Reply to Hannah Natanson at it again

Forum Index » Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS)

Reply to "Hannah Natanson at it again"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]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?[/quote]

It’s not “pornography”. Stop pushing lies. [/quote]

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

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. [/quote]

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. [/quote]

Lawn Boy doesn’t even have that.

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

Illiterati strikes again. [/quote]

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.

[/quote]

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?[/quote]

Citation? How does she define "children"? 
[/quote]

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/[/quote]

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. 
[/quote]

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? [/quote]

So many logic fails here.

1. Lawn Boy not porn/child porn. Or pedophilia. Neither is Gender Queer. Seriously, you STILL have no idea what is in either book? Find a legit news source. Or, you know, actually pick up a book.

2. It’s important for some older teens, not 12 year olds. That’s why I was asking about her definition of “children”. No one is saying that young children should have access to these books at school.

3. If your concern is exposure to sexual content, this is seriously the least of your worries. 
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics