Listen to the exact words in the exact books Democrats want in our public school libraries

[Seymour Flops]

Finally, thank you.

Always happy to have a civil debate.

Hard to say since this is one line from an entire book I haven't read but maybe it might be useful to a child who already engaging homosexual activity and is feeling suicidal because he thinks there is something wrong with him?

That's a stretch, even for a progressive. No pun intended, BTW.

A book about a guy who dates another guy without the explicit sexual description would serve that purpose just as well. When I was in High School, there were books in the library that had teenage opposite sex couples dating. There was no description of lubing up, or pain turning into pleasure during insertion.

If a child truly "needs" to read explicit material about gay sex, I'm sure the internet is chock full of it. I hope you aren't trying to convince me that only school provided explicit gay sex material has this suicide-preventing power.

This extortionate "suicidal" argument that is so frequently brought up to justify sexualization of children is invalid. It is tragic when gender specialists use it to frighten parents into giving their children life-changing treatments that are very lucrative for the medical providers.

People are suicidal because they have one or more mental disorders, most often depression, and often autism spectrum disorder. Both are frequently co-morbid with Gender Dysphoria, yet we are expected to believe (with no evidence) that childhood transitioning will prevent suicide.

Or as the gender specialists put it, "you can either have a live daughter or a dead son."

I don't know that every father is at your level, I know mine wasn't. I suspect not every kid would be comfortable talking to their parent about sex either, I know I wasn't.

Yes, and many fathers may also be remiss in teaching their children religion. Doesn't mean the school should step in and indoctrinate them.

I know there is a picture of McConnell on that video's thumbnail, but I did not see him talking in the video about history or anything else. That is MSNBC making claims about what Republicans believe.

People can disagree about how to teach history without one side or the other not wanting to teach history at all, or wanting to "limit" it.

If I'm a parent of any color, I don't want lessons about slavery taught in a way that pushes a theory of universal white guilt, any more than I want it to be taught that slavery was good for black people. Both would be falsehoods intended to further agendas, not lessons about history.

I don't want the Holocaust taught in a way that paints all Germans as evil. I was stationed in Germany twice and got to know many very good and decent German people.

Good and decent people can be and have been caught up in evil and excused it, or gone along with it, or stayed silent about it. So, it can be perpetuated, though future historians will be shocked that it was not stopped.

That is the important lesson for both slavery and the Holocaust. That is probably the most important concept that any history lesson should teach, especially to children.

 

[alang1216]

The complaints are that these books are being directed to very young children. If a 3rd grader is engaging in sexual activity, particularly with an adult, there is no wondering if there is something wrong with them. There is.

Are they 3rd graders? I heard they were at least middle school. Bad but not as bad.

 

[j-mac]

when you make idiotic statements like



Why is it that homophobic people describe gay sex acts in such vivid detail?

It's only homophobic if I cared what gay people preferred to do...."taking it up the ass" is a totally accurate description of what takes place during male gay sex.

In any case, I would question why it is you feel it is incumbent on you to educate MY children on the subject? Especially if they don't exhibit any interest in this kind of proclivity....

This is where liberals like yourself are way out of your lane....

 

[j-mac]

As soon as I thought she was capable of understanding. For my daughter that was fairly early on. She's a smart cookie. We spoke about inappropriate touching when she was pretty young. Also I had her at 19 so I wanted her to avoid following in my footsteps so I'd say we probably started having more nuanced conversations about sex around 13 or 14.

Ok, and that is fine, since it was YOUR call on when to have that conversation, as well as the subject matter you chose to discuss with her....Nothing wrong with that.

But, when you tell me that this decision making is stripped away from the parent, and put in place of the schools without consultation with the parents involved, that is wrong....And, further, has the possibility of causing more harm than good.

 

[Curried Goats]

Ok, and that is fine, since it was YOUR call on when to have that conversation, as well as the subject matter you chose to discuss with her....Nothing wrong with that.

But, when you tell me that this decision making is stripped away from the parent, and put in place of the schools without consultation with the parents involved, that is wrong....And, further, has the possibility of causing more harm than good.

No ignorance causes more harm than good. There are going to be gay students in school and they deserve to have sex education that is a suitable to their experience as hetero sex education is.

 

[j-mac]

No ignorance causes more harm than good. There are going to be gay students in school and they deserve to have sex education that is a suitable to their experience as hetero sex education is.

Who identifies the 'gay children'? The school, or the parent?

 

[Curried Goats]

Who identifies the 'gay children'? The school, or the parent?

No one has to identify anyone. We acknowledge that there will be gay children, that that is perfectly natural and we give everyone responsible sex education and they use what's applicable to them. We don't have to identify the hetero students who are having sex before we administer sex education do we? Why would that be a prerequisite?

 

[j-mac]

No one has to identify anyone. We acknowledge that there will be gay children, that that is perfectly natural and we give everyone responsible sex education and they use what's applicable to them. We don't have to identify the hetero students who are having sex before we administer sex education do we? Why would that be a prerequisite?

At the very least there should be "opt out" provisions....Just taking the parent's and their wishes out of the equation is not the right way to go about this....

 

[bripat9643]

I could, but numerous examples have already been provided; I'd suggest reading the thread. Or the Bible. Or Googling.

I'll just take that to mean "no."

 

[alang1216]

Always happy to have a civil debate.

That's a stretch, even for a progressive. No pun intended, BTW.

A book about a guy who dates another guy without the explicit sexual description would serve that purpose just as well. When I was in High School, there were books in the library that had teenage opposite sex couples dating. There was no description of lubing up, or pain turning into pleasure during insertion.

If a child truly "needs" to read explicit material about gay sex, I'm sure the internet is chock full of it. I hope you aren't trying to convince me that only school provided explicit gay sex material has this suicide-preventing power.

This extortionate "suicidal" argument that is so frequently brought up to justify sexualization of children is invalid. It is tragic when gender specialists use it to frighten parents into giving their children life-changing treatments that are very lucrative for the medical providers.

People are suicidal because they have one or more mental disorders, most often depression, and often autism spectrum disorder. Both are frequently co-morbid with Gender Dysphoria, yet we are expected to believe (with no evidence) that childhood transitioning will prevent suicide.

Or as the gender specialists put it, "you can either have a live daughter or a dead son."

I'm not (are you?) a psychologist, psychiatrist, gender specialist, or any other like 'ist' so I don't really know the answers here.

Yes, and many fathers may also be remiss in teaching their children religion. Doesn't mean the school should step in and indoctrinate them.

I think there is an obvious line between indoctrination and making information available. Books on religion, sex, etc., should be available but not necessarily on the ciriculum.

 

[eagle1462010]

No elected Democrat has spoken out about this, which can only lead to the assumption that they approve of it.

Whoever put this BS in schools should be tarred and feathered and forced to cluck like a chicken.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I'm not (are you?) a psychologist, psychiatrist, gender specialist, or any other like 'ist' so I don't really know the answers here.

I have two masters degrees, one in Ed Psych, and one in Special Education. So, I know a bit about both of those topics. More importantly, in pursuing those degrees, I learned to read and analyze research, so when a clickbait headlines says that "studies" back their opinions up, I can separate the bull from the corn.

But, as a person with common sense, you could come up with similar conclusions. When you hear about gender specialists telling parents their kid will be dead if they don't get chemically castrated right away, that should raise red flags.

I think there is an obvious line between indoctrination and making information available. Books on religion, sex, etc., should be available but not necessarily on the ciriculum.

My issue with the books about sex as they are now being placed in libraries is that ten years ago, feminists would have been outraged by a book about a young girl submitting to anal sex and accepting the pain and learning to enjoy it. Somehow because it is two males, it's homophobic to object?

Common sense has gone out of the window.

 

[alang1216]

I have two masters degrees, one in Ed Psych, and one in Special Education. So, I know a bit about both of those topics. More importantly, in pursuing those degrees, I learned to read and analyze research, so when a clickbait headlines says that "studies" back their opinions up, I can separate the bull from the corn.

It is refreshing and rare to converse with someone on USMB that actually has some knowledge of what they write.

But, as a person with common sense, you could come up with similar conclusions. When you hear about gender specialists telling parents their kid will be dead if they don't get chemically castrated right away, that should raise red flags.

It seems to me that LGBQT kids are at greater risk than other kids. Is that not true?

Researchers find disparities in suicide risk among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults

More than 60% of suicide attempts among LGBQ people happen within five years of realizing they are LGBQ

or this:
Research shows that lesbian, gay, bi, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) teens are at increased risk of suicide and mental health issues like depression and anxiety. One of the most startling statistics: LGBTQ teens consider suicide and make suicide attempts at about four times the national rate for all adolescents.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It is refreshing and rare to converse with someone on USMB that actually has some knowledge of what they write.

Refreshing to be able to disagree on USMB without rancor.

It seems to me that LGBQT kids are at greater risk than other kids. Is that not true?

Researchers find disparities in suicide risk among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults

More than 60% of suicide attempts among LGBQ people happen within five years of realizing they are LGBQ

or this:
Research shows that lesbian, gay, bi, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) teens are at increased risk of suicide and mental health issues like depression and anxiety. One of the most startling statistics: LGBTQ teens consider suicide and make suicide attempts at about four times the national rate for all adolescents.

There is no doubt that LGBT-Q kids and adults are at greater risk for negative emotional and psychological outcomes. In fact, in order to take homosexuality off of the list of mental disorders, the APA had to change the definition to no longer include increased suicide rates caused by the condition.

There is an assumption that lack of acceptance of LBGT-Q folk, including discrimination, bullying and hate crimes contribute to that higher suicide rate. As far as I know, there are no studies that show that the suicide rate among the LBGT-Q community is less in areas where it is accepted. There are many studies that show that depression is more common among those folks and especially among people with Gender Dysphoria, which is still in the DSM-V.

However, it makes sense that anti-LGBT-Q sentiment could contribute to suicides, especially by young people not accepted by their families. Which is why it is so horrifying that LGBT-Q activists are bringing so much negative attention to themselves by insisting on medicalizing and surgicalizing the condition of Gender Dysphoria in children.

If there really are a large number of children with true Gender Dysphoria, instead of just being temporarily confused, that should be a great opportunity to teach them self-acceptance at a young age. What is now called "Gender Affirmation" is the polar opposite of self-acceptance. It is the affirmation of the child's highly negative body image, by parents and professionals that will solidify that image permanently.

 

[MinTrut]

We get a bit rowdy when pervs Target children.

But enough about those Bible thumpers!

Lawn Boy = Good book

 

[MinTrut]

Consensual or not, graphic description of child sex is child porn.

Lawn Boy isn't child pornography.

It doesn't contain child pornography.

You get it yet?

But the Bible - that is one VERY disturbing book.

 

[MinTrut]

There are few humans lower than the Taliban and ISIS.

If you feel this way, don't emulate them.

Those promoting child porn are one of those.

Luckily, that isn't happening here.

But this defense of the Bible IS troubling.

Keep justifying this and keep showing how evil you are.

I'm not justifying the Bible.

I don't thinks it's appropriate for under 12s.

 

[MinTrut]

It’s homophobic

Y'all are insanely homophobic, yes.

to want child porn removed from schools?

What child porn?

As disturbing as the Bible is, it's not child porn.

Nor is Lawn Boy.

Neither is appropriate for under 12s.

You realize the admission you just made?

That I support free speech but don't want under 12s traumatized by books like the Bible?

Guilty as charged!

 

[MinTrut]

These books are disgusting, and to make them available to kids in school libraries is borderline criminal behavior under the child corruption acts, and statutes....

So you want the Bible banned?

My take is that neither the Bible nor Lawn Boy are proper reading for under 12s.

 

[MinTrut]

Yes, anything that tells adolescents that it's OK to be gay, must be removed from the shelves. Children must NEVER learn that homosexuality is normal for a small subset of people. It might give them ideas that they're not crazy, or going to hell forever.

Author of 'Gender Queer,' one of most-banned books in U.S., addresses controversy

“There are people for whom this is vital and for whom this could maybe even be lifesaving,” Maia Kobabe said.

www.nbcnews.com

Amazon product ASIN 1549304003

How a Debut Graphic Memoir Became the Most Banned Book in the Country (Published 2022)

Maia Kobabe’s book “Gender Queer,” about coming out as nonbinary, landed the author at the center of a battle over which books belong in schools, and who gets to make that decision.

www.nytimes.com

The book bannings aren't protecting children from pornography. They're keeping them from learning that being gay isn't wrong.

^ Thread co-win.