>

If Gender Queer depicted a woman on her knees sucking a penis instead of a man, you think that parents would be okay with it?
I'm just puzzled at why this is framed as a new thing
When I was in school decades ago we needed permission slips signed before we could sit in Sex Ed. Permission was also asked for including kids in things like Christmas celebrations, or even in high school you had to have permission for the 'global issues' class that covered things like world religions, the Holocaust, and the Rwanda genocide
Similarly, school libraries and computer browsing were always monitored for unsavory content
None of this is new >


None of this is new

What's new is parents going to their representatives and asking their state congress to ban sex ed, ban anything but Christmas celebrations, and remove the 'global issues' classes. That's why this is a new thing. >

Teachers are not in control of the material that they have to use in the classroom. 
I think parents are trying to control what the students are taught. 
I think teachers would like to not be caught in the middle of parents, school boards and students. The politics causing more than a few teachers to bounce. >

I am one of the parents that believe that children should have 100% access to books what ever the title is. Im so confident on the values i have tought my kids, that I am 100% sure they will be able to navigate life and books with no problem even if controversial. I also believe that children should have access to all kinds of information. Information is power. 
The only thing i banned was social media until they were 14. Specially snap chat, as ive seen so much drama unfold on that app, that for their safety i told them no and why no. We love to have great conversations with my kids about different things.
Also if you don’t educate your kids with proper values society will do, that is why there are prisons…..Therefore the state will take over educating your kids if you don’t…. >

I think this discussion comes down to if you view discussing whether or not a book is "age appropriate" is the same thing as "censorship".
Certainly, I would not support public libraries banning books whatsoever.  However, it's a little more tricky when we're talking about school libraries because they by definition cater to minors.  
For example, I wouldn't want a school library to carry the book "Gender Queer" because it depicts graphic pornography.  Is that tantamount to censorship?  It's a tough question for sure.  
Having this discussion is even more difficult because anyone that dares to point out that books like this actually do depict graphic pornography is immediately accused of being a bigot. >

I cannot comment on the specific reference to 'Gender Queer' but I would argue that school libraries should carry book that stop just shy of explicitly pornography. 
With the caveat that for explicit material has an age requirment or parental requirment.  
My argument is it does no good to keep information on life experiences from children who can only stand to benefit from understanding their own budding sensuality. 
It makes me profoundly uncomfortable to think about my daughter going through that process but she will and that if a facr. And I want her to be as knowledgeable and informed as possible. That includes learning about lgbtqia relationships and sensuality as even if it is not relevant to her, she will encounter it in the wild and should not be shocked by it.
Also, literally anyone can get on the internet and find unlimited hard core oron. It is niave to think children are not finding this shit anyway and I would much prefer them encounter it in a book where they can ask me questions rather than relaying on pork and developing an unhealthy view of sex from it. >

Idk, there was certainly at least as graphic descriptions of sex, if not imagery, in plenty of library books in my school libraries. It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented. 
Also, one single panel of that is actually, objectively problematic. The rest are suggestive at best. There's a whole separate question about whether this single image warrants the backlash that it's getting, especially the decision to pull the entire book.
It's also not really worth focusing on Gender Queer; it's the most banned book in the country. Of course it is the most egregious. If you really care that much, you can have that one book. But it's more worth discussing the thousands of other books getting banned that lack the same defensibility. >

"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented."
You proved my point from two posts above that anyone questioning what's happening is labeled as a bigot. 
Do you have any proof of your accusation that I'm being driven by the images being gay oriented? Or are you just making a quite serious accusation with no proof whatsoever? >

I proved no point lol. I merely said that the selective outrage aimed only at gender queer books suggests that the outrage is not just about sexual imagery.
It's like, when I was highschool, all the parents were mad about Their Eyes Were Watching God, which includes descriptions of sex between black characters. Oddly, no one seemed to care about The Place Beyond the Pines (white sex scene), The Awakening (White Sex Scene) or even The God of Small Things (by far the worst in the list if you cared about sex). So, if you survey that list and consider what motivates a parent to object to only one of the books and zero others, you are left with only the inference that race, and not sex, was the motivating factor in the disgust.
So too here, as I said, those images only really differe from other highschool reading in that they are images and not words. I could believe that this distinction drives the uproar, but then I'd have to conclude that the parents either don't care enough to learn about the sex scenes in these books or else can't comprehend that children might react similarly to words as they do pictures. I think either conclusion underestimates these parents' intelligence. The only other distinction left is that the inoccous sex scenes are straight, while these are gay. >

"It really does seem like this is just about the images being gay oriented".
These are your direct words. Do you have any proof of this, or is it just conjecture? Because this seems like pure conjecture to me. 
For what it's worth, the right has decided that if we're all playing the baseless conjecture game, then calling people groomers with no evidence is also fair game.  I'm not really a fan of either accusation to be honest, but if we're going to play this game, then understand what type of standard you are cultivating. >

An inference is not conjecture. I've clearly laid out the basis for the conclusion. You're free to disagree, but it's not baseless.