You’re normal. Those in the opposite camp have the issues
It truly is remarkable.
We keep innumerable things away from minors — cigarettes, alcohol, the franchise — and we don’t even hold them accountable for criminal activity like we do adults.
Heck, a school nurse can’t give a student who’s under 18 a Tylenol without first getting a parent’s OK.
Back in the day when one went to a newsstand or a 7-11, certain magazines were in a separate section or even covered up. You know why? Because pornography. Playboy. Penthouse. Etc.
So why would progressive educators and their accomplices in the media today allow and vouch for kids to view material that’s arguably even more pornographic?
If you don’t believe me, take a look for yourself — if you dare. These are excerpts from the books “Gender Queer” and “Flamer,” which might be in your kids’ school library.
Is a major education publication concerned that these books are available to underage children? Nope. Education Week recently lamented that they’re are among the most banned — because of “allegedly sexually explicit material” (emphasis added).
Indeed, “Gender Queer” is #1 on both the American Library Association’s and PEN America’s banned list.
MORE: Education publication dubs protection of women’s sports ‘anti-trans’
Recall that the Syracuse University English Studies coordinator said that banning “Gender Queer” only “on the basis of it being sexually explicit [note: she doesn’t even say “allegedly”] limits discussions about young adults’ discovery of gender identity in relation to their bodies.” And the Ohio State professor (and “banned” book author) who said that if a book isn’t in your kids’ library it “might as well not exist.”
Don’t forget the the Ivy Leaguer who invoked Godwin’s Law in the banning of “Gender Queer.”
I wonder what the Syracuse prof would say to an 11-year-old boy who says he has the right to open up a Playboy centerfold so it can help with his “discovery of gender identity in relation to his body.”
In the same vein, you are “anti-drag” if you object to men dressing as women who twerk, wear huge, fake boobs and show off their ass cheeks in front of children, according many academics and the media. Most recently, a Princeton instructor’s freshman writing course was highlighted by the student newspaper for taking on various states’ “anti-drag” legislation.
Of course, if you bother to check out the links provided in the piece, you’ll see that the state bills simply seek to keep minors away from drag shows.
And check out this story from the Associated Press: “Florida gay pride parade canceled after anti-drag show law passes.” The town of Port St. Lucie made the decision to bag the parade “in anticipation of Gov. Ron DeSantis signing a bill meant to keep children out of drag shows” (emphasis added).
So-called Miami drag “legend” Karla Croqueta even went so far as to claim Florida “is deeming [her] existence to be illegal.”
How is such “anti-drag”? Is prohibiting those under 18 from signing up for the armed forces “anti-military”? Is restricting alcohol sales to those over 21 “anti-business”? Is restricting the franchise to those over 18 “anti-democratic”? Of course not. Those who use the labels “anti-drag,” “anti-trans” etc. have to do so to make normal people appear irrational and hateful.
But in reality they can’t stand the image in the mirror.
IMAGES: sundora14/Shutterstock.com; rightwingsavages/Twitter
Please join the conversation about our stories on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit, MeWe, Rumble, Gab, Minds and Gettr.