Hannah Natanson at it again

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her stories all have an angle from the far left, including this article. How about an article about the straight up pornography in Gender Queer? How would it compare to pornography books not allowed in school libraries?

It’s not “pornography”. Stop pushing lies.

It shows a man giving fellatio to another man. Is that no longer considered pornography?

It’s ok because it’s illustrated, not an actual picture. That makes it artsy and “challenging.” LOL.

In all seriousness I don’t have a huge problem with HS age kids and up reading those kind of graphic novels, but come on - they shouldn’t be offered in school libraries. When I was in HS we had to get parental permission to watch Schindler’s List in history class as 15/16 year olds because it was R rated, and yes there were parents who didn’t allow it and those kids had to do another project for the week.

1. You are referencing Gender Queer, not Lawn Boy. Lawn Boy is not a graphic novel.
2. Gender Queer does not show a man giving fellatio to another man.
I've read both. You clearly have not.
This is exactly why reporters like Hannah Natanson should be fired. People rely on reporters at news sources such as The Washington Post to report on news after doing their research. She always seems scant on details and clearly didn't read either book, which lead to widespread misinformation about the books.

The only one trafficking in misinformation is yourself about Gender Queer. Please cite that Gender Queer doesn't show that (we'll be waiting...forever).

…one of them does not have a penis and is using a strap on. And btw, the scene ends w one of them being uncomfortable with the situation, stopping, and having an honest conversation with their partner. Is it something a 12 year old needs to read? No, in my personal opinion. Is it something that a nonbiary teen might benefit from reading? Or really any teen who needs a model of what a healthy relationship in which boundaries are respected would benefit from? Yes, in my opinion.

But to get back at the topic at hand, Hannah Natanson is the one spreading misinformation by doing some subpar reporting.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her stories all have an angle from the far left, including this article. How about an article about the straight up pornography in Gender Queer? How would it compare to pornography books not allowed in school libraries?

It’s not “pornography”. Stop pushing lies.

It shows a man giving fellatio to another man. Is that no longer considered pornography?

It’s ok because it’s illustrated, not an actual picture. That makes it artsy and “challenging.” LOL.

In all seriousness I don’t have a huge problem with HS age kids and up reading those kind of graphic novels, but come on - they shouldn’t be offered in school libraries. When I was in HS we had to get parental permission to watch Schindler’s List in history class as 15/16 year olds because it was R rated, and yes there were parents who didn’t allow it and those kids had to do another project for the week.

1. You are referencing Gender Queer, not Lawn Boy. Lawn Boy is not a graphic novel.
2. Gender Queer does not show a man giving fellatio to another man.
I've read both. You clearly have not.
This is exactly why reporters like Hannah Natanson should be fired. People rely on reporters at news sources such as The Washington Post to report on news after doing their research. She always seems scant on details and clearly didn't read either book, which lead to widespread misinformation about the books.

+1
She does not actually research. She uses press releases and a few easy to get interviews sometimes to top it up

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her stories all have an angle from the far left, including this article. How about an article about the straight up pornography in Gender Queer? How would it compare to pornography books not allowed in school libraries?

It’s not “pornography”. Stop pushing lies.

It shows a man giving fellatio to another man. Is that no longer considered pornography?

It’s ok because it’s illustrated, not an actual picture. That makes it artsy and “challenging.” LOL.

In all seriousness I don’t have a huge problem with HS age kids and up reading those kind of graphic novels, but come on - they shouldn’t be offered in school libraries. When I was in HS we had to get parental permission to watch Schindler’s List in history class as 15/16 year olds because it was R rated, and yes there were parents who didn’t allow it and those kids had to do another project for the week.

1. You are referencing Gender Queer, not Lawn Boy. Lawn Boy is not a graphic novel.
2. Gender Queer does not show a man giving fellatio to another man.
I've read both. You clearly have not.
This is exactly why reporters like Hannah Natanson should be fired. People rely on reporters at news sources such as The Washington Post to report on news after doing their research. She always seems scant on details and clearly didn't read either book, which lead to widespread misinformation about the books.

The only one trafficking in misinformation is yourself about Gender Queer. Please cite that Gender Queer doesn't show that (we'll be waiting...forever).

…one of them does not have a penis and is using a strap on. And btw, the scene ends w one of them being uncomfortable with the situation, stopping, and having an honest conversation with their partner. Is it something a 12 year old needs to read? No, in my personal opinion. Is it something that a nonbiary teen might benefit from reading? Or really any teen who needs a model of what a healthy relationship in which boundaries are respected would benefit from? Yes, in my opinion.

But to get back at the topic at hand, Hannah Natanson is the one spreading misinformation by doing some subpar reporting.

Natanson isn't much of a journalist, but then again the Post isn't much of a newspaper or FCPS much of a premier school system any longer.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her stories all have an angle from the far left, including this article. How about an article about the straight up pornography in Gender Queer? How would it compare to pornography books not allowed in school libraries?

It’s not “pornography”. Stop pushing lies.

It shows a man giving fellatio to another man. Is that no longer considered pornography?

It’s ok because it’s illustrated, not an actual picture. That makes it artsy and “challenging.” LOL.

In all seriousness I don’t have a huge problem with HS age kids and up reading those kind of graphic novels, but come on - they shouldn’t be offered in school libraries. When I was in HS we had to get parental permission to watch Schindler’s List in history class as 15/16 year olds because it was R rated, and yes there were parents who didn’t allow it and those kids had to do another project for the week.

1. You are referencing Gender Queer, not Lawn Boy. Lawn Boy is not a graphic novel.
2. Gender Queer does not show a man giving fellatio to another man.
I've read both. You clearly have not.
This is exactly why reporters like Hannah Natanson should be fired. People rely on reporters at news sources such as The Washington Post to report on news after doing their research. She always seems scant on details and clearly didn't read either book, which lead to widespread misinformation about the books.

Lawn Boy doesn’t even have that.

PP clearly has no clue what she’s outraged about.

Illiterati strikes again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her stories all have an angle from the far left, including this article. How about an article about the straight up pornography in Gender Queer? How would it compare to pornography books not allowed in school libraries?

It’s not “pornography”. Stop pushing lies.

It shows a man giving fellatio to another man. Is that no longer considered pornography?

It’s ok because it’s illustrated, not an actual picture. That makes it artsy and “challenging.” LOL.

In all seriousness I don’t have a huge problem with HS age kids and up reading those kind of graphic novels, but come on - they shouldn’t be offered in school libraries. When I was in HS we had to get parental permission to watch Schindler’s List in history class as 15/16 year olds because it was R rated, and yes there were parents who didn’t allow it and those kids had to do another project for the week.

1. You are referencing Gender Queer, not Lawn Boy. Lawn Boy is not a graphic novel.
2. Gender Queer does not show a man giving fellatio to another man.
I've read both. You clearly have not.
This is exactly why reporters like Hannah Natanson should be fired. People rely on reporters at news sources such as The Washington Post to report on news after doing their research. She always seems scant on details and clearly didn't read either book, which lead to widespread misinformation about the books.

Lawn Boy doesn’t even have that.

PP clearly has no clue what she’s outraged about.

Illiterati strikes again.

Does she really need to be fired just because Lawn Boy doesn't depict pedophilia, but rather two ten year boys having oral sex with each other in a passage in a book meant for adults? Confusing voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn with pedophilia could be just an honest mistake by one who doesn't view this type of material on a regular basis.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her stories all have an angle from the far left, including this article. How about an article about the straight up pornography in Gender Queer? How would it compare to pornography books not allowed in school libraries?

It’s not “pornography”. Stop pushing lies.

It shows a man giving fellatio to another man. Is that no longer considered pornography?

It’s ok because it’s illustrated, not an actual picture. That makes it artsy and “challenging.” LOL.

In all seriousness I don’t have a huge problem with HS age kids and up reading those kind of graphic novels, but come on - they shouldn’t be offered in school libraries. When I was in HS we had to get parental permission to watch Schindler’s List in history class as 15/16 year olds because it was R rated, and yes there were parents who didn’t allow it and those kids had to do another project for the week.

1. You are referencing Gender Queer, not Lawn Boy. Lawn Boy is not a graphic novel.
2. Gender Queer does not show a man giving fellatio to another man.
I've read both. You clearly have not.
This is exactly why reporters like Hannah Natanson should be fired. People rely on reporters at news sources such as The Washington Post to report on news after doing their research. She always seems scant on details and clearly didn't read either book, which lead to widespread misinformation about the books.

Lawn Boy doesn’t even have that.

PP clearly has no clue what she’s outraged about.

Illiterati strikes again.

Does she really need to be fired just because Lawn Boy doesn't depict pedophilia, but rather two ten year boys having oral sex with each other in a passage in a book meant for adults? Confusing voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn with pedophilia could be just an honest mistake by one who doesn't view this type of material on a regular basis.

Does anyone have an opinion why the American Library Association President, Emily Drabinski, a self-described Marxist, find that this material is ‘critical information,’ for children to have access to?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her stories all have an angle from the far left, including this article. How about an article about the straight up pornography in Gender Queer? How would it compare to pornography books not allowed in school libraries?

It’s not “pornography”. Stop pushing lies.

It shows a man giving fellatio to another man. Is that no longer considered pornography?

It’s ok because it’s illustrated, not an actual picture. That makes it artsy and “challenging.” LOL.

In all seriousness I don’t have a huge problem with HS age kids and up reading those kind of graphic novels, but come on - they shouldn’t be offered in school libraries. When I was in HS we had to get parental permission to watch Schindler’s List in history class as 15/16 year olds because it was R rated, and yes there were parents who didn’t allow it and those kids had to do another project for the week.

1. You are referencing Gender Queer, not Lawn Boy. Lawn Boy is not a graphic novel.
2. Gender Queer does not show a man giving fellatio to another man.
I've read both. You clearly have not.
This is exactly why reporters like Hannah Natanson should be fired. People rely on reporters at news sources such as The Washington Post to report on news after doing their research. She always seems scant on details and clearly didn't read either book, which lead to widespread misinformation about the books.

Lawn Boy doesn’t even have that.

PP clearly has no clue what she’s outraged about.

Illiterati strikes again.

Does she really need to be fired just because Lawn Boy doesn't depict pedophilia, but rather two ten year boys having oral sex with each other in a passage in a book meant for adults? Confusing voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn with pedophilia could be just an honest mistake by one who doesn't view this type of material on a regular basis.

Does anyone have an opinion why the American Library Association President, Emily Drabinski, a self-described Marxist, find that this material is ‘critical information,’ for children to have access to?

Citation? How does she define "children"?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her stories all have an angle from the far left, including this article. How about an article about the straight up pornography in Gender Queer? How would it compare to pornography books not allowed in school libraries?

It’s not “pornography”. Stop pushing lies.

It shows a man giving fellatio to another man. Is that no longer considered pornography?

It’s ok because it’s illustrated, not an actual picture. That makes it artsy and “challenging.” LOL.

In all seriousness I don’t have a huge problem with HS age kids and up reading those kind of graphic novels, but come on - they shouldn’t be offered in school libraries. When I was in HS we had to get parental permission to watch Schindler’s List in history class as 15/16 year olds because it was R rated, and yes there were parents who didn’t allow it and those kids had to do another project for the week.

1. You are referencing Gender Queer, not Lawn Boy. Lawn Boy is not a graphic novel.
2. Gender Queer does not show a man giving fellatio to another man.
I've read both. You clearly have not.
This is exactly why reporters like Hannah Natanson should be fired. People rely on reporters at news sources such as The Washington Post to report on news after doing their research. She always seems scant on details and clearly didn't read either book, which lead to widespread misinformation about the books.

Lawn Boy doesn’t even have that.

PP clearly has no clue what she’s outraged about.

Illiterati strikes again.

Does she really need to be fired just because Lawn Boy doesn't depict pedophilia, but rather two ten year boys having oral sex with each other in a passage in a book meant for adults? Confusing voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn with pedophilia could be just an honest mistake by one who doesn't view this type of material on a regular basis.

Does anyone have an opinion why the American Library Association President, Emily Drabinski, a self-described Marxist, find that this material is ‘critical information,’ for children to have access to?

Citation? How does she define "children"?

And we start the leftist dance to pivot away from the three previous posts.
https://thevirginiastar.com/2022/04/26/self-described-marxist-lesbian-elected-next-president-of-american-library-association/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Lawn Boy isn’t appropriate. You don’t have to be a RWNJ to see that!

\

Every time you post this, I think you're talking bout the real housewives of New Jersey.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her stories all have an angle from the far left, including this article. How about an article about the straight up pornography in Gender Queer? How would it compare to pornography books not allowed in school libraries?

It’s not “pornography”. Stop pushing lies.

It shows a man giving fellatio to another man. Is that no longer considered pornography?

It’s ok because it’s illustrated, not an actual picture. That makes it artsy and “challenging.” LOL.

In all seriousness I don’t have a huge problem with HS age kids and up reading those kind of graphic novels, but come on - they shouldn’t be offered in school libraries. When I was in HS we had to get parental permission to watch Schindler’s List in history class as 15/16 year olds because it was R rated, and yes there were parents who didn’t allow it and those kids had to do another project for the week.

1. You are referencing Gender Queer, not Lawn Boy. Lawn Boy is not a graphic novel.
2. Gender Queer does not show a man giving fellatio to another man.
I've read both. You clearly have not.
This is exactly why reporters like Hannah Natanson should be fired. People rely on reporters at news sources such as The Washington Post to report on news after doing their research. She always seems scant on details and clearly didn't read either book, which lead to widespread misinformation about the books.

+1
She does not actually research. She uses press releases and a few easy to get interviews sometimes to top it up

And she's fed stories by her friends - go back and read her articles and see how she quotes the same people over and over and over again.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her stories all have an angle from the far left, including this article. How about an article about the straight up pornography in Gender Queer? How would it compare to pornography books not allowed in school libraries?

It’s not “pornography”. Stop pushing lies.

It shows a man giving fellatio to another man. Is that no longer considered pornography?

It’s ok because it’s illustrated, not an actual picture. That makes it artsy and “challenging.” LOL.

In all seriousness I don’t have a huge problem with HS age kids and up reading those kind of graphic novels, but come on - they shouldn’t be offered in school libraries. When I was in HS we had to get parental permission to watch Schindler’s List in history class as 15/16 year olds because it was R rated, and yes there were parents who didn’t allow it and those kids had to do another project for the week.

1. You are referencing Gender Queer, not Lawn Boy. Lawn Boy is not a graphic novel.
2. Gender Queer does not show a man giving fellatio to another man.
I've read both. You clearly have not.
This is exactly why reporters like Hannah Natanson should be fired. People rely on reporters at news sources such as The Washington Post to report on news after doing their research. She always seems scant on details and clearly didn't read either book, which lead to widespread misinformation about the books.

Lawn Boy doesn’t even have that.

PP clearly has no clue what she’s outraged about.

Illiterati strikes again.

Does she really need to be fired just because Lawn Boy doesn't depict pedophilia, but rather two ten year boys having oral sex with each other in a passage in a book meant for adults? Confusing voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn with pedophilia could be just an honest mistake by one who doesn't view this type of material on a regular basis.

Does anyone have an opinion why the American Library Association President, Emily Drabinski, a self-described Marxist, find that this material is ‘critical information,’ for children to have access to?

Citation? How does she define "children"?

And we start the leftist dance to pivot away from the three previous posts.
https://thevirginiastar.com/2022/04/26/self-described-marxist-lesbian-elected-next-president-of-american-library-association/

LOL. The Virginia Star. RWNJ trash rag that gets the facts wrong and doesn’t even share a quote from her saying the above.

Next.

[Anonymous]

Wait. Do the RWNJs actually use the Virginia Star as a “news” source? No wonder you are so ignorant and misinformed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the important type of research that Natanson is undertaking as a Post reporter. Rather than pay any attention to declining academic achievement, decade-long overcrowding that has gone ignored at several FCPS high schools, or what exactly Dr. Michelle Reid means when she says she is committed to ensuring "equal outcomes" for FCPS students, Natanson quibbles with a local parent upset about a book that its own author has said was not intended for children:

"She zeroed-in on the same scene of oral sex that troubled Burkman in Texas. She became convinced, wrongly, that “Lawn Boy” shows fellatio taking place between an adult and a boy. In fact, the book describes a man in his 20s meeting another man in his 20s and remembering the consensual sexual encounter they shared in fourth grade."

Thanks so much for that critical clarification, Hannah. You are a rock star.

Nothing wrong with calling out RWNJ lies when they are being used to attack our schools and children.

You LWNJs have gone so far down the rabbit hole (and maybe other holes as well) that you don’t even realize that what you’re “clarifying” is still wildly inappropriate.

Do your kids have smartphones? Because if "wildly inappropriate" is your concern, I have something to tell you about those phones, sweetie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Her stories all have an angle from the far left, including this article. How about an article about the straight up pornography in Gender Queer? How would it compare to pornography books not allowed in school libraries?

It’s not “pornography”. Stop pushing lies.

It shows a man giving fellatio to another man. Is that no longer considered pornography?

It’s ok because it’s illustrated, not an actual picture. That makes it artsy and “challenging.” LOL.

In all seriousness I don’t have a huge problem with HS age kids and up reading those kind of graphic novels, but come on - they shouldn’t be offered in school libraries. When I was in HS we had to get parental permission to watch Schindler’s List in history class as 15/16 year olds because it was R rated, and yes there were parents who didn’t allow it and those kids had to do another project for the week.

1. You are referencing Gender Queer, not Lawn Boy. Lawn Boy is not a graphic novel.
2. Gender Queer does not show a man giving fellatio to another man.
I've read both. You clearly have not.
This is exactly why reporters like Hannah Natanson should be fired. People rely on reporters at news sources such as The Washington Post to report on news after doing their research. She always seems scant on details and clearly didn't read either book, which lead to widespread misinformation about the books.

Lawn Boy doesn’t even have that.

PP clearly has no clue what she’s outraged about.

Illiterati strikes again.

Does she really need to be fired just because Lawn Boy doesn't depict pedophilia, but rather two ten year boys having oral sex with each other in a passage in a book meant for adults? Confusing voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn with pedophilia could be just an honest mistake by one who doesn't view this type of material on a regular basis.

Does anyone have an opinion why the American Library Association President, Emily Drabinski, a self-described Marxist, find that this material is ‘critical information,’ for children to have access to?

Citation? How does she define "children"?

And we start the leftist dance to pivot away from the three previous posts.
https://thevirginiastar.com/2022/04/26/self-described-marxist-lesbian-elected-next-president-of-american-library-association/

LOL. The Virginia Star. RWNJ trash rag that gets the facts wrong and doesn’t even share a quote from her saying the above.

Next.

It has the video of her interview where she makes that statement. You are not argument is now what was meant by ‘children,’ in the context of her statement. It certainly wasn’t adults as she mentions safety concerns for herself and her staff. Which isn’t relevant to the following post:

“Does she really need to be fired just because Lawn Boy doesn't depict pedophilia, but rather two ten year boys having oral sex with each other in a passage in a book meant for adults? Confusing voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn with pedophilia could be just an honest mistake by one who doesn't view this type of material on a regular basis.”

So the issue isn’t if Lawn Boy is pedophilia, but rather voyeurism for adults fantasizing about child porn. Is that material appropriate for inclusion in school libraries? Is someone a right wing nutjob or a homophobic bigot because they don’t want their middle or high schooler exposed to that? More importantly, why do you think it’s important for children to have that access to that material? If a child feels that they can relate to scenes of child pornography, in this case, two ten year old boys giving each other oral, is that signs of a larger problem? Do adults have a legitimate concern when it’s being pushed as ‘critical information,’ and that it may be designed to desensitize them to sex at a young age?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is the important type of research that Natanson is undertaking as a Post reporter. Rather than pay any attention to declining academic achievement, decade-long overcrowding that has gone ignored at several FCPS high schools, or what exactly Dr. Michelle Reid means when she says she is committed to ensuring "equal outcomes" for FCPS students, Natanson quibbles with a local parent upset about a book that its own author has said was not intended for children:

"She zeroed-in on the same scene of oral sex that troubled Burkman in Texas. She became convinced, wrongly, that “Lawn Boy” shows fellatio taking place between an adult and a boy. In fact, the book describes a man in his 20s meeting another man in his 20s and remembering the consensual sexual encounter they shared in fourth grade."

Thanks so much for that critical clarification, Hannah. You are a rock star.

Nothing wrong with calling out RWNJ lies when they are being used to attack our schools and children.

You LWNJs have gone so far down the rabbit hole (and maybe other holes as well) that you don’t even realize that what you’re “clarifying” is still wildly inappropriate.

Do your kids have smartphones? Because if "wildly inappropriate" is your concern, I have something to tell you about those phones, sweetie.

Well, if they have scenes of two ten years olds giving each other oral sex, the police would likely be involved as it would clearly be child porn. I don’t think the argument that a concern about child porn is overblown because it’s everywhere and easily accessible, because it isn’t. Most looking for that stuff do so by going on the dark web. Why make its accessibility easier and seek children being exposed to it?