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

[Occams Barber]

If 1% of the population believe that pedophilia is acceptable - you have no right to stop them?

You are comparing two different concepts.

The law allows you freedom of speech. It does not condone freedom to commit paedophilia

OB

 

[rjs330]

That's kinda weird. You say that it's nonsensical to apologise and then make a point of saying we can stop all the whining now because you have apologised. You ask 'who cares?' I guess someone did.

'In this country, Congress has for years had similar legislation before it, but hasn't acted. Republican Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas is the sponsor of a resolution that finally passed the Senate in February; a House version is in the works. His resolution acknowledges a long history of official depredations and ill-conceived policies toward Indian tribes, and apologizes for violence, maltreatment and neglect.'

Apology to American Indians Moves Forward

A resolution making its way through Congress offers an apology to all Native peoples on behalf of the United States. It passed the Senate as an amendment to the Indian Health Care Improvement Act. The legislation comes after Australian and Canadian governments have both apologized to their...

www.npr.org

And we apologized. Who cares anymore. Everyone runs around wanting to beat up America for doing what nations have been doing since the beginning of time. Then they want an apology. We give an apology and then haters decide that's not enough. Yeah we get it, America is bad, America is horrible, America is the worst country in the world etc etc. Yet America is where everyone want s to get to. Everyone want a a piece of America's pie. Everyone wants America to give them money and fund all the stuff. Yeah I'm not buying it.

Jealousy is unbecoming, so is whining and hatred. You made it sound like your country was so wonderful cause you apologized. We did too and now that's not good enough. That tells me something that nothing will ever be good enough.

That's it don't want to derail the thread.

 

[Bradskii]

We give an apology and then haters decide that's not enough.

It's just the first step. Recognising previous injustices, acknowledging them and apologising. Then you have to consider how to make up for it. Same as we are trying to do.

 

[rambot]

This book is soft core inappropriate content because it shows oral sex. And it's only leftists that are defending this and supporting it being allowed for children. It says something about the left.

Leftists ARE defending it but it is not fair and a mischaracterization (to lie) that leftists suggests it be allowed for children.

 

[RocksInMyHead]

It was in the kids section. So your argument is that it's perfectly okay to allow kids access to oral sex depictions? It remains very telling that it's the left arguing for such stuff.

The book that you're talking about - Gender Queer: A Memoir - was not one of the books that people were objecting to at the library in the OP. Those books are listed in the article here. The references that I've found to "Gender Queer" being banned (or requested to be banned) have been in relation to high school libraries.

 

[rjs330]

Leftists ARE defending it but it is not fair and a mischaracterization (to lie) that leftists suggests it be allowed for children.

No it's not please read through this thread and find me a majority of leftist that have come out and said this book should not be in children's sections of the library.

 

[rjs330]

Leftists ARE defending it but it is not fair and a mischaracterization (to lie) that leftists suggests it be allowed for children.

No it's not please read through this thread and find me a majority of leftist that have come out and said this book should not be in children's sections of the library

The book that you're talking about - Gender Queer: A Memoir - was not one of the books that people were objecting to at the library in the OP. Those books are listed in the article here. The references that I've found to "Gender Queer" being banned (or requested to be banned) have been in relation to high school libraries.

Incorrect:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/08/24/michigan-library-defunded-gender-queer/

 

[RocksInMyHead]

Incorrect:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/08/24/michigan-library-defunded-gender-queer/

Appreciate the clarification - it wasn't part of the original article. However, according to your article it was not in the children's - or even young adults - section:

A lawyer had reviewed the book and determined it wasn’t inappropriate contentographic, McLain replied. Still, given the mature content, she’d initially placed it in the adult section — near novels with heterosexual sex scenes. As the objections mounted, though, she moved “Gender Queer” behind the counter, making it available only upon request.

 

[rambot]

No it's not please read through this thread and find me a majority of leftist that have come out and said this book should not be in children's sections of the library.

Wait a sec. Find me ANYONE who has advocated for these books to be in the children's section of the library. YOU are making that point that the left WANTS it in the "children's section" when ABSOLUTLEY NOBODY has said anything even close to that.
I think it's fair to say "the left" (on cf) has argued that the book could easily belong in a public library and the right thinks the book shouldn't be in the library at all and hte only people who can and should be able to read it are people who have enough money to spend on books.

Now with that said, as a teacher, I have noticed something about the...."older generation". They seem to be falling under the misguided apprehension that all graphic novels are DIRECTED at children. That is not the case. Graphic novels target all age groups. Part of me wonders if this is related to this discussion.

 

[rambot]

A lawyer had reviewed the book and determined it wasn’t inappropriate contentographic, McLain replied. Still, given the mature content, she’d initially placed it in the adult section — near novels with heterosexual sex scenes. As the objections mounted, though, she moved “Gender Queer” behind the counter, making it available only upon request.

I support this as the EXACT handling of this book. Keeping it behind the counter seems like a FANTASTIC middle ground for those concerned.

 

[Ligurian]

So... kids are being taught about gay lifestyles... is that what you're saying?
If so, how old are the children being taught about gay lifesyles?
Are they being graded on what they're being taught in these classes?

Let me answer that for myself...

"Primary school children from the age of five are to be taught about gay and transgender relationships as part of compulsory lessons. New curriculum will bring an end of parents’ right to opt their children out of sex and relationships education classes in secondary school." ... 2019

Pupils to be 'taught about gay and transgender relationships'

Guidance about the new gay and transgender relationship lessons, which will be rolled out nationally next year, will be published tomorrow.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Cumpulsory means coersion, right?

"Statutory rape laws assume that all sexual activities involving individuals below a certain age are coercive."--aspe.hhs.gov

"Sexual activity may also include conduct and activities which are intended to arouse the sexual interest of another or enhance the sex life of another, such as strategies to find or attract partners..."--wikipedia, human sexual activity

Intended to arouse the sexual interest of a child... that's pedophila.

Maybe the laws in not-so-jolly-old-england are different than what happens in the USA?
Gotta wonder how many parents decided to home-school after that... or emigrate.
How many people decided not to have children since parents have no rights.

It looks like recruitment is being done by the gay-rights-guys.
But non-gays have no rights in England anymore. How long before the USA follows suit?

Before this, I was leaning towards a "live and let live" ideology... now, not so much.
Because they don't want equality, they want to run things, and the government is aiding and abetting.

"train up a child in the way he should go..." Nope! Can't evangelize or talk religion in school!

What sort of teachers are telling 5-year olds that stuff? Are they recruiting gay teachers, too?

How do the parents allow that to happen without personally supervising the entire event?
They could do it on a rotation basis. After all, if you can't get a pelvic exam without a nurse in the room...
These are children, who can't even be questioned by the police without a guardian in the room.

No place left to run to anymore.

 

[Ligurian]

Wait a sec. Find me ANYONE who has advocated for these books to be in the children's section of the library. ...
I think it's fair to say "the left" (on cf) has argued that the book could easily belong in a public library ...
Now with that said, as a teacher, I have noticed something about the...."older generation". They seem to be falling under the misguided apprehension that all graphic novels are DIRECTED at children. ...

(orange added for emphasis)

If it's in the children's section, then it's definitely directed at children.
Your logic doesn't work. And "could easily belong in a public library"... being used as plausable deniability... that isn't working either.

The "older generation" will be gone soon enough and then you'll see what becomes of your brave new world.
Gay-rights parades during half-time? inappropriate content on all the networks as after school specials?

 

[Ligurian]

I support this as the EXACT handling of this book. Keeping it behind the counter seems like a FANTASTIC middle ground for those concerned.

What good is that going to do? The things that are hidden or forbidden are the most desired things of all. It's not like the naughty list wouldn't be making the rounds. Heck, they'd probably be writing it in the bathroom stalls in crayon.

 

[essentialsaltes]

The things that are hidden or forbidden are the most desired things of all.

Sounds like a good argument for leaving these books in the library and not giving them any publicity.

 

[rambot]

(orange added for emphasis)

If it's in the children's section, then it's definitely directed at children.

Well, no kidding. Luckily it wasn't, so I can't comprehend the need to make this comment. I believe someone noted that it was appropriate for "16 (or 18) and up.

Your logic doesn't work. And "could easily belong in a public library"... being used as plausable deniability... that isn't working either.

If this is meant to be a compelling counter point, I am 100% lost. I don't feel a need to deny ANYTHING. Gender queer ABSOLUTELY can and should be in the library. If there are particularly sensitive pearl clutchers, I think that holding it behind the check out desk for those individuals who have heard about the book and would like to read it is a fantastic compromise as this way the book wouldn't get "stumbled up".

The "older generation" will be gone soon enough and then you'll see what becomes of your brave new world.
Gay-rights parades during half-time? inappropriate content on all the networks as after school specials?

Are you kidding? Do you know how much inappropriate contentography is available on line at the click of a button?
I mean, you don't even need to "click to confirm you're 18"...it's just a tiny search away.

I gotta tell you, if you want to find inappropriate images in the library, they are 100% there. Go to the photography section. Guaranteed you can find naked people in those books.

Or is it only problematic when it's the gays? Because since the avent of the internet as a public service (a solid 30ish years now) inappropriate contentography has been EASILY accessible.

FAAAAAR more accessible than this book in the public library that would require you to:
Get to the library during business hours
go to computer terminal to search it out
get the call number
find it on the shelves (assuming none of the other low quality humans hadn't checked it out)
Check it out.
Bring it home and read it.

OR

Turn on phone. Enter search term in duck duck go. click on link.

 

[rambot]

What good is that going to do? The things that are hidden or forbidden are the most desired things of all. It's not like the naughty list wouldn't be making the rounds. Heck, they'd probably be writing it in the bathroom stalls in crayon.

So pray, what is the benefit of parents calling this stuff to attention and turning it into forbidden fruit? I mean, FWIW, I've ALREADY read the first part of this book online for free anyways.
Parents yelling to ban a book? Guess what, you can find it online for free anyways.

You know what ACTUALLY works as a parent if you want to protect YOUR kids from "smut" or whatever? YOU parent THEM and YOU put the expectation YOU want to put on your OWN kids. Don't bother how other people try to parent.

So to answer your question:
Keeping it behind the counter ensure it's never stumbled upon but it also means that the only people who would access it are already familiar with its contents and feel a compulsion to consume it. Whatever that compulsion may be.

It seems kind of insane to withdraw the funding for an ENTIRE LIBRARY over 1-10 books. Like, full on crazy.

 

[Ligurian]

... I've ALREADY read the first part of this book ...

It seems kind of insane to withdraw the funding for an ENTIRE LIBRARY over 1-10 books. Like, full on crazy.

Seems even crazier that (1) a Library wants funding for inappropriate contentography, and (2) people are defending inappropriate contentography.

It's not like libraries are made to buy inappropriate contentography... so maybe the issue is with that librarian who did the ordering.
Can't librarians get fired if enough people complain? If I lived anywhere near there, I'd be doing that.

 

[rambot]

Let me answer that for myself...

"Primary school children from the age of five are to be taught about gay and transgender relationships as part of compulsory lessons. New curriculum will bring an end of parents’ right to opt their children out of sex and relationships education classes in secondary school." ... 2019

Pupils to be 'taught about gay and transgender relationships'

Guidance about the new gay and transgender relationship lessons, which will be rolled out nationally next year, will be published tomorrow.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Cumpulsory means coersion, right?

To be clear, you think kids should NOT be taught that gay and transgender people exist?
So a gay male teacher should NEVER say that they are married and they love their husband then?

Honestly, why do Conservatives REALLY and TRULY believe that reading books about gays is gonna turn the kids all gay?

Gay kids have been reading heterosexual main characters for hundreds of years; never turned any of them heterosexual. If your child WAS gay, do you really think that telling them to never talk about it, to hide all information about it, and to shame the idea of it...how would that HELP your child?

Intended to arouse the sexual interest of a child... that's pedophila.

Maybe the laws in not-so-jolly-old-england are different than what happens in the USA?
Gotta wonder how many parents decided to home-school after that... or emigrate.
How many people decided not to have children since parents have no rights.

It looks like recruitment is being done by the gay-rights-guys.
But non-gays have no rights in England anymore. How long before the USA follows suit?

"Non-gays have no rights in England anymore".
Wow. That's so weird! I was just over there this past summer on vacation and me and my heterosexual family never experienced any problems. I would, LITERALLY LOVE to hear from you a delineated list of all the rules the tyrannical gay lobby stole from the poor Hetero-anglos.

Before this, I was leaning towards a "live and let live" ideology... now, not so much.
Because they don't want equality, they want to run things, and the government is aiding and abetting.

Nope. They just want to exist and they want to share their stories. It seems like even them at just "live" is getting to be too much.

"train up a child in the way he should go..." Nope! Can't evangelize or talk religion in school!

And I bet you'd LOVE it if we had an imam come in and try to convert your kids right? Nope. So....NOBODY gets to talk about religion in school.

What sort of teachers are telling 5-year olds that stuff? Are they recruiting gay teachers, too?

Stuff like a male teacher saying "I'm married to a man and I love him. We are adopting a child and are very happy"?
Or stuff like "You are worthy. You are a good person. Your parents do not understand what you are going through. Give them time and they might come around".
Or stuff like "Hey guys. Gay people exist and want to live a life of not being harrassed. Maybe...MAYBE we could hit that bar for them."

How do the parents allow that to happen without personally supervising the entire event?
They could do it on a rotation basis. After all, if you can't get a pelvic exam without a nurse in the room...
These are children, who can't even be questioned by the police without a guardian in the room.

No place left to run to anymore.

I'll tell you how. Most reasonable, rational parents understand that many MANY educational professionals and psychologists have studied and have a GOOD understanding of what children are developmentally able to understand. You do not. You know ONLY what you don't want your kid to hear.
But professionals understand that yes, a 5 year old can hear a male teacher say "My husband is so kind to me and I love him very much" or "Gay people are okay" and it won't turn them into sweaty, scantily clad dancers in leather bits.


If you are actually worried about children, take a look at see how many children (as you choose to label them) are kicked out of thier parents home for being gay. While I wouldn't be super excited about my kid reading that book in the library, ultimately, there is no way on God's wonder creation that I would consider sending the child I love from my house and my loving arms. And yet Christians who fight to get that book out of a library would have NO PROBLEM booting their kid out of their own home.

 

[rambot]

Seems even crazier that (1) a Library wants funding for inappropriate contentography, and (2) people are defending inappropriate contentography.

It's not like libraries are made to buy inappropriate contentography... so maybe the issue is with that librarian who did the ordering.
Can't librarians get fired if enough people complain? If I lived anywhere near there, I'd be doing that.

You never complained about the photography section.
Fundamentally: Is the problem that it is visual? Because there is a LOT of smut in libraries too?

But I'm sure you can just TELL your kids not to read heterosexual smut. You can't JUST tell your kids not to read gay or transgender themed smut; nope, that has to be removed from the library.

 

[Ligurian]

Well, no kidding. Luckily it wasn't, so I can't comprehend the need to make this comment. I believe someone noted that it was appropriate for "16 (or 18) and up.

Last time I checked, 16 was underage.