- Joined
- Jun 18, 2018
- Messages
- 76,157
- Reaction score
- 79,468
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
"Can you treat someone with "love, kindness, and respect" while simultaneously insisting their identity is so poisonous that it cannot be acknowledged?
The right's lawyer argued that censoring these books wasn't about disrespecting queer people, but protecting "children's innocence." It's a nonsense argument, however, as it assumes there's a "respectful" way to erase people. But it was also quite silly, as if hiding these books would shield children from the knowledge that LGBTQ identities exist. (An unspoken corrollary is the false view they can prevent children from growing up queer.) The case illustrates the animating futility at the heart of the MAGA movement: they will never manifest their dream of a past "great" America, when "queer" wasn't a thing. Such a period never existed, but especially not in an era when queer people are visible in pop culture, the internet, and the general community. The government can force teachers not to say "gay" in school, but kids are going to hear about it everywhere else.
During arguments, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made this point most clearly, asking the plaintiffs' lawyers how far this parental right to "opt out" should go. She asked if a gay teacher would be allowed to have a wedding photo on her desk? Or if a student group put up "love is love" posters in the hallway? Or if a trans teacher insisted that the students use their preferred name and pronouns? On this last point, the conservative lawyer insisted the teacher has no right to tell students how to address them. This answer gave the game away. It's standard practice for teachers to dictate how students address them: First name or last name? Miss or Mrs? Only trans people, in this lawyer's determination, don't deserve this basic respect from students.
...The irony here is that, due to the internet, kids inevitably find adult materials on their own. Having an education in sexuality, sexual identity, and human diversity before they see that stuff — so they can distinguish fact from fantasy — is the only true way to protect children. Books like "Pride Puppy" prevent the premature sexualization of kids, by answering questions about queer identity in age-appropriate ways. If adults don't answer children's curiosity, kids go looking on their own. Left to their own devices and a search engine, children find materials they're not mature enough to handle."
Link
Children aren't stupid. They see LGBTQ people in the world. They know they exist, or will know. It's damaging to them to deprive them of the opportunity to see them as fully realized human beings.
The right's lawyer argued that censoring these books wasn't about disrespecting queer people, but protecting "children's innocence." It's a nonsense argument, however, as it assumes there's a "respectful" way to erase people. But it was also quite silly, as if hiding these books would shield children from the knowledge that LGBTQ identities exist. (An unspoken corrollary is the false view they can prevent children from growing up queer.) The case illustrates the animating futility at the heart of the MAGA movement: they will never manifest their dream of a past "great" America, when "queer" wasn't a thing. Such a period never existed, but especially not in an era when queer people are visible in pop culture, the internet, and the general community. The government can force teachers not to say "gay" in school, but kids are going to hear about it everywhere else.
During arguments, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson made this point most clearly, asking the plaintiffs' lawyers how far this parental right to "opt out" should go. She asked if a gay teacher would be allowed to have a wedding photo on her desk? Or if a student group put up "love is love" posters in the hallway? Or if a trans teacher insisted that the students use their preferred name and pronouns? On this last point, the conservative lawyer insisted the teacher has no right to tell students how to address them. This answer gave the game away. It's standard practice for teachers to dictate how students address them: First name or last name? Miss or Mrs? Only trans people, in this lawyer's determination, don't deserve this basic respect from students.
...The irony here is that, due to the internet, kids inevitably find adult materials on their own. Having an education in sexuality, sexual identity, and human diversity before they see that stuff — so they can distinguish fact from fantasy — is the only true way to protect children. Books like "Pride Puppy" prevent the premature sexualization of kids, by answering questions about queer identity in age-appropriate ways. If adults don't answer children's curiosity, kids go looking on their own. Left to their own devices and a search engine, children find materials they're not mature enough to handle."
Link
Children aren't stupid. They see LGBTQ people in the world. They know they exist, or will know. It's damaging to them to deprive them of the opportunity to see them as fully realized human beings.