Youngkin is a book banner

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:We teach kids about heterosexual sex so that they understand reproduction and how to prevent it for themselves as teenagers. Parents aren’t asking schools to teach their kids to masterbate, perform blowjobs, or participate in anal sex. These subjects do not belong in schools.

If you want to share that information with your children, go right ahead. But it doesn’t belong in the school system.

Well said.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that extreme examples are used now to gain support for the bill, but once passed, it allows banning books that aren’t extreme and just represent views Youngkin doesn’t like.

Exactly. That’s the problem with putting books like Gender Queer and This Book is Gay in school libraries. If parents can’t trust their schools to keep this material out of their schools, they will ask their lawmakers to do it. And that creates bad law. It shouldn’t be happening, but the people defending this material have created the opening.

Agreed. I support free speech but I don’t support the government providing sexually explicit material to children.

"I support free speech but" = "I don't support free speech"

I suggest you educate yourself. I support protected speech as currently defined by the Supreme Court which includes many exceptions including threats, defamation, selling state secrets, and obscenity.

So, obscenity. Are you saying that (for example) a Pulitzer-Prize-winning novel appeals to prurient interest and is patently offensive lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, and therefore Governor Youngkin should be able to ban it? That's certainly an interesting point of view.

Of course not you halfwit. Youngkin nor any other politician should not be able to ban books. Youngkin is not banning the book, nor is he banning adults providing sexually explicit books to their children. He is banning the use of taxpayer dollars to provide sexually explicit content to children in public schools.

Why are you so invested in the state funds being used to provide sexual content to other people children?

"Providing sexual content to other people's children" is a super weird way to describe having books in school libraries.

If you dislike Gender Queer, here's what you can do: don't read it. Libraries are full of books you haven't read. This can be another one.

And no one is stopping you from reading genderqueer to your children.


I noticed that you failed to explain why you are fighting so hard to have schools provide sexual content to other people’s kids. Why is that?

Why would I read Gender Queer to my children? My children can read it for themselves, if they want to. Or not, if they don't. Why are you afraid of your children having access to the book Gender Queer in their school library?

This sentiment is very frightening and sad. These poor children.

This is about not exposing children to very graphic sex.

I will start asking parents before play dates if they give kids sexually graphic books or endorse them. I need to screen for creepers. I don't want my child near your house.

Any kid in HS with a phone will have access to much MUCH more sexual content than these books. The kids who would take the effort to physically go to the library and check these books out are the kids who need these books. Hearing another LGTBQ experience can be validating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that extreme examples are used now to gain support for the bill, but once passed, it allows banning books that aren’t extreme and just represent views Youngkin doesn’t like.

Exactly. That’s the problem with putting books like Gender Queer and This Book is Gay in school libraries. If parents can’t trust their schools to keep this material out of their schools, they will ask their lawmakers to do it. And that creates bad law. It shouldn’t be happening, but the people defending this material have created the opening.

Agreed. I support free speech but I don’t support the government providing sexually explicit material to children.

"I support free speech but" = "I don't support free speech"

I suggest you educate yourself. I support protected speech as currently defined by the Supreme Court which includes many exceptions including threats, defamation, selling state secrets, and obscenity.

So, obscenity. Are you saying that (for example) a Pulitzer-Prize-winning novel appeals to prurient interest and is patently offensive lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, and therefore Governor Youngkin should be able to ban it? That's certainly an interesting point of view.

Of course not you halfwit. Youngkin nor any other politician should not be able to ban books. Youngkin is not banning the book, nor is he banning adults providing sexually explicit books to their children. He is banning the use of taxpayer dollars to provide sexually explicit content to children in public schools.

Why are you so invested in the state funds being used to provide sexual content to other people children?

"Providing sexual content to other people's children" is a super weird way to describe having books in school libraries.

If you dislike Gender Queer, here's what you can do: don't read it. Libraries are full of books you haven't read. This can be another one.

And no one is stopping you from reading genderqueer to your children.


I noticed that you failed to explain why you are fighting so hard to have schools provide sexual content to other people’s kids. Why is that?

Why would I read Gender Queer to my children? My children can read it for themselves, if they want to. Or not, if they don't. Why are you afraid of your children having access to the book Gender Queer in their school library?

This sentiment is very frightening and sad. These poor children.

This is about not exposing children to very graphic sex.

I will start asking parents before play dates if they give kids sexually graphic books or endorse them. I need to screen for creepers. I don't want my child near your house.

Any kid in HS with a phone will have access to much MUCH more sexual content than these books. The kids who would take the effort to physically go to the library and check these books out are the kids who need these books. Hearing another LGTBQ experience can be validating.

In which public school are these students not validated? Zip.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that extreme examples are used now to gain support for the bill, but once passed, it allows banning books that aren’t extreme and just represent views Youngkin doesn’t like.

Exactly. That’s the problem with putting books like Gender Queer and This Book is Gay in school libraries. If parents can’t trust their schools to keep this material out of their schools, they will ask their lawmakers to do it. And that creates bad law. It shouldn’t be happening, but the people defending this material have created the opening.

Agreed. I support free speech but I don’t support the government providing sexually explicit material to children.

"I support free speech but" = "I don't support free speech"

I suggest you educate yourself. I support protected speech as currently defined by the Supreme Court which includes many exceptions including threats, defamation, selling state secrets, and obscenity.

So, obscenity. Are you saying that (for example) a Pulitzer-Prize-winning novel appeals to prurient interest and is patently offensive lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, and therefore Governor Youngkin should be able to ban it? That's certainly an interesting point of view.

Of course not you halfwit. Youngkin nor any other politician should not be able to ban books. Youngkin is not banning the book, nor is he banning adults providing sexually explicit books to their children. He is banning the use of taxpayer dollars to provide sexually explicit content to children in public schools.

Why are you so invested in the state funds being used to provide sexual content to other people children?

"Providing sexual content to other people's children" is a super weird way to describe having books in school libraries.

If you dislike Gender Queer, here's what you can do: don't read it. Libraries are full of books you haven't read. This can be another one.

And no one is stopping you from reading genderqueer to your children.


I noticed that you failed to explain why you are fighting so hard to have schools provide sexual content to other people’s kids. Why is that?

Why would I read Gender Queer to my children? My children can read it for themselves, if they want to. Or not, if they don't. Why are you afraid of your children having access to the book Gender Queer in their school library?

This sentiment is very frightening and sad. These poor children.

This is about not exposing children to very graphic sex.

I will start asking parents before play dates if they give kids sexually graphic books or endorse them. I need to screen for creepers. I don't want my child near your house.

Any kid in HS with a phone will have access to much MUCH more sexual content than these books. The kids who would take the effort to physically go to the library and check these books out are the kids who need these books. Hearing another LGTBQ experience can be validating.

Why do kids need sex manuals?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Graph depictions of how to how have anal sex is not ok for school children at school. Sorry, OP.

If you choose to instruct your children about that, it can certainly be done in your home. No one cares.

I dispute your premise. This doesn’t exist in school materials and you know it.

DP. So you clearly haven't bothered to watch the video that was put out with actual pictures from these books, found in school libraries.

EXACTLY. There’s NOTHING ok about graphic depictions of sex.

Some people here apparently have an inappropriate agenda.

+100
The gaslighting here is so typical. Apparently, if we don't want our kids exposed to inappropriate sexual material, there is something wrong with US. But nothing wrong with those who insist their kids SHOULD be exposed to it. What a joke. No wonder no one takes LW extremists seriously.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't worry, all of these porno books are available for you to buy your kid on amazon. Keeping age inappropriate books out of schools and libraries is not book banning.

Truthfully, at what age are these books appropriate for YOUR children?

We aren’t talking about “porno books” so your comment is irrelevant.

DP. Yes you are if you are referring to DeSantis. I was shocked when I watched that press conference. It was vile what was in those “children’s books.”

You really should watch it before you decide.

+1
I was SO glad he showed those books and I'm laughing at those who are now clutching their pearls that they were "made" to see those images. Good. Children were seeing those images in school libraries yet somehow that wasn't shocking or unacceptable to the same people. Utter and complete hypocrites.

+2
Interesting that the video in question hasn't been posted here. Is that because it's so inappropriate it would be deleted? Probably. But sure, those books are *just fine* for kids to see.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't worry, all of these porno books are available for you to buy your kid on amazon. Keeping age inappropriate books out of schools and libraries is not book banning.

Truthfully, at what age are these books appropriate for YOUR children?

We aren’t talking about “porno books” so your comment is irrelevant.

DP. Yes you are if you are referring to DeSantis. I was shocked when I watched that press conference. It was vile what was in those “children’s books.”

You really should watch it before you decide.

+1
I was SO glad he showed those books and I'm laughing at those who are now clutching their pearls that they were "made" to see those images. Good. Children were seeing those images in school libraries yet somehow that wasn't shocking or unacceptable to the same people. Utter and complete hypocrites.

+2
Interesting that the video in question hasn't been posted here. Is that because it's so inappropriate it would be deleted? Probably. But sure, those books are *just fine* for kids to see.

I wouldn’t post an anatomical correct diagram of a penis here either. But they do look at those in school.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Graph depictions of how to how have anal sex is not ok for school children at school. Sorry, OP.

If you choose to instruct your children about that, it can certainly be done in your home. No one cares.

I dispute your premise. This doesn’t exist in school materials and you know it.

DP. So you clearly haven't bothered to watch the video that was put out with actual pictures from these books, found in school libraries.

EXACTLY. There’s NOTHING ok about graphic depictions of sex.

Some people here apparently have an inappropriate agenda.

+100
The gaslighting here is so typical. Apparently, if we don't want our kids exposed to inappropriate sexual material, there is something wrong with US. But nothing wrong with those who insist their kids SHOULD be exposed to it. What a joke. No wonder no one takes LW extremists seriously.

No one is being exposed to these books. These are books in the HS library. Teens can see infinitely worse on their phones from the comfort of their own home.

These books are for kids who would benefit from hearing a LGBTQ experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that extreme examples are used now to gain support for the bill, but once passed, it allows banning books that aren’t extreme and just represent views Youngkin doesn’t like.

Exactly. That’s the problem with putting books like Gender Queer and This Book is Gay in school libraries. If parents can’t trust their schools to keep this material out of their schools, they will ask their lawmakers to do it. And that creates bad law. It shouldn’t be happening, but the people defending this material have created the opening.

Agreed. I support free speech but I don’t support the government providing sexually explicit material to children.

"I support free speech but" = "I don't support free speech"

I suggest you educate yourself. I support protected speech as currently defined by the Supreme Court which includes many exceptions including threats, defamation, selling state secrets, and obscenity.

So, obscenity. Are you saying that (for example) a Pulitzer-Prize-winning novel appeals to prurient interest and is patently offensive lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, and therefore Governor Youngkin should be able to ban it? That's certainly an interesting point of view.

Of course not you halfwit. Youngkin nor any other politician should not be able to ban books. Youngkin is not banning the book, nor is he banning adults providing sexually explicit books to their children. He is banning the use of taxpayer dollars to provide sexually explicit content to children in public schools.

Why are you so invested in the state funds being used to provide sexual content to other people children?

"Providing sexual content to other people's children" is a super weird way to describe having books in school libraries.

If you dislike Gender Queer, here's what you can do: don't read it. Libraries are full of books you haven't read. This can be another one.

And no one is stopping you from reading genderqueer to your children.


I noticed that you failed to explain why you are fighting so hard to have schools provide sexual content to other people’s kids. Why is that?

Why would I read Gender Queer to my children? My children can read it for themselves, if they want to. Or not, if they don't. Why are you afraid of your children having access to the book Gender Queer in their school library?

This sentiment is very frightening and sad. These poor children.

This is about not exposing children to very graphic sex.

I will start asking parents before play dates if they give kids sexually graphic books or endorse them. I need to screen for creepers. I don't want my child near your house.

Any kid in HS with a phone will have access to much MUCH more sexual content than these books. The kids who would take the effort to physically go to the library and check these books out are the kids who need these books. Hearing another LGTBQ experience can be validating.

In which public school are these students not validated? Zip.

Teens have thousands of books about heterosexual relationships. Having a book that is similar to their own life experiences is beneficial.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Graph depictions of how to how have anal sex is not ok for school children at school. Sorry, OP.

If you choose to instruct your children about that, it can certainly be done in your home. No one cares.

I dispute your premise. This doesn’t exist in school materials and you know it.

DP. So you clearly haven't bothered to watch the video that was put out with actual pictures from these books, found in school libraries.

EXACTLY. There’s NOTHING ok about graphic depictions of sex.

Some people here apparently have an inappropriate agenda.

+100
The gaslighting here is so typical. Apparently, if we don't want our kids exposed to inappropriate sexual material, there is something wrong with US. But nothing wrong with those who insist their kids SHOULD be exposed to it. What a joke. No wonder no one takes LW extremists seriously.

Makes me wonder if they were molested as children, or exposed to inappropriate sexual things as children and that's why they lack normal sexual boundaries. I simply was never, ever exposed to any graphic sexual content from an adult or at school except once and it made me incredibly uncomfortable. And no, I was not a virgin. But it was skeevy and inappropriate at school. Just freaking gross!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Graph depictions of how to how have anal sex is not ok for school children at school. Sorry, OP.

If you choose to instruct your children about that, it can certainly be done in your home. No one cares.

I dispute your premise. This doesn’t exist in school materials and you know it.

DP. So you clearly haven't bothered to watch the video that was put out with actual pictures from these books, found in school libraries.

EXACTLY. There’s NOTHING ok about graphic depictions of sex.

Some people here apparently have an inappropriate agenda.

+100
The gaslighting here is so typical. Apparently, if we don't want our kids exposed to inappropriate sexual material, there is something wrong with US. But nothing wrong with those who insist their kids SHOULD be exposed to it. What a joke. No wonder no one takes LW extremists seriously.

Makes me wonder if they were molested as children, or exposed to inappropriate sexual things as children and that's why they lack normal sexual boundaries. I simply was never, ever exposed to any graphic sexual content from an adult or at school except once and it made me incredibly uncomfortable. And no, I was not a virgin. But it was skeevy and inappropriate at school. Just freaking gross!!!!

Sounds like you’re projecting. People aren’t “exposing” these books to kids. Teens (who’ve seen much worse) can check them out from the library.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that extreme examples are used now to gain support for the bill, but once passed, it allows banning books that aren’t extreme and just represent views Youngkin doesn’t like.

Exactly. That’s the problem with putting books like Gender Queer and This Book is Gay in school libraries. If parents can’t trust their schools to keep this material out of their schools, they will ask their lawmakers to do it. And that creates bad law. It shouldn’t be happening, but the people defending this material have created the opening.

Agreed. I support free speech but I don’t support the government providing sexually explicit material to children.

"I support free speech but" = "I don't support free speech"

I suggest you educate yourself. I support protected speech as currently defined by the Supreme Court which includes many exceptions including threats, defamation, selling state secrets, and obscenity.

So, obscenity. Are you saying that (for example) a Pulitzer-Prize-winning novel appeals to prurient interest and is patently offensive lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, and therefore Governor Youngkin should be able to ban it? That's certainly an interesting point of view.

Of course not you halfwit. Youngkin nor any other politician should not be able to ban books. Youngkin is not banning the book, nor is he banning adults providing sexually explicit books to their children. He is banning the use of taxpayer dollars to provide sexually explicit content to children in public schools.

Why are you so invested in the state funds being used to provide sexual content to other people children?

"Providing sexual content to other people's children" is a super weird way to describe having books in school libraries.

If you dislike Gender Queer, here's what you can do: don't read it. Libraries are full of books you haven't read. This can be another one.

And no one is stopping you from reading genderqueer to your children.


I noticed that you failed to explain why you are fighting so hard to have schools provide sexual content to other people’s kids. Why is that?

Why would I read Gender Queer to my children? My children can read it for themselves, if they want to. Or not, if they don't. Why are you afraid of your children having access to the book Gender Queer in their school library?

This sentiment is very frightening and sad. These poor children.

This is about not exposing children to very graphic sex.

I will start asking parents before play dates if they give kids sexually graphic books or endorse them. I need to screen for creepers. I don't want my child near your house.

Any kid in HS with a phone will have access to much MUCH more sexual content than these books. The kids who would take the effort to physically go to the library and check these books out are the kids who need these books. Hearing another LGTBQ experience can be validating.

Why do kids need sex manuals?

Teens might have questions about logistics that are maybe not covered in FLE.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that extreme examples are used now to gain support for the bill, but once passed, it allows banning books that aren’t extreme and just represent views Youngkin doesn’t like.

Exactly. That’s the problem with putting books like Gender Queer and This Book is Gay in school libraries. If parents can’t trust their schools to keep this material out of their schools, they will ask their lawmakers to do it. And that creates bad law. It shouldn’t be happening, but the people defending this material have created the opening.

Agreed. I support free speech but I don’t support the government providing sexually explicit material to children.

"I support free speech but" = "I don't support free speech"

I suggest you educate yourself. I support protected speech as currently defined by the Supreme Court which includes many exceptions including threats, defamation, selling state secrets, and obscenity.

So, obscenity. Are you saying that (for example) a Pulitzer-Prize-winning novel appeals to prurient interest and is patently offensive lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, and therefore Governor Youngkin should be able to ban it? That's certainly an interesting point of view.

Of course not you halfwit. Youngkin nor any other politician should not be able to ban books. Youngkin is not banning the book, nor is he banning adults providing sexually explicit books to their children. He is banning the use of taxpayer dollars to provide sexually explicit content to children in public schools.

Why are you so invested in the state funds being used to provide sexual content to other people children?

"Providing sexual content to other people's children" is a super weird way to describe having books in school libraries.

If you dislike Gender Queer, here's what you can do: don't read it. Libraries are full of books you haven't read. This can be another one.

And no one is stopping you from reading genderqueer to your children.


I noticed that you failed to explain why you are fighting so hard to have schools provide sexual content to other people’s kids. Why is that?

Why would I read Gender Queer to my children? My children can read it for themselves, if they want to. Or not, if they don't. Why are you afraid of your children having access to the book Gender Queer in their school library?

This sentiment is very frightening and sad. These poor children.

This is about not exposing children to very graphic sex.

I will start asking parents before play dates if they give kids sexually graphic books or endorse them. I need to screen for creepers. I don't want my child near your house.

Any kid in HS with a phone will have access to much MUCH more sexual content than these books. The kids who would take the effort to physically go to the library and check these books out are the kids who need these books. Hearing another LGTBQ experience can be validating.

Why do kids need sex manuals?

Teens might have questions about logistics that are maybe not covered in FLE.

"Logistics?" Why do they need information about "logistics?"

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Graph depictions of how to how have anal sex is not ok for school children at school. Sorry, OP.

If you choose to instruct your children about that, it can certainly be done in your home. No one cares.

I dispute your premise. This doesn’t exist in school materials and you know it.

DP. So you clearly haven't bothered to watch the video that was put out with actual pictures from these books, found in school libraries.

EXACTLY. There’s NOTHING ok about graphic depictions of sex.

Some people here apparently have an inappropriate agenda.

+100
The gaslighting here is so typical. Apparently, if we don't want our kids exposed to inappropriate sexual material, there is something wrong with US. But nothing wrong with those who insist their kids SHOULD be exposed to it. What a joke. No wonder no one takes LW extremists seriously.

Makes me wonder if they were molested as children, or exposed to inappropriate sexual things as children and that's why they lack normal sexual boundaries. I simply was never, ever exposed to any graphic sexual content from an adult or at school except once and it made me incredibly uncomfortable. And no, I was not a virgin. But it was skeevy and inappropriate at school. Just freaking gross!!!!

I prefer to think those who are condoning these types of books in school don't have children.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The problem is that extreme examples are used now to gain support for the bill, but once passed, it allows banning books that aren’t extreme and just represent views Youngkin doesn’t like.

Exactly. That’s the problem with putting books like Gender Queer and This Book is Gay in school libraries. If parents can’t trust their schools to keep this material out of their schools, they will ask their lawmakers to do it. And that creates bad law. It shouldn’t be happening, but the people defending this material have created the opening.

Agreed. I support free speech but I don’t support the government providing sexually explicit material to children.

"I support free speech but" = "I don't support free speech"

I suggest you educate yourself. I support protected speech as currently defined by the Supreme Court which includes many exceptions including threats, defamation, selling state secrets, and obscenity.

So, obscenity. Are you saying that (for example) a Pulitzer-Prize-winning novel appeals to prurient interest and is patently offensive lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value, and therefore Governor Youngkin should be able to ban it? That's certainly an interesting point of view.

Of course not you halfwit. Youngkin nor any other politician should not be able to ban books. Youngkin is not banning the book, nor is he banning adults providing sexually explicit books to their children. He is banning the use of taxpayer dollars to provide sexually explicit content to children in public schools.

Why are you so invested in the state funds being used to provide sexual content to other people children?

"Providing sexual content to other people's children" is a super weird way to describe having books in school libraries.

If you dislike Gender Queer, here's what you can do: don't read it. Libraries are full of books you haven't read. This can be another one.

And no one is stopping you from reading genderqueer to your children.


I noticed that you failed to explain why you are fighting so hard to have schools provide sexual content to other people’s kids. Why is that?

Why would I read Gender Queer to my children? My children can read it for themselves, if they want to. Or not, if they don't. Why are you afraid of your children having access to the book Gender Queer in their school library?

This sentiment is very frightening and sad. These poor children.

This is about not exposing children to very graphic sex.

I will start asking parents before play dates if they give kids sexually graphic books or endorse them. I need to screen for creepers. I don't want my child near your house.

Any kid in HS with a phone will have access to much MUCH more sexual content than these books. The kids who would take the effort to physically go to the library and check these books out are the kids who need these books. Hearing another LGTBQ experience can be validating.

Why do kids need sex manuals?

Teens might have questions about logistics that are maybe not covered in FLE.

"Logistics?" Why do they need information about "logistics?"