comment: >
  
  
  I sort of wish your OP had been a lot shorter as I think it raises a lot of good points but is waaaaaayyyy too long
  
  Me too honestly. I've just been thinking about this for weeks now and the more I thought about it the more tangled the thoughts became until I had to vomit my thoughts all over the post, and I think the conversation is missing most of it.
  The rest of your post raised the kinds of points I was interested in thinking about, the role of children as a member of society vs as an instrument of their parents' will.
context: 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. >
  
  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? >
  
  As a parent, I know fuck all about medicine, I am not a teacher and I also don’t know about many other things that will ultimately impact my child’s life. However, the same way I trust in a mechanic to fix my car, I trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life. As such, I shouldn’t be able to withhold essential medical treatment for my child because I saw a YouTube video on nano bots and if I want to teach my child at home, I should be assessed to make sure I am neither neglectful nor a total moron. Anything else is harmful to the child. >
  
  
  I trust professionals to fill the gaps in my child’s life.
  
  .
  
  I wish this was the case for circumcision between like 1950-1990
  Doctors were recommending that shit
  
  So you mean you wish that WASN'T the case for circumcision between 1950 to 1990? It seems that what you're saying is lots of circumcisions happened because doctors were convinced it was a good idea, but you believe it was a bad idea. That would mean you do not want people to blindly trust medical professionals because they're fallible. >
  
  Circumcision is a cultural thing - if education and objective fact finding was a defining issue, they wouldn’t be doing it. This is not a globally recognized practice - get you head out of the US’s butt. >
  
  
  Circumcision is a cultural thing - if education and objective fact finding was a defining issue, they wouldn’t be doing it.
  
  You could say the same about any number of topics/issues in public schools, both in the past and today. Which brings us back to the OP's question. >
  
  Everything boils down to informed uncoerced competent consent.
  My children (at their current ages) are not competent enough at their current ages / mental maturity to do a great many things (play with matches, get tattoos, buy a house, examples ad hyperbole etc)
  Until they are able to 1. Be fully (as possible) informed or provided with the appropriate information to make a decision, 2. Are under no duress for the decision (i.e. someone is threatening them. Etc) 3. Are mentally competent enough to understand the ramifications of their decisions,  and 4. Willingly want to do something after all factors are weighed.
  It is my job as a parent to take those decisions on. 
  This will be interpreted different in many households. But the parents should be the ones ultimately responsible for their children's well being.
  That being said, as the child matures they gain more autonomy. How much is difficult based on the individual. My daughter for instance is extremely independent. Not distant or removed, but she definitely makes a large amount of her own decisions, whereas my younger son cannot.
  This is an area with so much Grey that making universal rules is almost impossible. Which is why, I think, society defaults to "until they're an adult the parents rule ". >
  
  This ignores the role of schools though. Parents cede some of that responsibility to teachers, much like they cede some responsibility to doctors, coaches, and other people with positions of authority and teaching wrt ones child. Each of these people will be slightly different from the parents, will have different values and incentives, and will be responsible for more than just one set of parents' children. 
  Each of these people are functionally agents of the parent, the parent is entitled to some assurances from the agent, but cannot command specific conduct in every facet of the agent's job, (not least of all because that would be impossible). So the question inherently becomes, how do we ensure that all parents are assured that their parents are not being abused and that each parent's responsibility for child rearing is being discharged within reason. 
  It's just not feasible to say "let the parents handle it" unless a parent wants to take back responsibility for every part of their child's life >
  
  I don't disagree with this. This would be in the massive amounts of Grey areas. There's so much nuance to this. >
  
  I sort of wish your OP had been a lot shorter as I think it raises a lot of good points but is waaaaaayyyy too long. I have to say this is one of my favorite topics. Because I think. We have become way too indulgent in this view that parents are the be all and end all when it comes to raising children.  I have four children but while they are my children, they are also citizens, friends, students, colleagues, etc. that is to say I do not have a monopoly on who they are.
  I personally am cynical enough to believe that this view is a spinoff of the idea of radical individualism. And I view radical individualism, as smokescreen for the wealthy and powerful to increase their wealth and power. That is, it is part of an attempt to make people less aware that they are part of a society and the community.
  I also feel like I need to call out what I see is one of the greatest disservices. That is when parents are allowed to homeschool their children or send them to religious schools. If as an educated adult, you want to believe in bullshit, magic, hocus-pocus, that I suppose is your prerogative , but I view it as almost a form of child abuse to subject your child to that. 
  While this is not completely unproblematic the French, especially during the revolution, you children as creatures of the state first and foremost. I think you by state you mean the community and society at large, I generally agree with that sentiment. So I have a huge issue with this absurd. Focus on parental rights, which is a cynical way to manipulate voters into voting for morons like Ron DeSantis .