‘Get rid of them trash books,’ - West Michigan library millage fails again over LGBTQ books

[Ana the Ist]

Actually no. Nor the context, nor the intention.

I really appreciate the honesty, so I'm going to tell you straight away that I respect you for admitting this. I'm going to seriously....be more considerate...for the rest of this post because of your honesty here. It's a good quality that I've come to appreciate.

My inclination is to trust professional librarians with their selection policy; of course this is based on my experience of English libraries.

I do the same....normally.

I have only been in one American public library and I could easily have mistaken it for my own local library at home. I have not heard of cases in the UK where books have been banned for their sexual content since the 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' trial some seventy years ago.

Yeah I'm sure books have caused an unnecessary stir since The Catcher in the Rye....but I don't recall them.

Another point made above is that I have never thought keeping knowledge from children (or adults for that matter) was good for them or for the rest of us.

I used to be the same regarding adults. I considered truth paramount in all things. I was so certain of this, that I've given far more consideration to the topic than I think most people do.

Now I disagree with the idea of truth having an inherently positive value.

I'm sure that you probably understand what I mean by "ugly truth" or "emotionally unsatisfying truths" as I like to call them. These were always a matter of interest to me because I realized that even proving them to a very rationalistic person can be extremely difficult.

If you follow that rabbit hole a little further....you can reach the logical conclusion that there are also disasterous truths. Things that are true but because of the likely results of acceptance as truths....you'd never want to convince anyone of them. They are better left unspoken, unknown, and carried around as little burdens for those who find them.

Ignorance does not equate to innocence; in fact it is often dangerous. I look at it this way. If a developing young person (young adult is an unsatisfactory term as this thread demonstrates) is lacking some understanding he or she should be helped to understand. In the sexual education field there are (still) many adults who have difficulty communicating with their charges. It is better that somebody takes responsibility.

These are all fair points.

.

Some young people themselves can find it difficult to discuss their problems with those closest to them. Teachers may be in a position to help - and public libraries.

What is to be afraid of?

Ok....so in the case of this book, I'd be concerned about the increased possibility of the younger readers engaging in traumatic and harmful behavior. Obviously these things can happen with or without the book....but if the presence of the book in a place accessible to children would in some way, increase the possibility of harm....why include it? Certainly the information can be presented in a better way that is less likely to cause harm?

If you're willing to take my word on it....here's what I find objectionable in the book....


1. Accessibility. Although it claims to be for YA, it is written in a fashion that can be understood by some readers as young as 8. It has large pictures, with few words, graphic instructions, as well as encouraging tones that seem to promote the idea one should try out what the book describes.


2. By "try out" I mean that it plainly states that these behaviours "feel good" and they "feel good for anyone, gay or straight". By instructions....imagine that you wanted to write a "how to" book regarding homosexual intercourse as a casual behavior outside the confines of any relationship. Sex between strangers. If anything, I'm downplaying the graphic nature. Imagine explaining [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] to an 8yo child, in words they can understand, in a tone that explains why they should do this.


3. Now imagine that against all reason and caution, it also explains how phone apps like Grinder will allow them to meet up with adults who will do these things with them. How to download these apps and use them....and the upsides to casual homosexual intercourse with total strangers off the internet.

It's a bizarre thing to see anyone defend....it's as if the book has been designed and written for the purpose of delivering children to pedophiles. I don't expect many gay people would approve of this book after reading it.

That, in short, is why I support those seeking to remove this book (and some others).

I have seen books that parents want banned that I have no issue with, and think is an overreaction to books like the above. I think that's really unfortunate.

Still, in this case, I'd rather err in caution.

 

[Bradskii]

Anything else?

Yeah...

These aren't unlikely scenarios. They are scenarios that society in general thinks are acceptable. Guys (and girls) 17 and 18 years old are old enough to fight and die for your country. That is not being pointed out to say that married women and Marines should be able to read what they want in the local library. It's pointing out the farcical attitude that says generally available books that contain information about sex should not be made accessible to, for example, 17 year olds.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yeah...

These aren't unlikely scenarios.

That's pretty unlikely....most marriages that young are the result of pregnancy. I don't know of many 16yo, hetero, married mothers looking for books on gay sex. Seems like the wrong demographic.

They are scenarios that society in general thinks are acceptable.

That's not what makes something likely or unlikely.

Honestly, I have to point these things out so often that it's starting to make me think I should just avoid words like "unlikely" or "probability" or "outside possibilities" and just explain, as I did above, why something doesn't really happen.


Would that be easier for you?

Guys (and girls) 17 and 18 years old are old enough to fight and die for your country.

Not the topic.

That is not being pointed out to say that married women and Marines should be able to read what they want in the local library.

Oh good.

It's pointing out the farcical attitude that says generally available books that contain information about sex should not be made accessible to, for example, 17 year olds.

Well a line has to be drawn somewhere.

 

[rjs330]

Actually no. Nor the context, nor the intention. My inclination is to trust professional librarians with their selection policy; of course this is based on my experience of English libraries. I have only been in one American public library and I could easily have mistaken it for my own local library at home. I have not heard of cases in the UK where books have been banned for their sexual content since the 'Lady Chatterley's Lover' trial some seventy years ago.

Another point made above is that I have never thought keeping knowledge from children (or adults for that matter) was good for them or for the rest of us. Ignorance does not equate to innocence; in fact it is often dangerous. I look at it this way. If a developing young person (young adult is an unsatisfactory term as this thread demonstrates) is lacking some understanding he or she should be helped to understand. In the sexual education field there are (still) many adults who have difficulty communicating with their charges. It is better that somebody takes responsibility.

Some young people themselves can find it difficult to discuss their problems with those closest to them. Teachers may be in a position to help - and public libraries.

What is to be afraid of?

Well we can see where you have gone wrong. You trust other people these days. People like librarians and teachers who are more than willing to indoctrinate your kids without your knowledge of what's going on.

No you can't trust these people anymore.

 

[rjs330]

Yeah...

These aren't unlikely scenarios. They are scenarios that society in general thinks are acceptable. Guys (and girls) 17 and 18 years old are old enough to fight and die for your country. That is not being pointed out to say that married women and Marines should be able to read what they want in the local library. It's pointing out the farcical attitude that says generally available books that contain information about sex should not be made accessible to, for example, 17 year olds.

I'm not sure thought how many kids 16 and under are going to have to go fight for their country.

You can question the marriage age in some states but these books are not in or recommended just for those 16 and older. They are recommended and targeted at those younger than 16.

Perhaps we need to initiate an age limit on these types of books to 16 and older. Since the age of consent is often 16 and with parental permission kids can sometimes get married at 16.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Well we can see where you have gone wrong. You trust other people these days. People like librarians and teachers who are more than willing to indoctrinate your kids without your knowledge of what's going on.

No you can't trust these people anymore.

I don't think we can realistically go through life without trusting people in matters of their expertise.

Nor do I have difficulty understanding why in light of book banning and objections to certain material in the past....there's an inclination to believe it's drummed up or exaggerated by someone who is religiously offended.

However, the nature of this accusation, combined with it's widespread and cross demographic nature made me think "well....I should at least take a look at what the issue is".

It's not immediately obvious that the issue begins and ends with the content in some books. It gets lost in the politics to a degree. I can even understand why people just blindly take up the position of their peer group....who is going to read all these books? I didn't.


I looked at lists, picked maybe 6, and decided that banning was the best course of action. I'm not religious, I'm an atheist, I'm not the least bit prudish. I've got nothing against gay people, I don't see anything wrong with them.


This is about smut...sexually graphic material.

If a teacher handed my 2nd grade child an issue of a inappropriate contentographic magazine, after ripping it out of his hands, I'd certainly want to know why he had it in the first place.

If the answer is....

Because the teacher is gay, the magazine was written and photographed by gay people, and it depicts acts of gay sex....I'd ask again, why my 2nd grade child was perusing it....for what reason?

The answer had better be something more substantial than "I think your kid should be exposed to gay sex more often". Why? What's the benefit? I don't even see how that really helps young gay children who haven't gone through puberty or had any sexual feelings yet. I don't know why smut would be necessary for education. I don't know why any of this is being allowed...let alone promoted. I'd sure ask the superintendent though....

If the superintendent doesn't see it my way and decides that ultimately, as part of his new ideology/religion/politics, there are certain social communities he can no longer critize or question and supports every claim of....because you know.....reasons. At least then we've got a clear understanding of the problem. He's a moral coward, a spineless jellyfish of a person who is unable to even think for himself. It doesn't really matter if he believes he's unable to object because he's a white man, or if he believes he's opposing fascists or tyranny, or if he believes that allowing this in some way makes up for the events of the past he finds personally distasteful....the real problem is that he's a participant in the political system. If he cannot think for himself....he should be removed.

As for @Whyayeman, I'm glad he simply didn't look into it...that's just ignorance. I understand why he didn't....I don't either in all sorts of situations. He can look into this, become educated, and possibly change his mind. I can have a discussion with such people. If he comes back after looking into it....but he has what he thinks are good reasons to support it....I'm more than willing to listen. I admit I can be wrong.


It's the other people. The ones in this weird belief system that denigrates their individual opinions, shames them until they no longer stand up for themselves, and tells them that the only moral choice is the one made for them....they should be removed from the political process.

 

[rjs330]

don't think we can realistically go through life without trusting people in matters of their expertise.

I used to feel that way, but I don't anymore. There is just too much of this going on these days. The universities are pumping out these people who want to indoctrinate the kids. Tell them that boys can be girls etc.

I know you are an atheist and have no issues with LGBTQ in general. And I certainly appreciate your moral stance on smut and the kids.

I don't really have a problem with LGBTQ people in general either. But the schools and such have gotten way out of hand pushing an agenda that is not good for kids. It takes them way beyond where they should be. Introducing them to and educating them in topics that don't belong in the kids classroom. Not wonder so many kids are screwed up these days.

No I don't trust them any more. It used to be we just send our kids to school and we didn't really worry about what they were being taught. Suddenly now we do. You know it. You've seen it with CRT. Yeah we have to keep a close eye on them now.

 

[Bradskii]

Well a line has to be drawn somewhere.

And yours has all the appearance of being drawn totally at odds with the general societal acceptance of the maturity levels of 17 year olds.

 

[Bradskii]

I'm not sure thought how many kids 16 and under are going to have to go fight for their country.

The argument was against the statement that a particular book should not be read by those under 18.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I used to feel that way, but I don't anymore. There is just too much of this going on these days. The universities are pumping out these people who want to indoctrinate the kids. Tell them that boys can be girls etc.

I know you are an atheist and have no issues with LGBTQ in general. And I certainly appreciate your moral stance on smut and the kids.

I don't really have a problem with LGBTQ people in general either. But the schools and such have gotten way out of hand pushing an agenda that is not good for kids. It takes them way beyond where they should be. Introducing them to and educating them in topics that don't belong in the kids classroom. Not wonder so many kids are screwed up these days.

No I don't trust them any more. It used to be we just send our kids to school and we didn't really worry about what they were being taught. Suddenly now we do. You know it. You've seen it with CRT. Yeah we have to keep a close eye on them now.

I first noticed it in a small article that had screenshots of convos between teachers who were concerned parents would hear the lessons over Zoom. That's an eyebrow raiser by itself. Then when large numbers of parents were at board meetings complaining...it seemed worth looking into.


I was speaking more generally though. You don't question every diagnosis your doctor makes or need to watch the chef who prepares your meal.


The clue here is the large number of similar complaints.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And yours has all the appearance of being drawn totally at odds with the general societal acceptance of the maturity levels of 17 year olds.

Is it?

I don't know what the majority of the population wants....neither do you....but the YA section serves children 12-18.

I don't know what your focus on 17yo teens is about.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't know what your focus on 17yo teens is about.

You quoted a book that is for general sale in run of the mill bookshops that you said you wouldn't want 17 year olds reading.

As far as what society considers acceptable, I don't see many people clamouring for an increase in the age at which you can send people to war. But you want them restricted in what they read. Maybe Cat In A Hat would be more suitable in the barracks.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Some educators think the children belong to them and you as parents are merely the "support" system for the little ones while they are away from the education camp. We were actually told by young (unmarried childless) grade school teacher that parents were the least qualified people to care for children. We removed our 4 children from public school the next year and homeschooled them. Time to bring these folks down a step. You wanna defund someone? Defund the public schools. Give vouchers to parents and allow them to send their kids to parochial and private schools. Help finance home school support structures. Every church should open their Sunday school rooms to create church based schools.
Eliminate public schools altogether.
Send a very loud and unmistakable message to these little tyrants, our kids do not belong to you. You are fired.

 

[rjs330]

I first noticed it in a small article that had screenshots of convos between teachers who were concerned parents would hear the lessons over Zoom. That's an eyebrow raiser by itself. Then when large numbers of parents were at board meetings complaining...it seemed worth looking into.


I was speaking more generally though. You don't question every diagnosis your doctor makes or need to watch the chef who prepares your meal.


The clue here is the large number of similar complaints.

No, I'm not questioning every single person of skill like doctors in general. I dont trust teachers and the education system anymore.

As you pointed out these things were happening and no one knew about it. How much more is happening without our knowledge? More and more is coming out and being discovered all the time. Too many schools have gone all in on the LGBTQ education. There are actual incidents where the school is helping a kid become trans without the parents knowledge or consent. The rainbow unicorn is in schools as curriculum. Sex education had girls aged 10 practicing putting condoms on artificial penises while the boys watched. It's become insane what's going on in schools. So I do not trust them. And with more and more universities pumping out educators with gender studies degrees we are going to get worse.

 

[rjs330]

The argument was against the statement that a particular book should not be read by those under 18.

You know what heae books are targeted at kids much younger than 18 right. 12 years old. 12 years old. Quit trying to make it sound like it's only 17-18 year olds that are reading or that these book are targeted for.

It's dishonest.

 

[Ana the Ist]

You quoted a book that is for general sale in run of the mill bookshops that you said you wouldn't want 17 year olds reading.

Yeah, it seems like the sort of thing only adults should access.

As far as what society considers acceptable, I don't see many people clamouring for an increase in the age at which you can send people to war.

What does that have to do with inappropriate contentography available to 12yo children?

But you want them restricted in what they read. Maybe Cat In A Hat would be more suitable in the barracks.

I have no idea what point you believe you're making.

Why don't we skip it and you just tell me a good reason for why you support this?

 

[comana]

Some educators think the children belong to them and you as parents are merely the "support" system for the little ones while they are away from the education camp. We were actually told by young (unmarried childless) grade school teacher that parents were the least qualified people to care for children. We removed our 4 children from public school the next year and homeschooled them. Time to bring these folks down a step. You wanna defund someone? Defund the public schools. Give vouchers to parents and allow them to send their kids to parochial and private schools. Help finance home school support structures. Every church should open their Sunday school rooms to create church based schools.
Eliminate public schools altogether.
Send a very loud and unmistakable message to these little tyrants, our kids do not belong to you. You are fired.

Or don’t do that, use private schools if you wish, but don’t dismantle a functioning education system for the rest who don’t share your beliefs.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Or don’t do that, use private schools if you wish, but don’t dismantle a functioning education system for the rest who don’t share your beliefs.

My belief, in this case, is that I am the parent, and they are the hired help. I want their function to teach math, reading, science, etc.

 

[comana]

My belief, in this case, is that I am the parent, and they are the hired help. I want their function to teach math, reading, science, etc.

And you can get what you want, but if you feel public schools are inadequate to meet your needs, then seek other options. Leave public education intact for everyone else.

 

[Bradskii]

You know what heae books are targeted at kids much younger than 18 right. 12 years old. 12 years old. Quit trying to make it sound like it's only 17-18 year olds that are reading or that these book are targeted for.

It's dishonest.

It's a separate discussion about whether specifically under 18's should be allowed access to a specific book.