Youngkin is a book banner

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

DP. Yes, actually, that is the only role of sex ed. To describe the scientific biological changes in our bodies as we go through puberty, to describe the scientific reproductive systems of human beings, and to describe the scientific sexually transmitted diseases that one can contract without practicing safe sex or abstinence. That's it.

Why so shocked? Are you disappointed that public schools aren't teaching kids about anal sex and butt plugs? No worries, you can still expose *your* kids to that information.

You seem to enjoy talking about these topics.

You seem to enjoy exposing kids to these topics.

Well, no. My kids make their own choices when they go to the library - school library or public library. And they went through the standard Maryland health curriculum. You, on the other hand, keep bringing up these very specific topics. "Gender Queer" would have sat peacefully on school library bookshelves, with few or even no kids checking it out, if the groups who have decided to further their political agendas by instigating hate against LGBTQ people hadn't made it the initial focus of their efforts. I can't imagine how they even came upon it in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In any case, it's quite clear what the book-banners are objecting to, and it's not a couple of drawings on a book on a school library bookshelf. First comes targeting books by/for/about LGBTQ people; then comes targeting LGBTQ people.

Yes, sure. You are so right. Lobbying to get pornographic images out of our school libraries definitely = "targeting LGBTQ people."

Yes, you and the other book-banners are targeting LGBTQ people.

No. We're targeting LGBT books in schools. And we're not going to stop.

Which negatively affects LGBTQ kids. You are hurting kids with your bigotry.

Psst: LGBTQ kids don't need to exposed to porn any more than straight kids do. It is so curious how desperately you want kids to see pornographic images though...

Any kid with a phone has porn at their fingertips. Nasty, nasty porn that denigrates people and misrepresents sex and relationships.

These books touch on sexual topics in a mature, educated manner.

So you haven't read the books and you have never seen TikTok.

I've done both. It's really quite something that you think the books are "mature and educated." Here's a video for you. Gather your kids around and happy viewing!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why not? In the Sex Ed. course both my teens took, how to properly have heterosexual intercourse was discussed (consent, emotions, precautions like condoms & other birth control, lubricants).

Why should cis-het teens be instructed properly and not LGBTQ teens?

Because heterosexual intercourse is how the species procreates, thus making it a part of science and biology. That is the only role of "sex education" in schools.

That is not the only role of "sex education" in schools. It's not a science class.

DP. Yes, actually, that is the only role of sex ed. To describe the scientific biological changes in our bodies as we go through puberty, to describe the scientific reproductive systems of human beings, and to describe the scientific sexually transmitted diseases that one can contract without practicing safe sex or abstinence. That's it.

Nope. It's much more than that.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/instruction/family-life-education

It's not a science class.

It's exactly what I said it was. And I bet this part just kills you:

2. The value of family relationships;

3. The value of postponing sexual activity;

4. Abstinence education;

Which parts of those are "science"?

[Anonymous]

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In any case, it's quite clear what the book-banners are objecting to, and it's not a couple of drawings on a book on a school library bookshelf. First comes targeting books by/for/about LGBTQ people; then comes targeting LGBTQ people.

Yes, sure. You are so right. Lobbying to get pornographic images out of our school libraries definitely = "targeting LGBTQ people."

Yes, you and the other book-banners are targeting LGBTQ people.

No. We're targeting LGBT books in schools. And we're not going to stop.

Which negatively affects LGBTQ kids. You are hurting kids with your bigotry.

Psst: LGBTQ kids don't need to exposed to porn any more than straight kids do. It is so curious how desperately you want kids to see pornographic images though...

Any kid with a phone has porn at their fingertips. Nasty, nasty porn that denigrates people and misrepresents sex and relationships.

These books touch on sexual topics in a mature, educated manner.

Exactly. A cartoon of a guy with a strap on is “a mature and educated manner”? Holy hell what is wrong with you?

So you haven't read the book to understand the context?

The book shares the main character deciding to slow down sexual activity. All of the abstinence education nuts should love it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In any case, it's quite clear what the book-banners are objecting to, and it's not a couple of drawings on a book on a school library bookshelf. First comes targeting books by/for/about LGBTQ people; then comes targeting LGBTQ people.

Yes, sure. You are so right. Lobbying to get pornographic images out of our school libraries definitely = "targeting LGBTQ people."

Yes, you and the other book-banners are targeting LGBTQ people.

No. We're targeting LGBT books in schools. And we're not going to stop.

Which negatively affects LGBTQ kids. You are hurting kids with your bigotry.

Psst: LGBTQ kids don't need to exposed to porn any more than straight kids do. It is so curious how desperately you want kids to see pornographic images though...

Any kid with a phone has porn at their fingertips. Nasty, nasty porn that denigrates people and misrepresents sex and relationships.

These books touch on sexual topics in a mature, educated manner.

So you haven't read the books and you have never seen TikTok.

I've done both. It's really quite something that you think the books are "mature and educated." Here's a video for you. Gather your kids around and happy viewing!

I'm guessing you "read" Gender Queer like I "read" the copy of The Thorn Birds in my middle school library. Looking at the 2-3 "dirty" pages doesn't count as actually reading the book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In any case, it's quite clear what the book-banners are objecting to, and it's not a couple of drawings on a book on a school library bookshelf. First comes targeting books by/for/about LGBTQ people; then comes targeting LGBTQ people.

Yes, sure. You are so right. Lobbying to get pornographic images out of our school libraries definitely = "targeting LGBTQ people."

Yes, you and the other book-banners are targeting LGBTQ people.

No. We're targeting LGBT books in schools. And we're not going to stop.

Which negatively affects LGBTQ kids. You are hurting kids with your bigotry.

Psst: LGBTQ kids don't need to exposed to porn any more than straight kids do. It is so curious how desperately you want kids to see pornographic images though...

Any kid with a phone has porn at their fingertips. Nasty, nasty porn that denigrates people and misrepresents sex and relationships.

These books touch on sexual topics in a mature, educated manner.

So you haven't read the books and you have never seen TikTok.

I've done both. It's really quite something that you think the books are "mature and educated." Here's a video for you. Gather your kids around and happy viewing!

BS. What is the outcome of the sexual activity in Gender Queer?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In any case, it's quite clear what the book-banners are objecting to, and it's not a couple of drawings on a book on a school library bookshelf. First comes targeting books by/for/about LGBTQ people; then comes targeting LGBTQ people.

Yes, sure. You are so right. Lobbying to get pornographic images out of our school libraries definitely = "targeting LGBTQ people."

Yes, you and the other book-banners are targeting LGBTQ people.

No. We're targeting LGBT books in schools. And we're not going to stop.

Which negatively affects LGBTQ kids. You are hurting kids with your bigotry.

Psst: LGBTQ kids don't need to exposed to porn any more than straight kids do. It is so curious how desperately you want kids to see pornographic images though...

Any kid with a phone has porn at their fingertips. Nasty, nasty porn that denigrates people and misrepresents sex and relationships.

These books touch on sexual topics in a mature, educated manner.

Exactly. A cartoon of a guy with a strap on is “a mature and educated manner”? Holy hell what is wrong with you?

So you haven't read the book to understand the context?

The book shares the main character deciding to slow down sexual activity. All of the abstinence education nuts should love it.

You do realize abstinence is to prevent pregnancy, right? Which isn't even relevant in this case. Look, we've all read the books. The gaslighting and stupidity on your end is just so over-the-top. With every post, you're making a fool of yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In any case, it's quite clear what the book-banners are objecting to, and it's not a couple of drawings on a book on a school library bookshelf. First comes targeting books by/for/about LGBTQ people; then comes targeting LGBTQ people.

Yes, sure. You are so right. Lobbying to get pornographic images out of our school libraries definitely = "targeting LGBTQ people."

Yes, you and the other book-banners are targeting LGBTQ people.

No. We're targeting LGBT books in schools. And we're not going to stop.

Which negatively affects LGBTQ kids. You are hurting kids with your bigotry.

Psst: LGBTQ kids don't need to exposed to porn any more than straight kids do. It is so curious how desperately you want kids to see pornographic images though...

Any kid with a phone has porn at their fingertips. Nasty, nasty porn that denigrates people and misrepresents sex and relationships.

These books touch on sexual topics in a mature, educated manner.

Exactly. A cartoon of a guy with a strap on is “a mature and educated manner”? Holy hell what is wrong with you?

So you haven't read the book to understand the context?

The book shares the main character deciding to slow down sexual activity. All of the abstinence education nuts should love it.

You do realize abstinence is to prevent pregnancy, right? Which isn't even relevant in this case. Look, we've all read the books. The gaslighting and stupidity on your end is just so over-the-top. With every post, you're making a fool of yourself.

So anal sex between a male and female is considered abstinence?

If you read the books, you'd understand the context and outcome. Which you clearly don't.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why not? In the Sex Ed. course both my teens took, how to properly have heterosexual intercourse was discussed (consent, emotions, precautions like condoms & other birth control, lubricants).

Why should cis-het teens be instructed properly and not LGBTQ teens?

Because heterosexual intercourse is how the species procreates, thus making it a part of science and biology. That is the only role of "sex education" in schools.

That is not the only role of "sex education" in schools. It's not a science class.

DP. Yes, actually, that is the only role of sex ed. To describe the scientific biological changes in our bodies as we go through puberty, to describe the scientific reproductive systems of human beings, and to describe the scientific sexually transmitted diseases that one can contract without practicing safe sex or abstinence. That's it.

Nope. It's much more than that.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/instruction/family-life-education

It's not a science class.

It's exactly what I said it was. And I bet this part just kills you:

2. The value of family relationships;

3. The value of postponing sexual activity;

4. Abstinence education;

Yep. Poor thing is probably dying on the inside.

Discussing relationship of all sorts and presenting abstinence as an option are great. It's not the only option though - certainly not the one that most teens take.

Oddly, abstinence is an option that the book Gender Queer actually promotes. You'd think the abstinence-only people would totally support it! Weird that they don't.

https://wapercyfoundation.org/?p=1269

[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:In any case, it's quite clear what the book-banners are objecting to, and it's not a couple of drawings on a book on a school library bookshelf. First comes targeting books by/for/about LGBTQ people; then comes targeting LGBTQ people.

Yes, sure. You are so right. Lobbying to get pornographic images out of our school libraries definitely = "targeting LGBTQ people."

Yes, you and the other book-banners are targeting LGBTQ people.

No. We're targeting LGBT books in schools. And we're not going to stop.

Which negatively affects LGBTQ kids. You are hurting kids with your bigotry.

Psst: LGBTQ kids don't need to exposed to porn any more than straight kids do. It is so curious how desperately you want kids to see pornographic images though...

Any kid with a phone has porn at their fingertips. Nasty, nasty porn that denigrates people and misrepresents sex and relationships.

These books touch on sexual topics in a mature, educated manner.

Exactly. A cartoon of a guy with a strap on is “a mature and educated manner”? Holy hell what is wrong with you?

So you haven't read the book to understand the context?

The book shares the main character deciding to slow down sexual activity. All of the abstinence education nuts should love it.

You do realize abstinence is to prevent pregnancy, right? Which isn't even relevant in this case. Look, we've all read the books. The gaslighting and stupidity on your end is just so over-the-top. With every post, you're making a fool of yourself.

So anal sex between a male and female is considered abstinence?

If you read the books, you'd understand the context and outcome. Which you clearly don't.

There you are, using one of those phrases again that you so seem to enjoy using.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Why not? In the Sex Ed. course both my teens took, how to properly have heterosexual intercourse was discussed (consent, emotions, precautions like condoms & other birth control, lubricants).

Why should cis-het teens be instructed properly and not LGBTQ teens?

Because heterosexual intercourse is how the species procreates, thus making it a part of science and biology. That is the only role of "sex education" in schools.

That is not the only role of "sex education" in schools. It's not a science class.

DP. Yes, actually, that is the only role of sex ed. To describe the scientific biological changes in our bodies as we go through puberty, to describe the scientific reproductive systems of human beings, and to describe the scientific sexually transmitted diseases that one can contract without practicing safe sex or abstinence. That's it.

Nope. It's much more than that.
https://www.doe.virginia.gov/teaching-learning-assessment/instruction/family-life-education

It's not a science class.

It's exactly what I said it was. And I bet this part just kills you:

2. The value of family relationships;

3. The value of postponing sexual activity;

4. Abstinence education;

Yep. Poor thing is probably dying on the inside.

Discussing relationship of all sorts and presenting abstinence as an option are great. It's not the only option though - certainly not the one that most teens take.

True, which is why FLE also discusses birth control and sexually transmitted diseases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In any case, it's quite clear what the book-banners are objecting to, and it's not a couple of drawings on a book on a school library bookshelf. First comes targeting books by/for/about LGBTQ people; then comes targeting LGBTQ people.

Yes, sure. You are so right. Lobbying to get pornographic images out of our school libraries definitely = "targeting LGBTQ people."

Yes, you and the other book-banners are targeting LGBTQ people.

No. We're targeting LGBT books in schools. And we're not going to stop.

Which negatively affects LGBTQ kids. You are hurting kids with your bigotry.

Psst: LGBTQ kids don't need to exposed to porn any more than straight kids do. It is so curious how desperately you want kids to see pornographic images though...

Any kid with a phone has porn at their fingertips. Nasty, nasty porn that denigrates people and misrepresents sex and relationships.

These books touch on sexual topics in a mature, educated manner.

So you haven't read the books and you have never seen TikTok.

I've done both. It's really quite something that you think the books are "mature and educated." Here's a video for you. Gather your kids around and happy viewing!

I'm guessing you "read" Gender Queer like I "read" the copy of The Thorn Birds in my middle school library. Looking at the 2-3 "dirty" pages doesn't count as actually reading the book.

You guess wrong. It's not a long book, nor is it literature. Of course I've read it.

[Anonymous]

Checking back in 5 pages later to see if anyone actually provided evidence that these books are being made widely available in school libraries and still don't see any such evidence.

If you can't provide it then you should be asking yourself why not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:In any case, it's quite clear what the book-banners are objecting to, and it's not a couple of drawings on a book on a school library bookshelf. First comes targeting books by/for/about LGBTQ people; then comes targeting LGBTQ people.

Yes, sure. You are so right. Lobbying to get pornographic images out of our school libraries definitely = "targeting LGBTQ people."

Yes, you and the other book-banners are targeting LGBTQ people.

No. We're targeting LGBT books in schools. And we're not going to stop.

Which negatively affects LGBTQ kids. You are hurting kids with your bigotry.

Psst: LGBTQ kids don't need to exposed to porn any more than straight kids do. It is so curious how desperately you want kids to see pornographic images though...

Any kid with a phone has porn at their fingertips. Nasty, nasty porn that denigrates people and misrepresents sex and relationships.

These books touch on sexual topics in a mature, educated manner.

So you haven't read the books and you have never seen TikTok.

I've done both. It's really quite something that you think the books are "mature and educated." Here's a video for you. Gather your kids around and happy viewing!

BS. What is the outcome of the sexual activity in Gender Queer?

Which part? The use of the strap on which the narrator decides she doesn't like after all? The masturbation scenes? The phone sex? Which sexual activity are you referring to?