Parents call police on teacher over LGBT book.

[Subduction Zone]

Nonsense. I challenge you to find where I advocate whatever it is your thinking of aside from matters involving actual children which I support restrictions rather than ought right bans.

Incidentally, I know it's the left more prone to banning than the right ever was.

Really? I would say that the right's bans are both unjust and of much greater consequence than the bans of the left. By any rational standard you should be for the left.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think the police call is over the top. Seems more a lawyer issue, although I'm guessing it will go that direction.

It was not even that. It was a "mind your own business" issue. The kid that took pictures and sent them to his parents was not forced to read that book. It was there only if he or she wanted or needed it.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It was not even that. It was a "mind your own business" issue. The kid that took pictures and sent them to his parents was not forced to read that book. It was there only if he or she wanted or needed it.

It does raise the question as to why the book title itself was intentionally selected.

It's a shame other parents of other children are not included in this to express their view pro and con to garner more perspective as to appropriateness.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It does raise the question as to why the book title itself was intentionally selected.

It's a shame other parents of other children are not included in this to express their view pro and con to garner more perspective as to appropriateness.

Because there are gay students that need that sort of help. That should be rather obvious. The teacher is just offering a resource for those that need it. This should not be that hard to understand.

 

[TLK Valentine]

Would it be wrong to teach children about heterosexual love and romance?

Clearly not, as we do that already.

 

[The Hammer]

Really? I would say that the right's bans are both unjust and of much greater consequence than the bans of the left. By any rational standard you should be for the left.

Heh heh hehe.. rational

 

[TLK Valentine]

Really? I would say that the right's bans are both unjust and of much greater consequence than the bans of the left. By any rational standard you should be for the left.

It's a delicate situation -- I'm opposed to censorship on general principle, but when it comes to children, I concede that there are some materials simply inappropriate for certain age levels.

That said, I believe that the decision to allow or prohibit a specific work should be made on as local a level as possible. The teacher, the principal, the school board... higher than that is just asking for trouble.

Seems more and more like the "party of small government" is getting pretty gung-ho about banning -- beginning at the state level -- not just specific works, but entire schools (no pun intended) of thought. CRT, anyone?

 

[Father Heathen]

It does raise the question as to why the book title itself was intentionally selected.

It's a shame other parents of other children are not included in this to express their view pro and con to garner more perspective as to appropriateness.

What if some parents were racist and demanded a pro white nationalist curriculum? Should the school be obligated to oblige them?

 

[Twilight Hue]

What if some parents were racist and demanded a "pro white" curriculum? Should the school be obligated to oblige them?

So everyone is now somehow racist? How does that relate here?

Why don't you say right out they are all homophobic instead of always making insanely ridiculous comparisons all the time?

 

[Kathryn]

They can read The Scarlet Letter, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn, The Color Purple, or The Catcher in the Rye outside of school, as well.

... but they probably wouldn't, and that's a pity.

I agree that it's a pity but those books are easily available to just about anyone. I read them outside of school.

 

[Father Heathen]

So everyone is now somehow racist? How does that relate here?

Why don't you say right out they are all homophobic instead of always making insanely ridiculous comparisons all the time?

Do you not understand how hypothetical questions work?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Heh heh hehe.. rational

I know, that is asking a lot of some people.

It's a delicate situation -- I'm opposed to censorship on general principle, but when it comes to children, I concede that there are some materials simply inappropriate for certain age levels.

That said, I believe that the decision to allow or prohibit a specific work should be made on as local a level as possible. The teacher, the principal, the school board... higher than that is just asking for trouble.

Seems more and more like the "party of small government" is getting pretty gung-ho about banning -- beginning at the state level -- not just specific works, but entire schools (no pun intended) of thought. CRT, anyone?

I am not going to assume that this books was that sort of book. But let me see if I can find anything more about it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The book is a sex-ed book. It has illustrations, but they do not appear to be any worse than what one would get in a heterosexual sex ed course and that is often taught to sixth graders. This class a appears to be for students a couple of years older.

Here is an image that I found. Not to worry, it has been pre-blurred:

Also it is rather highly rated as several sources including Amazon where it has a 4.8 out of 5 rating:

Amazon.com: This Book Is Gay: 9781492617839: Dawson, Juno, Levithan, David: Books

Amazon.com: This Book Is Gay: 9781492617839: Dawson, Juno, Levithan, David: Books

www.amazon.com

And then there is this. At first I thought that it might be an article from a hater, but this shows how the book teaches rather honestly. This part of the book is on why a gay person should not use steroids to look more masculine as some do:

 

[Yerda]

Good for them. I'd report it too.

Why?

 

[Estro Felino]

The book is a sex-ed book. It has illustrations, but they do not appear to be any worse than what one would get in a heterosexual sex ed course and that is often taught to sixth graders. This class a appears to be for students a couple of years older.

Here is an image that I found. Not to worry, it has been pre-blurred:

View attachment 77236

Also it is rather highly rated as several sources including Amazon where it has a 4.8 out of 5 rating:

Amazon.com: This Book Is Gay: 9781492617839: Dawson, Juno, Levithan, David: Books

Amazon.com: This Book Is Gay: 9781492617839: Dawson, Juno, Levithan, David: Books

www.amazon.com

And then there is this. At first I thought that it might be an article from a hater, but this shows how the book teaches rather honestly. This part of the book is on why a gay person should not use steroids to look more masculine as some do:

View attachment 77237

Honestly...it's worse than I thought.
Are we serious or what?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Honestly...it's worse than I thought.
Are we serious or what?

"Worse"? How so? You seem to have forgotten that these kids had to take sex ed. They saw as "bad" or worse. Reading this book was voluntary, it would probably be read only be gay students. Why shouldn't they have the same education that their straight counterparts have?

 

[Estro Felino]

"Worse"? How so? You seem to have forgotten that these kids had to take sex ed. They saw as "bad" or worse. Reading this book was voluntary, it would probably be read only be gay students. Why shouldn't they have the same education that their straight counterparts have?

Surely. It's also part of the biology curriculum. But I would like a teacher with these female characteristics to teach the junior high boys.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Surely. It's also part of the biology curriculum. But I would like a teacher with these female characteristics to teach the junior high boys.

That would have made my classes a lot more interesting . And perhaps a bit uncomfortable. But you are ignoring the fact that some of those junior high boys will be gay. They would probably have no more sexual interest in her than I had in the male gym teacher that taught our class.

I know that some of us in the majority can have a difficult time understanding that not only do people in the minority have rights too. They also need a proper education when it comes to sex.

I am still waiting with what was wrong with the book? What facts were wrong? Where was it too overt?

 

[Estro Felino]

That would have made my classes a lot more interesting . And perhaps a bit uncomfortable. But you are ignoring the fact that some of those junior high boys will be gay. They would probably have no more sexual interest in her than I had in the male gym teacher that taught our class.

I know that some of us in the majority can have a difficult time understanding that not only do people in the minority have rights too. They also need a proper education when it comes to sex.

In democracy, majority wins, I guess.
All that matters is that the sex ed teacher illustrates that homosexuality and bisexuality are perfectly normal and that boys and girls who have these sexual preferences must be respected.
Why would it have been uncomfortable? She's very kind.

I am still waiting with what was wrong with the book? What facts were wrong? Where was it too overt?

It's not a scientific book.
It looks like a comical book.
Especially the part highlighted in red.

 

[SomeRandom]

In democracy, majority wins, I guess.
All that matters is that the sex ed teacher illustrates that homosexuality and bisexuality are perfectly normal and that boys and girls who have these sexual preferences must be respected.
Why would it have been uncomfortable? She's very kind.

Because teens are awkward and typically horny. Duh