judge Lorenz’s ruling was that the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause protects students from being compelled to express the government’s ideological viewpoints, especially those that conflict with their religious beliefs,” he emailed.

“The judge could have also decided in favor of our client because EUSD’s refusal to provide notice and opt-outs to parents when covertly teaching gender identity instruction also violated parental rights, guaranteed by the 14th Amendment, and because the lessons violated our clients’ religious beliefs, which are protected by the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. However, the judge did not reach these legal issues because he ruled in our favor on compelled speech.”

According to the lawsuit, the book in question about the cross dressing boy that was forced on the students was part of a concerted effort by School District officials to push transgender ideology on students. The complaint goes into detail about an assistant District superintendent Amy Illingworth, who seemed determined to convince kids that they are gay or transgender.

At a mandatory teacher training program, she claimed elementary school students needed to read these kinds of books to benefit their mental health.  “Kids already know at this age if they’re gay! “ she expounded.” And if they see zero representation, they think they’re doing something wrong or that they’re bad or evil, so we need to make sure that our representation looks like all the pieces of one person’s identity . . . in the back of these slides we have the link back to our equity website and additional book resources that have books with all sorts of identity markers in it to make sure that we’re finding that diversity in telling stories.”

The lawsuit says that to defend introducing LGBT-related books to little kids, Illingworth said that “Homophobia, heterosexism, and transphobia are present in many of our schools and communities. . . . This bias hurts all children, both those directly affected, and those who learn in an atmosphere of fear and tension, afraid to explore their own lives because of worry about disapproval and rejection. . . . Students need to be encouraged to reflect on their own actions and friendships, learn from their peers who are different from them, and support allies who stand up to the prejudice and hate.”

The students who were subjected to the book are identified in court papers as S.E. and P.D. Both fifth graders, they were paired with kindergarteners in the “buddy class” at La Costa Heights Elementary School.

On May 1, 2024, their teacher, Sean Murphy, read them a book called My Shadow is Pink, which,  as the lawsuit describes it, is about “a young biological boy[who] wonders about his gender and how he believes it differentiates from his father’s gender. “

The boy, in the book, comments  how he “loves wearing dresses and dancing around,” and “loves. . . pink toys, princesses, fairies, and things not for boys.”

The father initially rejects the boy’s new gender identity as “just a phase” and glares at him.

But father soon embraces the boy’s female identity and tells the boy to wear a dress to school because “your shadow is pink. . I see now it’s true. It’s not just a shadow, it’s your inner-most you.”

The lawsuit says that both S.E. and P.D. were disturbed by the message of the book.

“They were both immediately concerned about the gender identity messaging in the book. S.E. and P.D. strongly disagreed with the point of the book on religious grounds, taking issue with the proposition that gender is a choice that can change, as portrayed in the book.”

But the teacher soon forced them to endorse the message in the book and accompanying video with a creepy exercise. Following the video presentation, the teacher “told S.E. and P.D. to go outside with their buddy to jointly participate in a chalking activity. The teacher asked all kindergarten students, including S.E. and P.D.’s buddy, to “pick a color that represents you.”

“S.E. and P.D. were compelled to make their kindergarten buddy choose a color and tell them the color he chose for his shadow, representing his gender identity. The inquiry presupposed S.E. and P.D. believed people can have a personal sense of their own gender.

“S.E. and P.D. were also forced to trace and fill in their buddy’s shadow on the pavement with sidewalk chalk using the color chosen by their buddy to “represent” his gender identity.”

Both S.E. and P.D. were disturbed by all this messaging being forced on them and soon told their parents about the coercive measures.  The parents complained to school and District officials and asked that their kids be allowed to opt-out of the “buddy classes” with gender identity lessons. But the officials told the parents they were not allowed to opt-out.

So they sued.

The lawsuit says that  school officials “violated the free speech clause of the First Amendment by compelling S.E. and P.D. and other elementary age students to actively participate in the My Shadow is Pink activity and affirm gender identity in action and word in violation of their religious beliefs and consciences.”

“Plaintiffs S.E. and P.D. were not afforded an opportunity to opt out of this required instructional activity. Nor was it a passive experience; they had to actively participate in teaching kindergarteners about questioning, discerning, and proclaiming their own gender identity. “

Both the parents and the kids are religious Christians. The lawsuit also claimed that, “By denying Plaintiff Parents’ requests for advance notice and opt-outs from teaching that violates their Christian faith, and by insisting that religious children participate in activities that promote gender identity in violation of their faith, the School District is willfully disregarding and violating their First Amendment right to direct the religious upbringing of their children.”

Even as the judge’s injunction remains in effect,  the lawsuit continues. Broyles said he is not sure what the School District’s next move is. But  he is prepared for a good long fight.

He said there are a number of possibilities as to what comes next. The Encinitas Union School District “may decide to attempt to settle the case, or  EUSD will appeal the ruling, or the parties will continue to litigate the case at the U.S. District Court level.  We are ready, willing, and able to take this case all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary.”

He also noted that the United States Supreme Court last month heard a case out of Maryland that mirrors the issues in this lawsuit and seems inclined to rule in favor of parents.

“On April 22, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Mahmoud v. Taylor, a similar case brought by religious parents seeking notice and opt-outs from instruction on sexual orientation and gender identity in Montgomery County, Maryland.  Based on oral argument, it appears likely that a majority of the court may rule by the end of the 2024-25 term that religious parents have the right to be notified and opt out when minor children are taught about human sexuality, whether in health class or any other context (story time, English, anti-bullying, etc.).  Notably, the U.S. Solicitor General participated in oral argument in support of the parents, and filed a brief explaining why the Free Exercise Clause requires religious exemptions when sexual orientation and gender identity are taught in school.”

“In [our case] the facts are very similar, but even more coercive and egregious than in Mahmoud v. Taylor, because here the minor Christian students were themselves coerced as mentors to inculcate EUSD’s viewpoints about gender identity ideology to younger kindergarten mentee students.”

Encinitas Union School District Superintendent Andrée Grey did not reply to repeated requests for comment.