124
this post was submitted on 08 Apr 2024
124 points (89.7% liked)
News
36891 readers
2841 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Now that I think about it, I've never seen anyone quote specific parts of challenged and banned books. They just say the content is this and that and leave it there.
Tried even searching for specific quotes just now but can't find anything. So I guess it either has never happened, or happens so rarely that instances of it are difficult to find.
Yeah, school board meetings targeted by Moms for "Liberty". Online, you can find rightwingers bitching, but it's a lot of exaggerated stuff.
In high school, I read some pretty sexual stuff (Canterbury Tales are fuckin vulgar, Toni Morrison writes in a very erotic way at times. Nobody ever bitched about that though because it was straight eroticism. Any page I've seen from these newer books is only "objectionable" because its not cishet sex/eroticism.
Don’t ask if you don’t want answers then
There are many videos on YouTube with Moms for Liberty reading out passage after passage of the things they object to. They are easy to find. If you want someone here to give you a list, it looks like that's not going to happen.
With the exception of Genderqueer, there isn’t much “pornographic” material. Genderqueer has a scene where there is a blowjob, and I can’t speak to it’s nature since I haven’t read it. This Book is Gay also gets some flak because it is essentially a manual on some gay topics, such as sex, grindr, dating, etc. But I wouldn’t consider that porn, you watch porn to masturbate, not learn how to safely date and have sex. Both books are meant for older teens, and both are important, especially This Book is Gay.
There is an effort to conflate porn with queerness. Most books that are “pornographic” are merely just about queer topics, or have a queer cast. This is similar to older efforts to call LGBTQ+ folk “groomers” or “seducers,” such as around the time of gay marriage being legalized, or during gay power movements after stonewall, or when states were legalizing gay marriage, and so on.
This new phase of calling books “pornographic” is just bigots trying to prevent queer representation, and while some books are explicit, they are a smokescreen for a broader queer erasure.
Where are these books being banned?
That's a great question, I hope you're asking because you actually want to know!
These books have been banned mostly in school districts across the U.S. Below is a list of several school districts that have banned genderqueer books over the last few years. All of the ones below have banned All Boys Aren't Blue, as well as many of the others mentioned in OP:
The Frisco Independent School District in TX
Shawnee Heights Unified School District in KS
North Hunterdon-Voorhees Regional High School District in NJ
Flagler Palm Coast High School in FL
Alta High School in The Canyons
If you need more examples, a quick Google search for "which places have banned [book title]" will give you lots of results! Alternatively, here is the URL I was referencing for my short list.
Well, if there was a valid reason for people to be upset at most the books that have been challenged/banned, then you could list the books that have been challenged/banned and the objections to them.
But the reason is bigotry and as such there is no list of valid reasons to be upset.
I also want to point out that if you read the fucking article it would have had the reasoning behind the challenges/bans in the article.
While I didn’t provide a site or some shit that had a list of books bigots found offensive, I answered your question. If you need a site to tell you that the queerphobes find books with queer topics offensive, I’m sorry that my three short paragraphs answering your question was at a third grade reading level and therefore too complex. To make it simpler, I’ll summarize it in one sentence:
bigots don’t like queer topics
The reason they give for the bans, is that the books contain "pornography". There is no actual pornography in the books.