No one would bat an eye at banning films or websites from schools that have the content that some of these books have. But because, for some reason, anything that is in text on paper form appears to be more "intellectual" and culturally valuable, it's viewed as a form of oppression.
I am not saying I support it, I just don't understand why books are put on a pedestal compared to all other forms of media.
> No one would bat an eye at banning films or websites from schools that have the content that some of these books have.
Only some of these books? It's already hard to defend censorship with saying "it deserved to be censored", but it's even harder if you walk it back to "well, at least some of it deserved to be censored".
I think there's a pretty big difference between seeing something recorded or reproduced on screen in HD with audio and having that same thing be described in text.
Another example of the same phenomenon, perhaps, is the respect given to people who have written a novel compared to the respect given to people who have done journalism. Since I like novels I am not particularly annoyed by this phenomenon, but it does seem strange.
When I was in high school, I always found the problem to be teachers who were ... lacking in education (due to the compensation available for such jobs). There were at least a few, including the school principal, who were working against this, but against a large majority of teachers bringing in their ideology it worked, at best, only to prevent the worst.
These are public, tax-funded schools we're talking about here. Parents who really want their 10 year old to learn about BDSM practices or breast removal surgeries can still get them those books on their own dime.
> Parents who really want their 10 year old to learn about BDSM practices or breast removal surgeries can still get them those books on their own dime.
The vast majority of those 9999 books could just as easily (and far more likely than not) contain zero mention of those two subjects entirely. No, somedude895 was just using extreme examples without evidence or context to justify the banning of more than 10,000 books as though even if one or two out of the more than 10,000 books did somehow happen to mention those topics that it would justify such ridiculous censorship.
I'd say that its an injustice if children are banned from learning about a significant proportion of the population of earth, such as gay people or trans people.
Also what are the 72 genders you had in mind specifically?
So the solution to kids having a lack of knowledge is to not allow them to access knowledge? I feel like this is just teaching them there's something wrong with learning about gay people, when there's nothing wrong with learning about gay people. What would that do to a gay child? What exactly is wrong with someone being attracted to someone of the same gender?
You want to hide the fact that gay and trans people exist from children? Why?
Besides, children will go through puberty, and they will get to experience a whole lot of hormonally driven urges which, it may surprise you, have quite a lot to do with sex.
Want to promote teen pregnancies, STDs, unrealistic views of sex gleaned from porn, and ignorance about sex, consent, and intimacy? Then ban books and any other publicly scrutinized sources of knowledge suitable for them, and just let them figure it out themselves.
We help children learn about society, language, maths, and science, but sexuality is somehow off-limits?
As of today there are many concepts or things that society decided that arent good for kids and they are 18/21 age restricted.
And now: is the topic of transgender people important and appropiate for them? I'd say no. Transgender people are very, very tiny population and the topic itself is milion times overblown by media.
Changing gender may easily fuckup your life and % of the cases where it is viable idea is tiny
As someone currently going through this, you have to talk to a lot of people about it before you can do anything regarding being trans. The only way its fucked up my life is now there are a lot of people who hate me for some reason, apart from that I've been happier now that I'm able to live the way I prefer. As are all my trans friends. Do you mean that only a tiny percentage of the world should transition, or that a tiny percentage of those with gender dysphoria should transition?
Avoid talking about any and all things you deem uncomfortable and strange. Reject the identity and existence of millions of people until it's "appropriate".
Maybe we should ship all transgender people to a reservation so that children don't interact with them until it's age appropriate? It's so simple!
Honestly sometimes I wish they could ship us all off to somewhere else so we don't have to deal with transphobes anymore. Just somewhere remote with good internet where we can all live in peace
We could say the exact same thing about any class of people. Let's ban all books about Asians, or about women. "Children can learn about them when they grow up." right?
The reality is that some children are Asian. Their own parents and siblings may be one of those kinds of people. They will encounter those kinds of people in their daily lives right now. They will probably have questions about them and the differences between those people and others. It's good for curious children to be able to explore and learn about the world around them. Why create arbitrary limits on what kinds of people they can or cannot learn about?
Obviously any kind of material, entertainment/cultural or educational, should be age appropriate and fortunately very few children are interested in literature written for a much older audience. If some 6 year old has the attention span and ability to understand complex works by all means let them read them. It's also the job of teachers and parents to contextualize and discuss with children the complex topics they are interested in exploring, not to hide it from them entirely so that they stay ignorant.
When I was under 12 I was completely unprepared and incapable to handling this kind of information. My concerns were playing videogames, watching cartoons, and playing soccer. I didn't think at all about sexuality, much less gender anything.
I have no idea what kind of damage to my idea of self this kind of information being pushed onto me would have caused, especially when at that time I was the bullied kid for being short and nerdy, girls especially would always mock me for that reason. Maybe it would have caused none. I always saw school as lame, I did the bare minimum and always had good grades. Maybe it would have been a class that I just didn't pay any attention to.
It was a different time back then though. The Internet only became a thing when I was already 13, and at that point things had changed quite a bit for me.
Kids these days seem to be exposed to some... er... "objectionable" material a lot earlier. Now that I am a father, I do worry about what kind of information my daughter will receive once she grows up and goes to school. Not sure how people deal with this sort of stuff nowadays.
We all have our own individual experience when we pass into adulthood, but keep in mind there was a time that being a "nerd" was far less socially acceptable to your parents growing up than when you were growing up.
When I was a kid, a parent on the radio said this about gay marriage: "I am the gatekeeper for what is socially acceptable for my child."
I asked my Dad about that statement, and he said pretty clearly "That's an unrealistic expectation of what parenthood is. You're more of a bodyguard or secret service. You can listen and provide context, do your best to stop your child from being put into danger, but you cannot stop, control or manage a child's, much less a teenagers, world experience."
I grew up in the 80s and 90s for that matter. Being a nerd was being an outcast. Not socially acceptable at all. I find it ironic (and in many ways disgraceful) that being a nerd became sort of mainstream.
Back in the day a parent was absolutely the gatekeeper of what was socially acceptable to a child. Nowadays, probably less so.
Teenagers were always uncontrollable. Try to control them and they will defy you. I know I did, and essentially every other teenager I came in contact with.
I think you're viewing your parents experience of gatekeeper through their own perceptions and biases. You're an atheist, and I assume a first generation atheist, what was your path towards that belief if they really had that level of control over your lived experience, worldview, and knowledge?
> You're an atheist, and I assume a first generation atheist, what was your path towards that belief if they really had that level of control over your lived experience, worldview, and knowledge?
I became an atheist when I was a teenager. Before that the idea of religion was just something taught to me by my parents. I was taught to pray and that there was a God above, and all that. (It was actually a bit more complicated than that, as my parents had different religions each).
I was, however, given the freedom to explore my own ideas about religion and to develop my own views about the world once I was a little older. Honestly, I think they handled it all quite well.
For that matter, if my daughter decides to be religious once she grows up a little, she will also have my support.
My way to view this is that while she is a baby and later a small girl I am fully responsible for her. As she grows up, the more I will be on the background, and her own ideas will take the center stage instead. As I usually say "I'll teach her everything I can, she will learn everything she wants".
This isn't about watching porn, and while it might not be a problem for someone "below 12" to access to certain content, there is very little that 17 and 18 year olds should be prevented from reading.
Because the banned books are not about 72 genders and porn.
Do you actually believe they are, or are you just repeating the right-wing outrage memes?
> They aren't supposed to care about these things and it just confuses them.
K-12 in the US means education up to and including 12th grade. That's (roughly) 17 year olds at the far end. Puberty starts quite a bit before that.
Of course, for preteens learning about sexual orientations makes sense. Quite a lot of people are queer you know, and that's not a crime at the moment (although I'm sure that is something some people in Iowa would like).
Have you been to library recently? I have. A huge portion of the books are wildly inappropriate for kids, and they’re in the kids section. Books are not as you remember from your childhood.
There’s a glut of material telling very young kids that they’re the wrong gender or gay. No 7 year old is anything other than what their parents tell them. If they had their way, they would be fairy dinosaurs.
This was featured at my local regional library in the area for kids 5-10. Look through the “readers also enjoyed” and I’ve seen books either like that or those books exactly in kids sections.
My closest library is the same, possibly worse since the selection is smaller but they seem to have every gender bent book ever released.
But... that's not telling kids they're the wrong gender any more than the film Billy Elliot is telling boys that they're playing the wrong sport. It's just relating a child's experience.
It also looks very much like it's targeted at teens and young adults. Amazon lists the reading age as "16-17 years" [0]. If it's in the 5-10yo section, I would say that's the library's mistake rather than a push from the trans community.
Not sure what you mean by this... are you accusing them of deliberately under-aging trans related books?
> Telling a child they may be something they’re not
This is already a weaker statement than "telling kids they're the wrong gender". And I don't think that the linked book even goes that far. "Some kids feel this way" is very different to "you feel this way" and 16-17 year olds are normally smart enough to tell the difference.
> I personally know parents telling their kids that they are the wrong gender.
That sounds awful. Although to be frank I wonder if you're also making this sound worse than is actually the case. Either way I'm not sure it's relevant.
I haven't noticed with n=2. I guess that can vary alot.
I have small children and have been to the local library and it hadn't changed much. Nothing edgy but a strange book about different kind of feces I kinda found distasteful.
Many books make you wonder what the authors were high on while painting. But that is an old question.
There are books with 'two mums' children. But I guess you are describing something else, like some sort of over the top push?
There has to be some consensus among the school, school library and parent body, about what in general should be in the library.
If the state think it needs to take action there is a deeper problem and they are just virtue signaling.
There's no good reason. This is just more of "don't say gay" nonsense. It's meant to pull people into a culture war so that politicians can win points without solving any real issues.
The article is part of ongoing reporting on the issue of book bans in the US. Previous articles in the Guardian (but also other news sources) have focussed on specific legislation already. If you want to find out more about the reasons books are banned, you could start here on the website of PEN America:
Dig in a little, and you can find out how the various state laws are used, like Tennessee's HB 843 which effectively bans any book containing nudity in school libraries for anyone under 18.
The reason these books are banned is not explicitly mentioned in those laws of course.
> Tennessee's HB 843 which effectively bans any book containing nudity for anyone under 18.
It also forbids "sexual excitement", "sexual conduct", and "excess violence" which means that it bans the bible, books on mythology, every single history textbook, just about anything Shakespeare ever wrote, and pretty much any book with a character who has a love interest.
I'm fine with the idea that some books aren't appropriate to be read by younger people, but a lot of those bans seem to be about wanting children to not be intellectually aware of anything not sanctioned by the board of censors (Really? Banning a book about that gay couple of penguins at New York's Zoo?).
Every book removed/withheld should be replaced by a volume explaining why it was withheld, in terms a child can understand. Some of these bans wouldn't have happened because even children could've seen how full of shit some adults are.
>intellectually aware of anything not sanctioned by the board of censors
You are aware that this already happens without bans, right?
The ultimate board of censors is the school and library staff that decides on your behalf what kind of books you and your kids should be exposed to.
It's not like the school library is some sort of the Great Library of Alexandria and the censors came to take out the "good stuff".
What happens is that the library staff is in position to censor and proselytize their ideologies and weird secular religions. These bans really are aimed at library staff than restricting childrens access to read whatever they want.
I'm used to most libraries being part of a national system of libraries, which will get you volumes shipped from another one if they don't have it there.
Local curation doesn't mean much
since your main interface to those libraries nowadays is a digital one that has pretty much any physical media with an ISBN in it, from where you can request non-locally-available media.
Maybe the states operate differently and (school) libraries are more independent. Most schools here don't have their own library at all and instead rely on the nearest public one...
If a book isn't taken out of the shelves for two-three years, I would be very surprised it stays there. Where I worked, it would have been sent to the reserve, and only be out for some events (for our 'burned books' week we had 'all is quiet on the western front' in multiple languages, including German, and other book burned by Fascisti and nazis, and that's how I discovered this masterpiece).
I highly doubt school libraries function any differently. Every year you receive a magazine with books who received prizes/recommendations, you move older books that aren't read to the reserve and command new ones. In my country, you especially have the 'highschooler prize' (not sure how to translate it), which is voted upon by students from 50 different highschool accross the country, and the winners are always recommended by the magazine.
My advice would be, rather than preventing librarians to do their job, maybe write better books? Prevent new commands rather than remove already existing books? Because putting 'Go Tell It on the Mountain' on the shelves isn't ideology, just good taste. Removing it is.
What really grind my gear is that I would bet censors don't read or review books. Book reviewing was a staple of my curriculum from 11 to 16, so I imagine it isn't hard. Censors should have to write at least a book review a year, graded (not to prevent them to censor, just publish the grade so we could see their reading level).
> What really grind my gear is that I would bet censors don't read or review books
Changing that would require to put educated people in schools ... and that would require competing with senior-level jobs in private companies which at this point would be a doubling or tripling or even more of teacher pay in quite a few places.
How you can tell if the library staff is the "ultimate board of censors" is their behaviour after a child requests a book.
Most library boards are very happy to order any book that is requested by multiple students. My daughter's high school library contains a lot of manga that would never have been ordered by any "ultimate board of censors".
But this isn't about books children want to read at all, is it?
Do these concerned parents (censors) want to take off Harry Poters and The Hobbit and similar in demand youth literature?
Doesn't look like it at all.
As far as I can tell, kids aren't interested in most of the weird shit what's getting restricted from the school library. The only people that are concerned about the books in question being restricted in public schools are ideologues that want to peddle their weirdo stuff to kids.
Can you explain in some more detail the specific “ideologies” and “weirdo stuff” you think librarians are peddling in schools? You’re alluding to something specific but for some reason won’t say it?
Also, I know several parents who would love to see Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings banned because they say they are about the Occult and demons and Anti-Christian and so on. Many are vocal about it at school board meetings. I don’t think librarians should give in to these bullies, either.
>Also, I know several parents who would love to see Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings
I'm sure there are.
But was Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings restricted? Or literature kids want to read? No?
Then you don't have an argument.
If the books that were restricted are of no interest to kids, nor does their parents want their kids exposed to it by ideologically driven librarians or teachers, I don't see any issue in it whatsoever.
If a person wants to desperately peddle books with sexual content to underaged kids (that have no interest in seeking those particular books themselves), against their parents will and consent and then get very upset when parents do restrict this content in a public school library no less, then surely I'd say they follow a weird ideology.
>Also, Harry Potter constantly tops lists of most-banned books in libraries.
Well, then that is clearly bad.
The article does clearly communicate and wear it's convictions on it's sleave about what it is concerned about, and I see no mention of Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings there.
What is the harm in making a book available to check out? You keep using the word “peddle” as if librarians are promoting these so-called controversial books over others. If you actually visit a school library (I do because I have a kid in grade school), you’ll see almost always it’s the already-popular books that get into the choice spots in the front of the library. The kid who wants to read about puberty has to search the bowels of the library basement for it.
I think the people who spend the most time in school libraries must be the Book Banners, desperately looking high and low for something to be outraged about.
The only weird ideology youve cited so far is “human sexuality” which is neither weird nor an ideology.
Kids will definitely request most of the "weird shit" books that make the news simply because they are banned. They're not interested in "weird shit", but very interested in looking at anything parents don't want them to look at.
Sex is all religious fundamentalists can wrap their heads around, because their small, rigid, hetero-normative worldview cannot condone or understand the spectrum of unique beauty that is gender identity.
The structure and forms of communication kids have at their fingertips these days provides plenty of ways to explore these topics, unfortunately mixed in with low quality or possibly dangerous content.
I think those who push back hard against these topics are accelerating a counter-reaction, and I'm here for it. This is a weird thing to obsess against.
I am not at all a religious fundamentalist. Actually an atheist, and I am all support for people being whatever they want to be. It's your life, it is your right to be happy the way you want to be, gender identity and all.
But I really don't want that being pushed into my daughter at a young age, not until she can mount her own idea of what she is. Much in the same way I don't want religion being pushed into her from a young age, not until she can have an idea of how she views the world.
Is the ability for your daughter to read about gender identity and sexual orientation pushing it on her? The bans are targeting books that even have characters in them that are non-standard, not only books that are telling your child to become trans and gay (Are there even any books that are doing that? I've never seen any)
> Is the ability for your daughter to read about gender identity and sexual orientation pushing it on her?
Yes. That is the literal definition of having information pushed on to her.
The ideas contained within whatever book would not pop up on her mind out of thin air, they would be contained in the text. As a father, who is responsible for her health, well-being, education, happiness and future, I want her to occupy her mind with things more suitable for a child.
I won't give her the Bible for the same reason.
> The bans are targeting books that even have characters in them that are non-standard, not only books that are telling your child to become trans and gay (Are there even any books that are doing that? I've never seen any)
I don't know. And honestly, I don't care. She has the world to explore at her young age, and there is so much more in the universe. I want to leave themes of sexual orientation and gender identity to be explored at a later stage, when her body and mind are more suited to such things. If at that point she wants to be whatever, she will have my support. I want her happiness after all.
> The ideas contained within whatever book would not pop up on her mind out of thin air
You say that as if your child won't hear about these topics from their peers. Some of whom will have lesbian or gay parents. Some of whom will be trans. All you're doing is making your child work off hearsay instead of accurate information.
> I want to leave themes of sexual orientation and gender identity to be explored at a later stage
Really? Then why are you dressing them in stereotypically girl clothing, calling them "her", and exposing them to the heterosexual relationship between you and your wife?
Exposing a child to something doesn't make them that thing. The proof for that is very simple: Exposing a girl to a boy doesn't make her a boy. Exposing a child to a heterosexual relationship doesn't make them heterosexual.
Instead, exposing children to drag queens and gays and lesbians and asexuals and trans individuals means that there's a the greater the chance they will choose to continue to live if they are something other than a CIS gendered girl attracted to boys. It means they won't feel like they're broken or wrong or hated. Suicide is a very real problem for children encouraged to remain in the closet.
Exposing children to information is how they learn. It's better if the information is accurate.
> I want her happiness after all.
Apparently only if it matches your definition of who "she" is, or after you feel that "she" is "old enough" (whatever TF that means).
> You say that as if your child won't hear about these topics from their peers. Some of whom will have lesbian or gay parents. Some of whom will be trans. All you're doing is making your child work off hearsay instead of accurate information.
Yes. She will likely hear about God from peers with religious parents. Are you suggesting I teach her the Bible so she gets "accurate information"?
Part of my job as a father is helping her develop her intellectual stance on "hearsay".
> Really? Then why are you dressing them in stereotypically girl clothing, calling them "her", and exposing them to the heterosexual relationship between you and your wife?
Because as a father I have to make choices on her behalf, with her well being in mind. And I am heterosexual, so that is the sort of environment she is exposed to.
> Exposing a child to something doesn't make them that thing.
Absolutely, she will be gradually exposed to many things and situations as she grows. All things in due time.
> It means they won't feel like they're broken or wrong or hated. Suicide is a very real problem for children encouraged to remain in the closet.
There will, unavoidably, come a time when she will come to understand her own sexuality, how she views her body, etc and so forth. Typically this happens at around puberty, at least that is how it worked for basically everyone I know, myself included. She will have my full support no matter her choices. Until then my role is to help her develop the best way I can.
> Exposing children to information is how they learn. It's better if the information is accurate.
It's also important that the information comes at a proper age.
> Apparently only if it matches your definition of who "she" is, or after you feel that "she" is "old enough" (whatever TF that means).
Right now it has to match my definition of who she is, because she can't meaningfully make any choices on her own. She can't even choose what brand of baby formula I give her, much less what pronoums I use to refer to her in the third person. Your sarcastic quotation marks do very little to support your rationale.
And I made it clear what I mean by "old enough". Some subjects are complex, and demand a certain level of maturity to be properly tackled.
> Part of my job as a father is helping her develop her intellectual stance on "hearsay".
And what stance will you set with them to avoid discussing sexual orientation (or religion) when they report that their friend Austin has two moms? Or when their other friend Keesha says that two moms being together is wrong and God will send them to burn in hell?
> And I am heterosexual, so that is the sort of environment she is exposed to.
Which is my point. You are exposing your child to sexual and gender concepts - you're just limiting the exposure the ones you feel are normal.
> Typically this happens at around puberty, at least that is how it worked for basically everyone I know, myself included.
Gender identity in particular has nothing to do with physical sexual maturity. It happens much earlier in life. And putting off any talks about gender identity until puberty starts means that the child in question will have changes forced upon their body that they may not want to live with at that point in time, even if they chose to remain their gender assigned to them at birth.
General preferences in attraction also start to manifest much earlier than 13; I remember knowing that I liked girls back in first grade.
> It's also important that the information comes at a proper age.
What age is proper to start teaching, say, math at? If a child can not comprehend geometry, is it too early to teach them how to count?
Acknowledging that women can like women and men can like men and sometimes people aren't attracted to either one and all of those are OK and normal, that's something that can be done quite early in life. So can the acknowledgement that someone can be born a girl and grow up as a boy and that too is OK. Neither requires any discussion of the mechanics of sex, nor do they require sexual, physical, or mental maturity.
> Right now it has to match my definition of who she is, because she can't meaningfully make any choices on her own. She can't even choose what brand of baby formula I give her[...]
My rationale is aimed at more than your child's years as a baby. They won't be a baby for long, and if you're determined to bury your (and by extension their) head in the sand until they're 13 is going to do them no favors.
Thankfully, your child is young enough that you have time to think about it.
> when they report that their friend Austin has two moms?
Depends on what kind of child she is, and how old she is, I think.
A dismissive reply of the sorts of "Yeah, some children have two moms. It is unusual, but it happens" is a likely answer. No reasom to make a fuss about it. If children are picking on the Austin kid for having lesbian moms, I'll try to teach her to be polite to the kid.
Children can be cruel sometimes. I know I used to be.
> Or when their other friend Keesha says that two moms being together is wrong and God will send them to burn in hell?
That one I have been debating myself how to address. Not specifically about some religious parent on a screed about gay people going to hell, but how to explain to her in simple terms that God, Hell, and so on are fictional ideas, allegories to try to explain the world, in a way that a child can understand, that is.
> Which is my point. You are exposing your child to sexual and gender concepts - you're just limiting the exposure the ones you feel are normal.
Yes, absolutely.
> What age is proper to start teaching, say, math at? If a child can not comprehend geometry, is it too early to teach them how to count?
Depends. My father started to teach me some simple math concepts when I was around 3 or 4. I already could do simple addition and subtraction when I started school, for example.
I plan to nudge her with those concepts when it comes time to play with her, but she has to show interest too. Forcing does nothing good.
> Acknowledging that women can like women and men can like men and sometimes people aren't attracted to either one and all of those are OK and normal, that's something that can be done quite early in life. So can the acknowledgement that someone can be born a girl and grow up as a boy and that too is OK. Neither requires any discussion of the mechanics of sex, nor do they require sexual, physical, or mental maturity.
I fundamentally disagree with basically everything written there. At a too young age she will be ill-equiped to understand the consequences of her choices, both at a personal level and at a social level.
> My rationale is aimed at more than your child's years as a baby. They won't be a baby for long, and if you're determined to bury your (and by extension their) head in the sand until they're 13 is going to do them no favors.
I can only do my best, to the best of my judgement. As she gradually grows and builds her own interests and desires, my plan is to be a sort of guide, helping her navigate a complex (and sometimes malevolent) world.
I can at most nudge her in some directions, but ultimately I can't really force anything.
Yes, of course. But some things requires being practical. The girl has to be dressed. She needs her hair combed and styled. I buy her toys.
And yes, it is all very cute and girly. But she is also still a baby, and the wife would hang me by the balls if I bought our baby daughter boy's clothes.
Not that I would anyway. It melts my heart seeing her in her tiny little dresses, with cute headbands and all.
The practical part is that this is the societal default. And while she is a child there will be many benefits in just following that. As I said, she will have space to explore themes of sexuality and gender once her age is more suitable. Until then, she is the little princess.
That's the challenge being presented, why isn't the societal default to call a child "They" until they identify with a particular pronoun? Have you asked them if they like dresses over pants? Do they like trains over dolls?
I'm not criticizing your parenting style or approach, but this should be about about them, not society or you or your wife. They might go through a phase where they prefer being called or boy, or an ostrich, or reject every label, and it doesn't have to be a crisis, it's just a normal part of growing up.
> That's the challenge being presented, why isn't the societal default to call a child "They" until they identify with a particular pronoun?
I don't know. I don't make the rules. I just follow. What I can tell is that challenging the rules come at a price. I don't want to impose that price on my daughter. If she wants to challenge societal rules (against my advice) when she is old enough to do so, she will have my support.
> Have you asked them if they like dresses over pants? Do they like trains over dolls?
Asking her things now is foolish. She is only months old.
If she prefers playing with cars and trains rather than dolls, I will buy her cars and trains.
To be frank, I think all those are lame. I will try to nudge her into liking puzzles, board games, painting, that sort of stuff. And later on videogames. I dream of the day she will be old enough to play Mario Kart with me and beat me.
> I'm not criticizing your parenting style or approach, but this should be about about them, not society or you or your wife
I agree, but that will be at an age when she can meaningfully build her own idea of self. Right now she cries when her nappies are dirty, and likes when I make her sleep walking arond the bedroom holding her against my chest. I don't think she can mount an intellectual defense about her own gender identity, or about religion, or any such complex subjects.
Yeah I will admit that considering you have a daughter literally a month old, they can't yet express their individuality and separateness from others, but I think you should be prepared for these challenging questions far more early on than you'd expect.
Many parents aren't assigning a gender at birth. Many have same-sex parents. Many parents are hateful, and have kids who they've taught their hatred towards. "I don't know. I don't make the rules. I just follow." isn't something I'm personally comfortable with or passing on to my children. There's consequences to following the rules as much as breaking them (if they are even rules to begin with).
> I think you should be prepared for these challenging questions far more early on than you'd expect.
Maybe. I have no idea what her interests and desires will be, nor do I control them. I can at best try to nudge them in certain directions, and offer what little guidance and support I can when the time comes.
What I can say in the subject of sexuality and gender, is that it was something I was completely uninterested in until I was closer to puberty. My peers were pretty much the same. I have the impression that younger generations are dealing with it much earlier. I am not sure if this is healthy. I tend to think it is not.
> "I don't know. I don't make the rules. I just follow." isn't something I'm personally comfortable with or passing on to my children.
One of my main challenges is guiding my daughter on how to navigate a world that at best is uninterested in her happiness and well being, and at worst is outright malevolent.
Part of this challenge is teaching her that society has many expectations of her, and choosing what mountains to climb and what hills to die on is something that is part of life.
Since sexuality and gender are very touchy subjects, I can give many other examples. She is expected to go through school, no matter if she wants to. When she is older she is expected to have skills that are of use in a system of work and bosses that you have to adhere to in order to have a functional life. I can go on and on about the very many things that are imposed on everyone by a careless, harsh, and unfair world.
Not following rules is typically a luxury of the elites. While I am thankfully much more affluent than my parents were, we are far from rich.
I'm not sure of the details for this set of "banned" books, but I recall the previous "scandal". It ends up that school libraries have limited space, so some books were removed in favor of others. The media claimed that the removed books were banned even though kids were allowed to read their copy, bring their copy with them to school and even write a book report on them.
So I would take this article with a grain of salt.
Why you trying to run interference for this article?
A book ban can take many forms, it can be diminished access, it can be explicit removal, it can be shuffled to a back room to make room for other content. What is common though, is administration, the school board, or legislature being the impetus in the decision of the removal of content.
> The media claimed that the removed books were banned even though kids were allowed to read their copy
This statement is why I’m thinking you’re not arguing in good faith.
Parents are free to buy used books or borrow books for their kids in the local library. My school growing up didn't even have a library, so most of my reading came from used books. Schools do well in steering cleer of controversial topics, I don't think it's their job to preach politics or religion.
91 comments
[ 3.2 ms ] story [ 168 ms ] threadI am not saying I support it, I just don't understand why books are put on a pedestal compared to all other forms of media.
Only some of these books? It's already hard to defend censorship with saying "it deserved to be censored", but it's even harder if you walk it back to "well, at least some of it deserved to be censored".
Out of 10,000 books, I expect that there is at least one that can fairly be labeled as "what reactionary weirdo wanted that banned?"
Not everything is appropriate for children. That's just the reality of what children are.
Not everything that someone protests (or even a bunch of people protest) is inappropriate. That's just the reality of what grownups are.
So, yes, it's really easy to defend (some) censorship for children. It's hard to defend all censorship that claims to be "for children".
You can explore this yourself by reading something like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Station_nightclub_fire and then seeking out video of the event, seeing the bodies and hearing the screams.
In your option was Roots (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roots:_The_Saga_of_an_American...) teaching 10 years olds about BDSM practices or breast removal surgeries? That book was banned.
Thus the rest of 9999 books could easily have many on the subject.
> The toubob humiliate Kunta and the other captives by stripping them naked, examining them in every orifice and burning them with hot irons.
Also what are the 72 genders you had in mind specifically?
Not everyting is good for kids who lack of knowledge and life experience
Besides, children will go through puberty, and they will get to experience a whole lot of hormonally driven urges which, it may surprise you, have quite a lot to do with sex.
Want to promote teen pregnancies, STDs, unrealistic views of sex gleaned from porn, and ignorance about sex, consent, and intimacy? Then ban books and any other publicly scrutinized sources of knowledge suitable for them, and just let them figure it out themselves.
We help children learn about society, language, maths, and science, but sexuality is somehow off-limits?
As of today there are many concepts or things that society decided that arent good for kids and they are 18/21 age restricted.
And now: is the topic of transgender people important and appropiate for them? I'd say no. Transgender people are very, very tiny population and the topic itself is milion times overblown by media.
Changing gender may easily fuckup your life and % of the cases where it is viable idea is tiny
She was prescribed testosterone at her first appointment with Planned Parenthood. There was basically no gatekeeping.
Avoid talking about any and all things you deem uncomfortable and strange. Reject the identity and existence of millions of people until it's "appropriate".
Maybe we should ship all transgender people to a reservation so that children don't interact with them until it's age appropriate? It's so simple!
The reality is that some children are Asian. Their own parents and siblings may be one of those kinds of people. They will encounter those kinds of people in their daily lives right now. They will probably have questions about them and the differences between those people and others. It's good for curious children to be able to explore and learn about the world around them. Why create arbitrary limits on what kinds of people they can or cannot learn about?
Obviously any kind of material, entertainment/cultural or educational, should be age appropriate and fortunately very few children are interested in literature written for a much older audience. If some 6 year old has the attention span and ability to understand complex works by all means let them read them. It's also the job of teachers and parents to contextualize and discuss with children the complex topics they are interested in exploring, not to hide it from them entirely so that they stay ignorant.
> Also what are the 72 genders you had in mind specifically?
The first Google result for "number of genders" gives 72!
https://www.medicinenet.com/what_are_the_72_other_genders/ar...
I have no idea what kind of damage to my idea of self this kind of information being pushed onto me would have caused, especially when at that time I was the bullied kid for being short and nerdy, girls especially would always mock me for that reason. Maybe it would have caused none. I always saw school as lame, I did the bare minimum and always had good grades. Maybe it would have been a class that I just didn't pay any attention to.
It was a different time back then though. The Internet only became a thing when I was already 13, and at that point things had changed quite a bit for me.
Kids these days seem to be exposed to some... er... "objectionable" material a lot earlier. Now that I am a father, I do worry about what kind of information my daughter will receive once she grows up and goes to school. Not sure how people deal with this sort of stuff nowadays.
When I was a kid, a parent on the radio said this about gay marriage: "I am the gatekeeper for what is socially acceptable for my child."
I asked my Dad about that statement, and he said pretty clearly "That's an unrealistic expectation of what parenthood is. You're more of a bodyguard or secret service. You can listen and provide context, do your best to stop your child from being put into danger, but you cannot stop, control or manage a child's, much less a teenagers, world experience."
Back in the day a parent was absolutely the gatekeeper of what was socially acceptable to a child. Nowadays, probably less so.
Teenagers were always uncontrollable. Try to control them and they will defy you. I know I did, and essentially every other teenager I came in contact with.
I became an atheist when I was a teenager. Before that the idea of religion was just something taught to me by my parents. I was taught to pray and that there was a God above, and all that. (It was actually a bit more complicated than that, as my parents had different religions each).
I was, however, given the freedom to explore my own ideas about religion and to develop my own views about the world once I was a little older. Honestly, I think they handled it all quite well.
For that matter, if my daughter decides to be religious once she grows up a little, she will also have my support.
My way to view this is that while she is a baby and later a small girl I am fully responsible for her. As she grows up, the more I will be on the background, and her own ideas will take the center stage instead. As I usually say "I'll teach her everything I can, she will learn everything she wants".
Do you actually believe they are, or are you just repeating the right-wing outrage memes?
> They aren't supposed to care about these things and it just confuses them.
K-12 in the US means education up to and including 12th grade. That's (roughly) 17 year olds at the far end. Puberty starts quite a bit before that.
Of course, for preteens learning about sexual orientations makes sense. Quite a lot of people are queer you know, and that's not a crime at the moment (although I'm sure that is something some people in Iowa would like).
(The question why schools should allow pornographic books for anyone still remains, but is not relevant in this context.)
It is a typical progressive tactic to censor things and then attack a strawman argument.
> The legislation also explicitly bans books depicting sexual acts from K-12 libraries and classrooms
12th grade. So 17yo? Ye. No reading about 'sexual acts' for you. They better watch porn instead of reading romantic novels I guess?
There’s a glut of material telling very young kids that they’re the wrong gender or gay. No 7 year old is anything other than what their parents tell them. If they had their way, they would be fairy dinosaurs.
Please could you give an example of this?
This was featured at my local regional library in the area for kids 5-10. Look through the “readers also enjoyed” and I’ve seen books either like that or those books exactly in kids sections.
My closest library is the same, possibly worse since the selection is smaller but they seem to have every gender bent book ever released.
It also looks very much like it's targeted at teens and young adults. Amazon lists the reading age as "16-17 years" [0]. If it's in the 5-10yo section, I would say that's the library's mistake rather than a push from the trans community.
[0] https://www.amazon.co.uk/Kisses-Jet-Coming-Gender-Story/dp/1...
My kids often say they’re animals. They’re not. They’re kids, so they play pretend.
I personally know parents telling their kids that they are the wrong gender. The kids are 3-6. It’s child abuse.
Not sure what you mean by this... are you accusing them of deliberately under-aging trans related books?
> Telling a child they may be something they’re not
This is already a weaker statement than "telling kids they're the wrong gender". And I don't think that the linked book even goes that far. "Some kids feel this way" is very different to "you feel this way" and 16-17 year olds are normally smart enough to tell the difference.
> I personally know parents telling their kids that they are the wrong gender.
That sounds awful. Although to be frank I wonder if you're also making this sound worse than is actually the case. Either way I'm not sure it's relevant.
I have small children and have been to the local library and it hadn't changed much. Nothing edgy but a strange book about different kind of feces I kinda found distasteful.
Many books make you wonder what the authors were high on while painting. But that is an old question.
There are books with 'two mums' children. But I guess you are describing something else, like some sort of over the top push?
There has to be some consensus among the school, school library and parent body, about what in general should be in the library.
If the state think it needs to take action there is a deeper problem and they are just virtue signaling.
This article is one-sided and goes to great lengths to hide the reason those books were banned in schools.
https://pen.org/book-bans/
Dig in a little, and you can find out how the various state laws are used, like Tennessee's HB 843 which effectively bans any book containing nudity in school libraries for anyone under 18.
The reason these books are banned is not explicitly mentioned in those laws of course.
It also forbids "sexual excitement", "sexual conduct", and "excess violence" which means that it bans the bible, books on mythology, every single history textbook, just about anything Shakespeare ever wrote, and pretty much any book with a character who has a love interest.
Every book removed/withheld should be replaced by a volume explaining why it was withheld, in terms a child can understand. Some of these bans wouldn't have happened because even children could've seen how full of shit some adults are.
You are aware that this already happens without bans, right?
The ultimate board of censors is the school and library staff that decides on your behalf what kind of books you and your kids should be exposed to.
It's not like the school library is some sort of the Great Library of Alexandria and the censors came to take out the "good stuff".
What happens is that the library staff is in position to censor and proselytize their ideologies and weird secular religions. These bans really are aimed at library staff than restricting childrens access to read whatever they want.
I'm used to most libraries being part of a national system of libraries, which will get you volumes shipped from another one if they don't have it there.
Local curation doesn't mean much since your main interface to those libraries nowadays is a digital one that has pretty much any physical media with an ISBN in it, from where you can request non-locally-available media.
Maybe the states operate differently and (school) libraries are more independent. Most schools here don't have their own library at all and instead rely on the nearest public one...
I highly doubt school libraries function any differently. Every year you receive a magazine with books who received prizes/recommendations, you move older books that aren't read to the reserve and command new ones. In my country, you especially have the 'highschooler prize' (not sure how to translate it), which is voted upon by students from 50 different highschool accross the country, and the winners are always recommended by the magazine.
My advice would be, rather than preventing librarians to do their job, maybe write better books? Prevent new commands rather than remove already existing books? Because putting 'Go Tell It on the Mountain' on the shelves isn't ideology, just good taste. Removing it is.
What really grind my gear is that I would bet censors don't read or review books. Book reviewing was a staple of my curriculum from 11 to 16, so I imagine it isn't hard. Censors should have to write at least a book review a year, graded (not to prevent them to censor, just publish the grade so we could see their reading level).
Changing that would require to put educated people in schools ... and that would require competing with senior-level jobs in private companies which at this point would be a doubling or tripling or even more of teacher pay in quite a few places.
Most library boards are very happy to order any book that is requested by multiple students. My daughter's high school library contains a lot of manga that would never have been ordered by any "ultimate board of censors".
Do these concerned parents (censors) want to take off Harry Poters and The Hobbit and similar in demand youth literature?
Doesn't look like it at all.
As far as I can tell, kids aren't interested in most of the weird shit what's getting restricted from the school library. The only people that are concerned about the books in question being restricted in public schools are ideologues that want to peddle their weirdo stuff to kids.
Also, I know several parents who would love to see Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings banned because they say they are about the Occult and demons and Anti-Christian and so on. Many are vocal about it at school board meetings. I don’t think librarians should give in to these bullies, either.
I'm sure there are. But was Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings restricted? Or literature kids want to read? No?
Then you don't have an argument.
If the books that were restricted are of no interest to kids, nor does their parents want their kids exposed to it by ideologically driven librarians or teachers, I don't see any issue in it whatsoever.
Keep in mind that school libraries can allow books about World War 2 without promoting (or peddling) war.
Also, Harry Potter constantly tops lists of most-banned books in libraries.
>Also, Harry Potter constantly tops lists of most-banned books in libraries.
Well, then that is clearly bad.
The article does clearly communicate and wear it's convictions on it's sleave about what it is concerned about, and I see no mention of Harry Potter or Lord of the Rings there.
I think the people who spend the most time in school libraries must be the Book Banners, desperately looking high and low for something to be outraged about.
The only weird ideology youve cited so far is “human sexuality” which is neither weird nor an ideology.
Children should not be exposed to sexual material at an early developmental age. That's sexual child abuse.
In the US you mean? This is a thing to ban books in libraries, especially ones that sell well?
The structure and forms of communication kids have at their fingertips these days provides plenty of ways to explore these topics, unfortunately mixed in with low quality or possibly dangerous content.
I think those who push back hard against these topics are accelerating a counter-reaction, and I'm here for it. This is a weird thing to obsess against.
But I really don't want that being pushed into my daughter at a young age, not until she can mount her own idea of what she is. Much in the same way I don't want religion being pushed into her from a young age, not until she can have an idea of how she views the world.
Yes. That is the literal definition of having information pushed on to her.
The ideas contained within whatever book would not pop up on her mind out of thin air, they would be contained in the text. As a father, who is responsible for her health, well-being, education, happiness and future, I want her to occupy her mind with things more suitable for a child.
I won't give her the Bible for the same reason.
> The bans are targeting books that even have characters in them that are non-standard, not only books that are telling your child to become trans and gay (Are there even any books that are doing that? I've never seen any)
I don't know. And honestly, I don't care. She has the world to explore at her young age, and there is so much more in the universe. I want to leave themes of sexual orientation and gender identity to be explored at a later stage, when her body and mind are more suited to such things. If at that point she wants to be whatever, she will have my support. I want her happiness after all.
You say that as if your child won't hear about these topics from their peers. Some of whom will have lesbian or gay parents. Some of whom will be trans. All you're doing is making your child work off hearsay instead of accurate information.
> I want to leave themes of sexual orientation and gender identity to be explored at a later stage
Really? Then why are you dressing them in stereotypically girl clothing, calling them "her", and exposing them to the heterosexual relationship between you and your wife?
Exposing a child to something doesn't make them that thing. The proof for that is very simple: Exposing a girl to a boy doesn't make her a boy. Exposing a child to a heterosexual relationship doesn't make them heterosexual.
Instead, exposing children to drag queens and gays and lesbians and asexuals and trans individuals means that there's a the greater the chance they will choose to continue to live if they are something other than a CIS gendered girl attracted to boys. It means they won't feel like they're broken or wrong or hated. Suicide is a very real problem for children encouraged to remain in the closet.
Exposing children to information is how they learn. It's better if the information is accurate.
> I want her happiness after all.
Apparently only if it matches your definition of who "she" is, or after you feel that "she" is "old enough" (whatever TF that means).
Yes. She will likely hear about God from peers with religious parents. Are you suggesting I teach her the Bible so she gets "accurate information"?
Part of my job as a father is helping her develop her intellectual stance on "hearsay".
> Really? Then why are you dressing them in stereotypically girl clothing, calling them "her", and exposing them to the heterosexual relationship between you and your wife?
Because as a father I have to make choices on her behalf, with her well being in mind. And I am heterosexual, so that is the sort of environment she is exposed to.
> Exposing a child to something doesn't make them that thing.
Absolutely, she will be gradually exposed to many things and situations as she grows. All things in due time.
> It means they won't feel like they're broken or wrong or hated. Suicide is a very real problem for children encouraged to remain in the closet.
There will, unavoidably, come a time when she will come to understand her own sexuality, how she views her body, etc and so forth. Typically this happens at around puberty, at least that is how it worked for basically everyone I know, myself included. She will have my full support no matter her choices. Until then my role is to help her develop the best way I can.
> Exposing children to information is how they learn. It's better if the information is accurate.
It's also important that the information comes at a proper age.
> Apparently only if it matches your definition of who "she" is, or after you feel that "she" is "old enough" (whatever TF that means).
Right now it has to match my definition of who she is, because she can't meaningfully make any choices on her own. She can't even choose what brand of baby formula I give her, much less what pronoums I use to refer to her in the third person. Your sarcastic quotation marks do very little to support your rationale.
And I made it clear what I mean by "old enough". Some subjects are complex, and demand a certain level of maturity to be properly tackled.
And what stance will you set with them to avoid discussing sexual orientation (or religion) when they report that their friend Austin has two moms? Or when their other friend Keesha says that two moms being together is wrong and God will send them to burn in hell?
> And I am heterosexual, so that is the sort of environment she is exposed to.
Which is my point. You are exposing your child to sexual and gender concepts - you're just limiting the exposure the ones you feel are normal.
> Typically this happens at around puberty, at least that is how it worked for basically everyone I know, myself included.
Gender identity in particular has nothing to do with physical sexual maturity. It happens much earlier in life. And putting off any talks about gender identity until puberty starts means that the child in question will have changes forced upon their body that they may not want to live with at that point in time, even if they chose to remain their gender assigned to them at birth.
General preferences in attraction also start to manifest much earlier than 13; I remember knowing that I liked girls back in first grade.
> It's also important that the information comes at a proper age.
What age is proper to start teaching, say, math at? If a child can not comprehend geometry, is it too early to teach them how to count?
Acknowledging that women can like women and men can like men and sometimes people aren't attracted to either one and all of those are OK and normal, that's something that can be done quite early in life. So can the acknowledgement that someone can be born a girl and grow up as a boy and that too is OK. Neither requires any discussion of the mechanics of sex, nor do they require sexual, physical, or mental maturity.
> Right now it has to match my definition of who she is, because she can't meaningfully make any choices on her own. She can't even choose what brand of baby formula I give her[...]
My rationale is aimed at more than your child's years as a baby. They won't be a baby for long, and if you're determined to bury your (and by extension their) head in the sand until they're 13 is going to do them no favors.
Thankfully, your child is young enough that you have time to think about it.
Depends on what kind of child she is, and how old she is, I think.
A dismissive reply of the sorts of "Yeah, some children have two moms. It is unusual, but it happens" is a likely answer. No reasom to make a fuss about it. If children are picking on the Austin kid for having lesbian moms, I'll try to teach her to be polite to the kid.
Children can be cruel sometimes. I know I used to be.
> Or when their other friend Keesha says that two moms being together is wrong and God will send them to burn in hell?
That one I have been debating myself how to address. Not specifically about some religious parent on a screed about gay people going to hell, but how to explain to her in simple terms that God, Hell, and so on are fictional ideas, allegories to try to explain the world, in a way that a child can understand, that is.
> Which is my point. You are exposing your child to sexual and gender concepts - you're just limiting the exposure the ones you feel are normal.
Yes, absolutely.
> What age is proper to start teaching, say, math at? If a child can not comprehend geometry, is it too early to teach them how to count?
Depends. My father started to teach me some simple math concepts when I was around 3 or 4. I already could do simple addition and subtraction when I started school, for example.
I plan to nudge her with those concepts when it comes time to play with her, but she has to show interest too. Forcing does nothing good.
> Acknowledging that women can like women and men can like men and sometimes people aren't attracted to either one and all of those are OK and normal, that's something that can be done quite early in life. So can the acknowledgement that someone can be born a girl and grow up as a boy and that too is OK. Neither requires any discussion of the mechanics of sex, nor do they require sexual, physical, or mental maturity.
I fundamentally disagree with basically everything written there. At a too young age she will be ill-equiped to understand the consequences of her choices, both at a personal level and at a social level.
> My rationale is aimed at more than your child's years as a baby. They won't be a baby for long, and if you're determined to bury your (and by extension their) head in the sand until they're 13 is going to do them no favors.
I can only do my best, to the best of my judgement. As she gradually grows and builds her own interests and desires, my plan is to be a sort of guide, helping her navigate a complex (and sometimes malevolent) world.
I can at most nudge her in some directions, but ultimately I can't really force anything.
And yes, it is all very cute and girly. But she is also still a baby, and the wife would hang me by the balls if I bought our baby daughter boy's clothes.
Not that I would anyway. It melts my heart seeing her in her tiny little dresses, with cute headbands and all.
The practical part is that this is the societal default. And while she is a child there will be many benefits in just following that. As I said, she will have space to explore themes of sexuality and gender once her age is more suitable. Until then, she is the little princess.
I'm not criticizing your parenting style or approach, but this should be about about them, not society or you or your wife. They might go through a phase where they prefer being called or boy, or an ostrich, or reject every label, and it doesn't have to be a crisis, it's just a normal part of growing up.
I don't know. I don't make the rules. I just follow. What I can tell is that challenging the rules come at a price. I don't want to impose that price on my daughter. If she wants to challenge societal rules (against my advice) when she is old enough to do so, she will have my support.
> Have you asked them if they like dresses over pants? Do they like trains over dolls?
Asking her things now is foolish. She is only months old.
If she prefers playing with cars and trains rather than dolls, I will buy her cars and trains.
To be frank, I think all those are lame. I will try to nudge her into liking puzzles, board games, painting, that sort of stuff. And later on videogames. I dream of the day she will be old enough to play Mario Kart with me and beat me.
> I'm not criticizing your parenting style or approach, but this should be about about them, not society or you or your wife
I agree, but that will be at an age when she can meaningfully build her own idea of self. Right now she cries when her nappies are dirty, and likes when I make her sleep walking arond the bedroom holding her against my chest. I don't think she can mount an intellectual defense about her own gender identity, or about religion, or any such complex subjects.
Many parents aren't assigning a gender at birth. Many have same-sex parents. Many parents are hateful, and have kids who they've taught their hatred towards. "I don't know. I don't make the rules. I just follow." isn't something I'm personally comfortable with or passing on to my children. There's consequences to following the rules as much as breaking them (if they are even rules to begin with).
Maybe. I have no idea what her interests and desires will be, nor do I control them. I can at best try to nudge them in certain directions, and offer what little guidance and support I can when the time comes.
What I can say in the subject of sexuality and gender, is that it was something I was completely uninterested in until I was closer to puberty. My peers were pretty much the same. I have the impression that younger generations are dealing with it much earlier. I am not sure if this is healthy. I tend to think it is not.
> "I don't know. I don't make the rules. I just follow." isn't something I'm personally comfortable with or passing on to my children.
One of my main challenges is guiding my daughter on how to navigate a world that at best is uninterested in her happiness and well being, and at worst is outright malevolent.
Part of this challenge is teaching her that society has many expectations of her, and choosing what mountains to climb and what hills to die on is something that is part of life.
Since sexuality and gender are very touchy subjects, I can give many other examples. She is expected to go through school, no matter if she wants to. When she is older she is expected to have skills that are of use in a system of work and bosses that you have to adhere to in order to have a functional life. I can go on and on about the very many things that are imposed on everyone by a careless, harsh, and unfair world.
Not following rules is typically a luxury of the elites. While I am thankfully much more affluent than my parents were, we are far from rich.
A book ban can take many forms, it can be diminished access, it can be explicit removal, it can be shuffled to a back room to make room for other content. What is common though, is administration, the school board, or legislature being the impetus in the decision of the removal of content.
> The media claimed that the removed books were banned even though kids were allowed to read their copy
This statement is why I’m thinking you’re not arguing in good faith.