LGBTQ books in public school libraries

@Packerjohn you said it well. While I believe public awareness and tolerance is important…I also believe the biggest issues are hidden in smoke screen provided by the uproar. It is much easier to blow up about abortion or rights for obese people than to address global warming, water, plastics and over population. Books being banned will impact a small portion of people for a short amount of time. The big forest is lost by a tree.
 

Sunny said:
several parents (in Maryland, of all places!) who have removed their kids from their public school because of some of the books in the library about gay or transgender kids
Click to expand...

Wow, that is really sad for their children if any of them turn out to be transgender or gay. I suppose those parents are OK with the bible being in the library because the gay sex in that book is condemned as sinful?

Three (I guess?) decades ago when rights of gay people started showing up in the news I was shocked and disapproving because I'd grown up in a culture that condemned homosexuality on religious authority. But after I'd learned it was biological and normal, and other cultures and religions viewed it as normal and acceptable, and then after gay marriage was legalized and to my surprise people I was friends with (one of whom was a schoolteacher) got married (and a coworker transitioned to the opposite sex), well, then I felt bad that people had been having to live their lives hiding aspects of themselves and having to feel fear and shame over being perfectly normal humans.

So now I feel that of course the school library should have books with gay or transgender people just as much as they should have books of heterosexual people, because a portion of the kids, teachers, and librarians are too, and it should be normalized.
 
"In fact after watching the film I wasn't sure how the STDs were transmitted, it appeared that getting too close to the wrong girl would do it.."


Alligatorob, in my day the boys thought that was how you got cooties.
 

Muskrat said:
I think we should expect our libraries to provide current and well written content. I also was reading early and way way above my grade level. I could read a book at a very rapid pace. Any book that discussed content my mother was uncomfortable with would of been old news in a matter of days. In other words…no big deal. Exposure to alternative lifestyles…or political views is necessary to promote the type of critical thinking that people need to negotiate an ever changing world.
Click to expand...
The problem is not that a school library contains obscure books that a grammer school child as young as five might stumble across and decide to read. The books in question are required reading as part of class course material. Maryland state law requires that parents be allowed to opt their children out, but the law suit apparently contends that the school did not offer an opt out choice.

"Last fall, new "inclusivity" books were introduced for students in pre-K through eighth grade that "promote one-sided transgender ideology, encourage gender transitioning, and focus excessively on romantic infatuation — with no parental notification or opportunity to opt out," according to the lawsuit.
One book tasks three- and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes "intersex flag," "drag queen," "underwear," "leather," and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and "sex worker".
Another book advocates a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, telling students that a decision to transition doesn't have to "make sense"; teachers are instructed to tell children that doctors only "guess" when identifying a newborn's sex anyway.
The learning guide to another book about a playground same-sex romance invites school kids to share with classmates how they feel when they "don't just 'like' but … 'like like'" someone."
https://www2.cbn.com/news/us/parent...out-their-kids-mandatory-lgbtq-themed-lessons
 
ElCastor, your quote is from CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network), and contains wild accusations about these books, without ever once specifically citing where the quotes are found. I find their accusations very dubious and really, kind of hysterical. Saying "one book says" and "another book says" without naming the books doesn't do much for their case.

Here's part of the Washington Post article I mentioned in the OP.

At a school board meeting Thursday, Niki Hazel, the associate superintendent of curriculum and instructional programs, reinforced the state guidelines. Hazel emphasized during a question-and-answer session with the school board members that the books are not lessons on sexuality.

“Fundamentally, diversity is a good thing; inclusion is a good thing. By providing these diverse and inclusive texts, by aligning ourselves and following state guidance on when opt out is appropriate, we are doing a service to our students,” said Arvin Kim, the school board’s student representative and a senior at Walt Whitman High School.

The complaint points to passages from the books that the parents find to be inappropriate and inconsistent with their values. For example, they point to a line in “Love Violet” where the protagonist, Violet, describes how her classmate Mira makes her “heart skip.” They also point out specific parts of “Pride Puppy,” a story about a dog that takes off during a Pride parade. At the beginning of the book, there is a “search and find word list” that encourages readers to look for objects throughout the picture book like an “intersex [flag],” “leather,” and “underwear,” which the complaint notes. The list also contains objects like muffins, a recycling bin and ripped jeans.

The families’ attorneys plan to ask in federal court for the current no opt-out policy to be blocked.

They also ask for the school districts to award the parents damages since they have been “forced to pursue other educational opportunities for their children.”
 
ElCastor said:
The problem is not that a school library contains obscure books that a grammer school child as young as five might stumble across and decide to read. The books in question are required reading as part of class course material. Maryland state law requires that parents be allowed to opt their children out, but the law suit apparently contends that the school did not offer an opt out choice.

"Last fall, new "inclusivity" books were introduced for students in pre-K through eighth grade that "promote one-sided transgender ideology, encourage gender transitioning, and focus excessively on romantic infatuation — with no parental notification or opportunity to opt out," according to the lawsuit.
One book tasks three- and four-year-olds to search for images from a word list that includes "intersex flag," "drag queen," "underwear," "leather," and the name of a celebrated LGBTQ activist and "sex worker".
Another book advocates a child-knows-best approach to gender transitioning, telling students that a decision to transition doesn't have to "make sense"; teachers are instructed to tell children that doctors only "guess" when identifying a newborn's sex anyway.
The learning guide to another book about a playground same-sex romance invites school kids to share with classmates how they feel when they "don't just 'like' but … 'like like'" someone."
https://www2.cbn.com/news/us/parent...out-their-kids-mandatory-lgbtq-themed-lessons
Click to expand...
I'd be very interested in seeing which books these were. Books designed for 3-4 year olds (who typically cannot read) to find words or images like an intersex flag, drag queen, leather, etc.???

Sorry, but I'm a skeptic. That the link comes from CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network - a fundamentalist entity) hardly bolsters confidence that theirs isn't a highly exaggerated story.

Betting they didn't object to books that mention families with male and female parents, or those who mention of God, Jesus, the Bible, Ten Commandments, etc.
 
And I was thinking exactly the same thoughts as you, Starsong, although you put it a lot better. 3-4 year olds? Please, gimme a break!

(I'd be willing to bet that this is the same mentality that kept (and is still) loudly accusing the pharmaceutical companies of poisoning the general public with their anti-Covid vaccine! 😁
 
Well from what I gather with my senile pea brain…the lawsuit is because the school board is not mandating the schools use the “opt out” policy…which is the law. So they could discuss tiddlywinks at story time without a parent being able to opt their child out. This is not what the original question was…my pea brain says the original question was about library content. Correct me if I misread the original question. I am ever vigilant of eatly onset dementia….
 
When you think back to your youth, what was the most exciting book you wanted to read. Usually the ones that some people said were unacceptable for us. We went out of our way to get them. We might not have even noticed if there hadn’t been so much sanctimonious discussion of them. Those books became exciting.
 
Jules said:
When you think back to your youth, what was the most exciting book you wanted to read. Usually the ones that some people said were unacceptable for us. We went out of our way to get them. We might not have even noticed if there hadn’t been so much sanctimonious discussion of them. Those books became exciting.
Click to expand...
At ages 3 and 4 I was still being read to. In my teens I was bombarded by required school reading and had little time for outside reading. However, at about 16 I read Valley of the Dolls. I wouldn't even remember reading it except that (in the words we used then) my father had a cow over it. :p

TBH, most of it went over my head anyway. My life experience and understanding of the celebrity world was so limited that I didn't understand a lot of what was going on.

Kind of reminds me of the fuss people made/make over song lyrics. Even though kids know every word, they rarely pay attention to what the words are actually saying.
 
Jules said:
When you think back to your youth, what was the most exciting book you wanted to read. Usually the ones that some people said were unacceptable for us. We went out of our way to get them. We might not have even noticed if there hadn’t been so much sanctimonious discussion of them. Those books became exciting.
Click to expand...
Well, my friend's Mom kept True Romance magazines. During sleepovers we snuck them away. They were very risque. 💋
 
I get the feeling that the majority here are saying - this is all a fuss about nothing really and become too exagerated - lets calm down a bit and let the kids get on with their multiskilled schooling which is far far more productive then say "home schooling" which has always seemed crass to me?
 
OMG!!!
Books that can be read or not are available to young minds in public school libraries is just outrageous. <------ sarcasm in case anyone doesn't recognize that as being sarcastic.

I wonder if those parents think OK to expose them to that & more in their daily interaction with visual & vocal media.
 
StarSong said:
I'd be very interested in seeing which books these were. Books designed for 3-4 year olds (who typically cannot read) to find words or images like an intersex flag, drag queen, leather, etc.???

Sorry, but I'm a skeptic. That the link comes from CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network - a fundamentalist entity) hardly bolsters confidence that theirs isn't a highly exaggerated story.
Click to expand...
The minimum required school age in Maryland is 5, not 3-4, and the books are being used as course material, not necessarily required reading. If you find the CBN suspect, here is something from Bloomberg. If that doesn‘t work there are others.

“The board initially confirmed that parents had the right to be notified about the books and request alternate instructional material for their children, the plaintiffs say. But it reversed that position in March, according to the complaint. The board announced that although parents still may remove their children from “family life and human sexuality” curriculum, they may not be excused from instruction with the inclusive materials, plaintiffs say.
This policy infringes on their First Amendment speech and religious rights and 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the law. It also violates their rights under the Maryland Constitution, the plaintiffs say.
They want an injunction blocking the board from requiring their children —and other students whose parents object—to read, listen to, or discuss the books. They also want the board to provide advance notice when the materials will be used.”
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litig...sue-to-opt-kids-out-of-lgbtq-book-instruction
 
ElCastor said:
The minimum required school age in Maryland is 5, not 3-4, and the books are being used as course material, not necessarily required reading. If you find the CBN suspect, here is something from Bloomberg. If that doesn‘t work there are others.

“The board initially confirmed that parents had the right to be notified about the books and request alternate instructional material for their children, the plaintiffs say. But it reversed that position in March, according to the complaint. The board announced that although parents still may remove their children from “family life and human ******ity” curriculum, they may not be excused from instruction with the inclusive materials, plaintiffs say.
This policy infringes on their First Amendment speech and religious rights and 14th Amendment right to equal protection under the law. It also violates their rights under the Maryland Constitution, the plaintiffs say.
They want an injunction blocking the board from requiring their children —and other students whose parents object—to read, listen to, or discuss the books. They also want the board to provide advance notice when the materials will be used.”
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litig...sue-to-opt-kids-out-of-lgbtq-book-instruction
Click to expand...
I think the op posted this about library books not course material. The opening line

Quote
"Today's paper had an article about several parents (in Maryland, of all places!) who have removed their kids from their public school because of some of the books in the library about gay or transgender kids, animals who were "gay," etc."
 
Knight said:
OMG!!!
Books that can be read or not are available to young minds in public school libraries is just outrageous. <------ sarcasm in case anyone doesn't recognize that as being sarcastic.

I wonder if those parents think OK to expose them to that & more in their daily interaction with visual & vocal media.
Click to expand...
As I have said in another post, the books are being used as course material for children as young as five.
 
Knight said:
I think the op posted this about library books not course material. The opening line

Quote
"Today's paper had an article about several parents (in Maryland, of all places!) who have removed their kids from their public school because of some of the books in the library about gay or transgender kids, animals who were "gay," etc."
Click to expand...
The books are much more than residents of a shelf waiting for someone to check them out …

“Montgomery County public schools graduate Max Guttman said he supports the school system’s new policy, which instructs teachers to use LGBTQ+ lessons and texts with all students.”

https://cbs2iowa.com/news/nation-wo...-ready-the-true-story-of-a-boy-named-penelope
 
I learned to read at four and loved the library, however, the children's floor was separate from the adult library and you needed an adult card to check those adult books out. I seem to remember thirteen as the age to get an adult card and even then some of the books like, "Lady Chatterley's Lover," were in a locked case and probably not lent out to very young teens. I don't think there was anything in the entire Charleston library that had explicit sex, straight or otherwise, described. The first time I read anything like that I was 18 and read "Boys and Girls Together."

So now kids have the internet so anything they can find on the internet should be taught in schools? Bestiality? Torture sex? I don't think so. Good parents have locks on their system to protect their children from things that will disturb them and almost anything about sex, straight sex included, is slightly frightening and disturbing to preteens. Once they go through puberty and start to feel desire for sex is when they can hear about it without being upset.

It's a harsh world out there, do we have to ruin their childhood so they'll be prepared for adulthood? When I was a kid I had no idea what my parents did in the bedroom and yet I had no trouble at all figuring it all out later.
StarSong said:
Betting they didn't object to books that mention families with male and female parents, or those who mention of God, Jesus, the Bible, Ten Commandments, etc.
Click to expand...
This is not about mentioning families with same sex parents which has been fine in schools for ages. It's about graphic details that I really don't think very young children need to know about.

Of course they wouldn't be teaching the Bible or stories about Jesus that has been against the law in public schools for years.
 
Nathan said:
I imagine that locals that would seek to ban books that reference LGBTQ+ matters would also be looking at banning or restricting publications that present historical accounts of slavery. Talk about "cancel culture".
Click to expand...
They aren’t banning either. Their objection is the use of LGBTQ material in the instruction of their children, an objection which seems to be supported by State law. What’s next, CRT in Grammar School?
 
Here's another way of looking at this: Back in the ancient days when I went to school, each school day was started out with the teacher reading from the Bible, and the class reciting the Lord's Prayer. This was followed by the Pledge of Allegiance. This was in a public school.
(It was finally ended in my state, NJ, around 1960).

If parents objected, their kid was excused and could stand out in the hall during the prayer or the Pledge. You can imagine how popular this was with the kids. Inevitably, those children who were excused felt ostracized, were mocked and insulted, etc. Kids are that way; they can be very cruel. The last thing a kid usually wants is to be "different."

Thank goodness I wasn't one of them; my parents were the type that just went along. So I recited those words every day for years, and grew up to be an atheist anyway, though I guess the Pledge part stuck; I do feel allegiance to this country, most of the time, anyway.

My point is, these kids aren't being "protected" from anything. If they want to read those books, they will find a way to read them. And banning them will just make them much more attractive.

What are these parents (and more to the point, the religious fanatics who are scaring them) so afraid of? Do they think their children will catch the disease of gayness? If Heather has two mommies, do they think their children will grow up rejecting their father? Haven't these people ever learned to think?

And this stuff about teaching human sexuality to 3-4 year old babies has got to be utter nonsense. At that age, they like nursery rhymes and books about colors, farm animals, simple words, etc. Something like Goodnight, Moon, and the Muppets, especially Elmo. If the parents want to remove their kids from public school and send them to academies of religious indoctrination, that is their right. But I draw the line at being asked to pay the bill. It will be interesting to see how this issue plays out.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top