Youngkin is a book banner

[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: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.

Sorry, I’m not the anal sex obsessed person from earlier.

Legit question. If abstinence is to prevent pregnancy, then is anal sex ok? Or what about sex with highly-effective contraception?

[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.

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?

After all of it. What is the outcome?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
You do realize abstinence is to prevent pregnancy, right? [/b] 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.

That's what it was about? So we could have skipped all of the chewed-gum metaphors and purity balls and "modest is hottest" stuff and instead just educated everybody about using effective contraception when engaged in potentially procreative activities? Now you tell us.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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: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.

They are available in some HS libraries. Or they were when this whole thing first blew up.

Not going to point out which ones because the religious nutters will go attack those schools.

[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.

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.

What were the main themes? Outcome? Who would benefit from reading this book?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

Because they are homophobes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

They are available in some HS libraries. Or they were when this whole thing first blew up.

Not going to point out which ones because the religious nutters will go attack those schools.

So the book was found in 2 libraries and the far right is going ballistic and is passing all kinds of laws criminalizing libraries.

But hundreds of mass shootings and kids being blasted to pieces in their schools and they don't give a damn and refuse to do a single thing.

[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.

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.

"Is it a book that you would even wish your wife or servants to read?”

https://daily.jstor.org/would-you-let-your-servant-read-this-book/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

No, hon, a troll is the person who makes claims but can't provide any evidence when asked to back it up.

That'd be YOU.

[Anonymous]

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.

Please name 1 heterosexual graphic porn book - with graphic sex images - at schools so we can ban those too.

**crickets**

https://www.marshall.edu/library/bannedbooks/its-perfectly-normal/

*crickets*

[Anonymous]

The NYT writes an entire article about schools all over the country having this book in their libraries, but the troll keeps on trolling. Too funny.

[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.

Abstinence DOES NOT prevent pregnancy. Maybe some of you forgot that in Florida, of all places, they tried abstinence-only sex education and teen pregancy rates skyrocketed.

[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:

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?"

Have you ever had trouble working through your own sexuality or gender?

Have you ever come out?

Have you ever had gay sex?

1) It's helpful to have those things normalized.
2) Some tips might actually be helpful.

Oh please.

These things can't be "normalized," because they are not. Exposing kids to this in school will only drag down more children. But some of you apparently don't care about that.

What do you mean by "drag down more children"? Make these teens gay?

Still waiting on the answer to this.

And how the other poster thinks parental controls work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The NYT writes an entire article about schools all over the country having this book in their libraries, but the troll keeps on trolling. Too funny.

"This spring, after a member of Moms For Liberty [sic] submitted a complaint about “Gender Queer” to the Wappingers Central School District in upstate New York, the book was removed from a high school library. It had never been checked out. A committee of teachers, parents and educators reviewed it, and determined that it was not inappropriate and should be returned. The superintendent, citing sexually explicit images, overruled the committee and brought the issue to the school board, which voted unanimously to uphold the ban."