Social Trans Pride flag hung at Yosemite National Park off El Capitan

Student is a child. It's not up to the schools to determine this. And school officials are not even qualified to determine anything like this.
I do understand the controversy. And I think it’s very unfortunate that measures like this have to be taken because shitbag parents can’t even be supportive or helpful to their own kids because of things like the kid’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

The ultimate solution is for parents to be good parents, accept, support, and keep open communication with their kids. If you’re upset that your kid doesn’t want to tell you that they are trans or gay or whatever, that’s a You problem.

Xe/xem/xyr, ze/hir/hirs are made up words and not real. To have something as serious as child custody based on this is moronic.
So as long as the pronouns in question are he/him, she/her, and they/them, you’re totally ok with it? ;)

The number of strawmen you’re building throughout our discussion is staggering. You are repeatedly trying to shift the actual topic or my actual claim into some oversimplified parody, and then engage with that rather than the actual issues.

I am guessing (since you didn’t specify, I am forced to guess) that what you’re referring to was a bill in CA, AB957, which was vetoed by Newsom and didn’t even become law.

But this isn’t just about whether a parent uses “ze” as a pronoun. When judges decide custody cases, they do and should look at the entirety of the relationships that a child has with each parent. A good judge would put the kid where they are best supported and nurtured. Let’s say we have a non-gender conforming kid. One parent makes clear that they accept and support their kid, and has good communication and a good relationship with them. The other parent doesn’t accept that the kid could actually be this way, stigmatizes them, accuses the kid of being mentally ill, deadnames them, and constantly tries to put the kid in some fucked up conversion therapy against the child’s will.
—Which parent should get custody? The accepting one, of course. A judge should look at that, and they should weigh that heavily.

Then why is this 6th grade teacher assigning Gender Queer as reading material?
She didn’t.
But here come the strawmen again. My claim was that the book isn’t part of curriculums and isn’t sitting on shelves in elementary schools across the country. You know that’s true, so you want to try and shift to some other manufactured outrage event.

So let’s look at what really happened.

In the Barrington 220 district, Gender Queer is only on shelves in the high school library. At the end of a school year, the parents of middle school students received an email encouraging—not assigning, but encouraging students to read over the summer. The email contained links to 2 lists of award-winning books compiled by the American Association of Illinois School Library Educators: the Rebecca Caudill Young Readers’ Book Award 2023 and the 2023 Illinois Lincoln Award List. Parents were told that the lists contained some books with adult content. Keep in mind, some of these middle school students would become high school students once that summer break ended.

So no: it wasn’t assigned, it wasn’t for elementary school, parents were the ones who received the list, were told about adult content and could use discretion accordingly.
This is just more manufactured outrage bullshit peddled by the Right.

Isn’t it something though that this book you keep trying to portray as porn is an award winner?





That's exactly what a lot of parents are doing. A lot of them do not believe in gender ideology and fighting against it.

People like you are the ones trying to teach it as an established fact when it really isn't.
“Gender ideology” is a pretty vague, broad term, so I’m not sure what we’re referring to exactly.
But I’ll say that I think it’s pretty clear that gender is separate from biologically determined sex, and is a social construct.

Think of a classic “gender reveal” party: cut the cake, if it’s blue it’s a boy, if it’s pink, it’s a girl, right? I literally know a dude who would scold his two boys if they wore pink or played with “girl toys,”.
But pink wasn’t associated with girls until the 1950s. In the late 19th/early 20th centuries, people viewed those colors in the opposite way (pink for boys, blue for girls). Prior to the 1940s, children were dressed in little children’s dresses regardless of their sex. And obviously, wearing wigs and makeup was something men did in colonial times and before.
All of this shit is determined by society, it’s a construct, it’s been changed plenty of times.


And a lot of people disagree with you. Including trans people. The belief that you don't need gender dysphoria to be trans is just a recent POLITICAL belief.
No it isn’t, it doesn’t have to be political at all.

Forcing people to adhere to these constructs can cause problems. Whether it’s the idea that men shouldn’t cry or express emotions, or that girls can’t do the things guys like to do, or some little boy getting invalidated by his parents because he wants to be a baker and play with the EZ Bake oven or whatever the fuck, this is where the dysphoria can come in. I posted a study earlier that found that dysphoria was generally caused by external factors like lack of support and acceptance, stigmatizing, etc.

Transmedicalists wrongly believe one must have dysphoria to be “truly” trans, and studies say otherwise. Think about it: dysphoria is the depression/distress/anxiety part. It’s perfectly possible for someone to feel like their gender doesn’t match their biological sex but not necessarily be distressed about it. Transmedicalists believing that it’s a necessary component tells me that it was for them, and that’s very sad and unfortunate. But trying to turn it into some sort of dogma is not only incorrect but harmful.


If you don't have gender dysphoria, then insurance should not cover any trans surgeries or medication because it would just be a cosmetic procedure.

Insurance doesn't cover breast implants unless people have some kind of medical condition such as losing breasts to cancer. If a person just wants implants for cosmetic reasons, insurance doesn't cover it.
I don’t get why you’re so hung up about this. Insurance often doesn’t cover it unless there’s gender dysphoria diagnosed, or at least claimed.

Yet medical professionals and government organizations in all the progressive European countries that initially started giving puberty blockers to kids have stopped - the UK, France, Denmark, Sweden, the Netherlands, etc.

Because they found the long term dangers if it were still not known and there was little evidence it did good in the long run. The largest gender clinic in the UK, the Tavistock clinic, had to close due to this.

If it's so beneficial, why did all the countries that started this wave stop doing it?
I haven’t made any claim about this one way or the other. I didn’t say giving puberty blockers to kids is “so beneficial.” I do generally think each case is unique and should be left to the child, their parents, and their doctor to navigate.

Nonbinary is the fucking joke. It's a made up political term.
If you mean just the word non-binary, then maybe, it came out of activist movements. But the idea of not ascribing to either gender, or crossing gender boundaries, or feeling like one was born the wrong sex or gender, goes back thousands of years.
If your view is that this entire “trans thing” is just some recent political development only, that’s plainly very incorrect.

So what you're saying is that people can easily just lie and say they're trans and insurance would have to cover stuff because you can't clinically confirm gender dysphoria. That's a huge problem.
That’s not what I said at all. Again, I don’t know why you’re having a hard time getting this. I simply said that a person who isn’t experiencing dysphoria could claim that they are for the purpose of getting insurance to cover gender affirming care. Granted, they would likely be subject to a full clinical assessment to diagnose it.

Lots of psychological issues require interviews, assessments, and observations to diagnose—that’s just the nature of psychology. Do you feel this strongly about people being diagnosed with anxiety, or depression, or bipolar disorders, or things like that? Lots of that care is covered by insurance.

It seems abundantly clear that you’re view is emotion-based, it’s not based on solid understandings of the issues, and you cling to strawmen to try and justify it.
 
Have you considered the possibility that the trans people who want to exist and be left alone and the ones pushing it on children and getting their tits out at the white house might be different people?

Yes. So why do you want to treat them the same.
 
I do understand the controversy. And I think it’s very unfortunate that measures like this have to be taken because shitbag parents can’t even be supportive or helpful to their own kids because of things like the kid’s sexual orientation or gender identity.

The ultimate solution is for parents to be good parents, accept, support, and keep open communication with their kids. If you’re upset that your kid doesn’t want to tell you that they are trans or gay or whatever, that’s a You problem.

You're automatically making the assumption that parents are bad and some school teacher knows better. That is absolutely preposterous.

That is not their right to hide something from parents nor are any school employee qualified to make decisions like this.


So as long as the pronouns in question are he/him, she/her, and they/them, you’re totally ok with it? ;)

Nope I don't believe in they/them. That's a plural and not grammatically correct.

And I don't believe in determining child custody based on pronoun usage. LMAO how retarded do you have to be to believe that should be the case.

But this isn’t just about whether a parent uses “ze” as a pronoun. When judges decide custody cases, they do and should look at the entirety of the relationships that a child has with each parent. A good judge would put the kid where they are best supported and nurtured. Let’s say we have a non-gender conforming kid. One parent makes clear that they accept and support their kid, and has good communication and a good relationship with them. The other parent doesn’t accept that the kid could actually be this way, stigmatizes them, accuses the kid of being mentally ill, deadnames them, and constantly tries to put the kid in some fucked up conversion therapy against the child’s will.
—Which parent should get custody? The accepting one, of course. A judge should look at that, and they should weigh that heavily.

Why should the parent who automatically confirms granted custody when there are a growing number of detransitioners?

Turns out transitioning is not always the right move.

She didn’t.
But here come the strawmen again. My claim was that the book isn’t part of curriculums and isn’t sitting on shelves in elementary schools across the country. You know that’s true, so you want to try and shift to some other manufactured outrage event.

So let’s look at what really happened.

In the Barrington 220 district, Gender Queer is only on shelves in the high school library. At the end of a school year, the parents of middle school students received an email encouraging—not assigning, but encouraging students to read over the summer. The email contained links to 2 lists of award-winning books compiled by the American Association of Illinois School Library Educators: the Rebecca Caudill Young Readers’ Book Award 2023 and the 2023 Illinois Lincoln Award List. Parents were told that the lists contained some books with adult content. Keep in mind, some of these middle school students would become high school students once that summer break ended.

So no: it wasn’t assigned, it wasn’t for elementary school, parents were the ones who received the list, were told about adult content and could use discretion accordingly.
This is just more manufactured outrage bullshit peddled by the Right.

Stop lying. You said it was for age 16+. Middle school children are under 16 years of age.

Isn’t it something though that this book you keep trying to portray as porn is an award winner?



The fuck? Something can be an award winner and not be appropriate for children.

I literally showed you some of the passages that had images of giving a blowjob, describing underage incest sex with a cousin, how o use Grundr, etc.

That is not appropriate for children - period.

You're a fucking mentally ill retard of you think that's ok for children.

“Gender ideology” is a pretty vague, broad term, so I’m not sure what we’re referring to exactly.
But I’ll say that I think it’s pretty clear that gender is separate from biologically determined sex, and is a social construct.

Think of a classic “gender reveal” party: cut the cake, if it’s blue it’s a boy, if it’s pink, it’s a girl, right? I literally know a dude who would scold his two boys if they wore pink or played with “girl toys,”.
But pink wasn’t associated with girls until the 1950s. In the late 19th/early 20th centuries, people viewed those colors in the opposite way (pink for boys, blue for girls). Prior to the 1940s, children were dressed in little children’s dresses regardless of their sex. And obviously, wearing wigs and makeup was something men did in colonial times and before.
All of this shit is determined by society, it’s a construct, it’s been changed plenty of times.

The belief that sex is biological and gender is a social construct is a political and sociological belief. That by definition is just subjective opinion.

And even if we accept your premise - a lot of the things being fought - such as transwomen in female sports is due to immutable SEX DIFFERENCES and not gender.

Transmedicalists wrongly believe one must have dysphoria to be “truly” trans, and studies say otherwise. Think about it: dysphoria is the depression/distress/anxiety part. It’s perfectly possible for someone to feel like their gender doesn’t match their biological sex but not necessarily be distressed about it. Transmedicalists believing that it’s a necessary component tells me that it was for them, and that’s very sad and unfortunate. But trying to turn it into some sort of dogma is not only incorrect but harmful.

If someone doesn't feel their gender matches but doesn't have a disorder, insurance has no obligation to cover it.

Medical insurance is for medical conditions.

You have given no proof that transmedicalists are wrong. And BTW, for the vast majority of human history, the transmedicalist view was the mainstream view of transgender people.

I don’t get why you’re so hung up about this. Insurance often doesn’t cover it unless there’s gender dysphoria diagnosed, or at least claimed.

All the trans advocates are pushing for self ID to be able to get hormones and/or surgery.

I haven’t made any claim about this one way or the other. I didn’t say giving puberty blockers to kids is “so beneficial.” I do generally think each case is unique and should be left to the child, their parents, and their doctor to navigate.

To give medication that does something as drastic as arrest puberty, they would need to prove it is safe.

They have not done so and there are zero long term studies on the safety of giving puberty blockers to kids for the purpose of transitioning.

The FDA has not approved puberty blockers for this purpose.

That’s not what I said at all. Again, I don’t know why you’re having a hard time getting this. I simply said that a person who isn’t experiencing dysphoria could claim that they are for the purpose of getting insurance to cover gender affirming care. Granted, they would likely be subject to a full clinical assessment to diagnose it.

So if a full clinical assessment finds they don't have gender dysphoria, insurance shouldn't cover it. Glad we agree on this point.

Lots of psychological issues require interviews, assessments, and observations to diagnose—that’s just the nature of psychology. Do you feel this strongly about people being diagnosed with anxiety, or depression, or bipolar disorders, or things like that? Lots of that care is covered by insurance.

Yea they do psychological assessment to determine if someone has depression, anxiety and gender dysphoria.

Doctors don't prescribe anti-depressants if you don't get diagnosed with depression.

So why should doctors prescribe cross sex hormones without gender dysphoria?

It seems abundantly clear that you’re view is emotion-based, it’s not based on solid understandings of the issues, and you cling to strawmen to try and justify it.

Projection much? I'm based on facts and logic. You're the one doing appeals to emotion.
 
Last edited:
You're automatically making the assumption that parents are bad and some school teacher knows better. That is absolutely preposterous.
But very on brand for a Lefty. They don't believe in parental rights, and want children to belong to the state...as long as Democrats are in charge. Disagree with left wing indoctrination that can potentially turn your kid into a human experiment? You're a bad parent.

They appeal to authority on EVERYTHING, which is why they're dangerous. They are very broken people.
 
You're automatically making the assumption that parents are bad and some school teacher knows better. That is absolutely preposterous.

That is not their right to hide something from parents nor are any school employee qualified to make decisions like this.
Nope, I sure didn’t. I talked about a parent who is accepting and supportive of their child vs a parent who stigmatizes and demeans their child.

Nope I don't believe in they/them. That's a plural and not grammatically correct.

And I don't believe in determining child custody based on pronoun usage. LMAO how retarded do you have to be to believe that should be the case.
Oh really?

“Hey, does your friend want to come over and watch the fights with us? You should ask them.”

“Have you noticed that when a Sherdogger has a white belt, they tend to make really shitty threads?”


They and them have been used in the singular in English since like the 14th century.
In fact, I’d argue that it’s the default when one doesn’t know someone’s gender.
For example, let’s say I’m throwing a party, I invite you, and you have a friend who wants to come too.

You: “Hey BFoe, is it ok if I bring a friend to the party with me?”
Me: “Of course they can come, give them a call, bring them over.”



Why should the parent who automatically confirms granted custody when there are a growing number of detransitioners?

Turns out transitioning is not always the right move.
Sometimes it may be the right move, sometimes not. Sometimes a trans person wants to pursue transitioning, sometimes they don’t.

But who said anything about transitioning as it relates to this? I spoke of a custody issue where one parent is accepting and supportive of their child’s gender identity, and one who is not.
You understand that doesn’t automatically mean the accepting parent is going to have their kid transition or have surgery or ou etc blockers or whatever, right?

Stop lying. You said it was for age 16+. Middle school children are under 16 years of age.
I already anticipated you’d say that and addressed it in that post. It was on a list for summer reading where some students could be starting high school after the summer break.

I assume you waited until the exact moment of your 17th birthday to watch your first R-rated movie by yourself, right? :rolleyes:

Some soon to be 9th graders can handle reading that book. Some maybe not. I was a student who, from the time I was in elementary school, read several levels above my actual grade. When I was in junior high (we called it that and not middle school) and high school, my fiction reading was stuff like William S. Burroughs, JG Ballard, stuff like that.
Do you know how much heroin use and gay sex is in an average William S. Burroughs book? <lol>

But more importantly:

  1. The book wasn’t assigned reading. So I guess that makes you the one who was lying. No one had to read that book for school.
  2. The list wasn’t given to students. It was given to their parents. The books weren’t even provided, they had to be sought out.
  3. The parents were told there was some young adult/adult level material on the list, so they could be aware of it right off the bat and make the appropriate choice for their own kid—isn’t that what you were advocating for earlier?

The fuck? Something can be an award winner and not be appropriate for children.

I literally showed you some of the passages that had images of giving a blowjob, describing underage incest sex with a cousin, how o use Grundr, etc.

That is not appropriate for children - period.

You're a fucking mentally ill retard of you think that's ok for children.
Look, I’m sorry I didn’t react with the Puritan shock you expected. It’s not a book I think should be assigned reading in any curriculum, and it isn’t. I don’t have a problem with it simply being available to an appropriate age range, and I think that appropriate age range probably begins somewhere in the teens—exactly where depends on the individual teenager. In the district you referenced, that book was in the high school library only.

The degree with which you slip into ad hominem silliness, and sometimes ALL CAPS shouting, tells me that your response is emotion-based and not data based. You’ve repeatedly avoided my claims and strawmanned my arguments, and repeatedly been shown to be misrepresenting events. You try to turn each issue into into a caricature, because that’s the only way you can even attempt to engage with it.
 
Nope, I sure didn’t. I talked about a parent who is accepting and supportive of their child vs a parent who stigmatizes and demeans their child.

Again you're making the automatic assumption that the parent is going to stigmatize and demean their child.

It is not up to the school to determine this.

Oh really?

“Hey, does your friend want to come over and watch the fights with us? You should ask them.”

“Have you noticed that when a Sherdogger has a white belt, they tend to make really shitty threads?”


They and them have been used in the singular in English since like the 14th century.
In fact, I’d argue that it’s the default when one doesn’t know someone’s gender.
For example, let’s say I’m throwing a party, I invite you, and you have a friend who wants to come too.

You: “Hey BFoe, is it ok if I bring a friend to the party with me?”
Me: “Of course they can come, give them a call, bring them over.”

This is only grammatically applicable when you don't know the gender of the person you're referring to. In all other cases it's a plural.

But you're insisting on people using they/them pronouns for people we know the sex of.

Sometimes it may be the right move, sometimes not. Sometimes a trans person wants to pursue transitioning, sometimes they don’t.

But who said anything about transitioning as it relates to this? I spoke of a custody issue where one parent is accepting and supportive of their child’s gender identity, and one who is not.
You understand that doesn’t automatically mean the accepting parent is going to have their kid transition or have surgery or ou etc blockers or whatever, right?

But that's now how the law is written. If sometimes transitioning is not the right move, you can't have it codified into law that the parent who always affirms should get custody.

I already anticipated you’d say that and addressed it in that post. It was on a list for summer reading where some students could be starting high school after the summer break.

I assume you waited until the exact moment of your 17th birthday to watch your first R-rated movie by yourself, right? :rolleyes:

Some soon to be 9th graders can handle reading that book. Some maybe not. I was a student who, from the time I was in elementary school, read several levels above my actual grade. When I was in junior high (we called it that and not middle school) and high school, my fiction reading was stuff like William S. Burroughs, JG Ballard, stuff like that.
Do you know how much heroin use and gay sex is in an average William S. Burroughs book? <lol>

But more importantly:

  1. The book wasn’t assigned reading. So I guess that makes you the one who was lying. No one had to read that book for school.
  2. The list wasn’t given to students. It was given to their parents. The books weren’t even provided, they had to be sought out.
  3. The parents were told there was some young adult/adult level material on the list, so they could be aware of it right off the bat and make the appropriate choice for their own kid—isn’t that what you were advocating for earlier?

Literally doesn't matter if it's assigned reading or not. They're recommending inappropriate reading material for children under 16 years of age.

When you had previously said it was only for age 16 and up.

So you were just caught in a lie and now you're backtracking.

Look, I’m sorry I didn’t react with the Puritan shock you expected. It’s not a book I think should be assigned reading in any curriculum, and it isn’t. I don’t have a problem with it simply being available to an appropriate age range, and I think that appropriate age range probably begins somewhere in the teens—exactly where depends on the individual teenager. In the district you referenced, that book was in the high school library only.

The degree with which you slip into ad hominem silliness, and sometimes ALL CAPS shouting, tells me that your response is emotion-based and not data based. You’ve repeatedly avoided my claims and strawmanned my arguments, and repeatedly been shown to be misrepresenting events. You try to turn each issue into into a caricature, because that’s the only way you can even attempt to engage with it.

You literally said these books are only for ages 16 and up. When I just gave a straightforward example of it shown to children under that, you start backtracking and writing word salad paragraphs accusing me of ad hominems and strawmanning.

Why not just admit you were wrong.
 
Again you're making the automatic assumption that the parent is going to stigmatize and demean their child.

It is not up to the school to determine this.
I’m not assuming that the parent will be stigmatizing. I’m noting that in those instances, there’s obviously a communication issue in which the student feels that they’d rather not communicate that.


This is only grammatically applicable when you don't know the gender of the person you're referring to. In all other cases it's a plural.

But you're insisting on people using they/them pronouns for people we know the sex of.
It can also be used to refer to people on an individual basis when you’re being inclusive of gender.

It’s their gender you don’t know, and as you just said it’s applicable then. Saying that singular they is grammatically incorrect is just plain wrong. Easily proven wrong.

But that's now how the law is written. If sometimes transitioning is not the right move, you can't have it codified into law that the parent who always affirms should get custody.
What law? You’ve never even specified what law you mean. If you’re talking about CA’s AB957 bill it was vetoed and did not become law.

And that didn’t even do what you claimed:

3011.​

(a) In making a determination of the best interests of the child in a proceeding described in Section 3021, the court shall, among any other factors it finds relevant and consistent with Section 3020, consider all of the following:
(1) (A) The health, safety, and welfare of the child.
(B) As used in this paragraph, the health, safety, and welfare of the child includes, among other comprehensive factors, a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity or gender expression. Affirmation includes a range of actions and will be unique for each child, but in every case must promote the child’s overall health and well-being.



Literally doesn't matter if it's assigned reading or not. They're recommending inappropriate reading material for children under 16 years of age.

When you had previously said it was only for age 16 and up.

So you were just caught in a lie and now you're backtracking.

You think it’s inappropriate for everyone. I don’t. And there are parents who don’t. And I support parents’ right to parent their child and either allow that reading or set those boundaries.

Those students were not, as you falsely say below, “shown those books.” Their parents were given a reading list of award-winning books that they could recommend to their kids or let their kids read, if they chose. There’s that parental choice you claim to favor. But you don’t favor parental choice when it’s parents of queer kids, or even just parents with mature, intellectually curious students, or (gasp!) left-leaning students.


You literally said these books are only for ages 16 and up. When I just gave a straightforward example of it shown to children under that, you start backtracking and writing word salad paragraphs accusing me of ad hominems and strawmanning.

Why not just admit you were wrong.
I gave you the general recommendation for the book (ages 16+), and then gave my view on whether students close to that age could also read it—that view being that some could handle it and some probably shouldn’t. This isn’t hard to follow, keep up.

You’ve had to be dishonest at every turn to try and even make a case. You claimed it was a 6th grade teacher, you claimed it was assigned reading—all manufactured right wing rage porn bullshit, but you fell for it because it fuels your prejudices. Shit, you were even wrong about constitutes proper English.
 
I’m not assuming that the parent will be stigmatizing. I’m noting that in those instances, there’s obviously a communication issue in which the student feels that they’d rather not communicate that.

And it's relying on the school teachers and officials to make this determination. School officials are not qualified to do this.

Parental rights trumps what a school teacher thinks.

It can also be used to refer to people on an individual basis when you’re being inclusive of gender.

It’s their gender you don’t know, and as you just said it’s applicable then. Saying that singular they is grammatically incorrect is just plain wrong. Easily proven wrong.

That's the whole crux of the issue. A lot of people do not believe nonbinary is a real thing. Even a lot of trans people do not believe it is real.

You're treating it as an established fact when it isn't at all.

What law? You’ve never even specified what law you mean. If you’re talking about CA’s AB957 bill it was vetoed and did not become law.

And that didn’t even do what you claimed:

3011.​

(a) In making a determination of the best interests of the child in a proceeding described in Section 3021, the court shall, among any other factors it finds relevant and consistent with Section 3020, consider all of the following:
(1) (A) The health, safety, and welfare of the child.
(B) As used in this paragraph, the health, safety, and welfare of the child includes, among other comprehensive factors, a parent’s affirmation of the child’s gender identity or gender expression. Affirmation includes a range of actions and will be unique for each child, but in every case must promote the child’s overall health and well-being.


There are several states that have passed legislation like this - New York, Colorado, etc. On top of that, there are some countries like Canada that also has legislation like this.

In Canada, there have been several high profile court cases where parents have lost custody because one parent wanted to give puberty blockers and cross sex hormones to kids.

You think it’s inappropriate for everyone. I don’t.

You don't think it's inappropriate to show blowjobs, incest sex with underage cousins and how to use Grindr to children?

Ok retard.

And there are parents who don’t. And I support parents’ right to parent their child and either allow that reading or set those boundaries.

Those students were not, as you falsely say below, “shown those books.” Their parents were given a reading list of award-winning books that they could recommend to their kids or let their kids read, if they chose. There’s that parental choice you claim to favor. But you don’t favor parental choice when it’s parents of queer kids, or even just parents with mature, intellectually curious students, or (gasp!) left-leaning students.

If a school recommends books and they're available in the school library, that is the same thing.

And again, you got caught lying. Because you previously said these books are only for age 16 and up.

I gave you the general recommendation for the book (ages 16+), and then gave my view on whether students close to that age could also read it—that view being that some could handle it and some probably shouldn’t. This isn’t hard to follow, keep up.

You’ve had to be dishonest at every turn to try and even make a case. You claimed it was a 6th grade teacher, you claimed it was assigned reading—all manufactured right wing rage porn bullshit, but you fell for it because it fuels your prejudices. Shit, you were even wrong about constitutes proper English.

If a teacher recommends and makes available a book that is not appropriate for children, that teacher did something wrong.

And your view is that these things are appropriate on a case by case basis even if under age 16. That's literally just your (stupid) opinion.
 
Obstructing nature's beauty with distractions of any kind SUX.

ALL giant flags in or on National Parks should be immediately removed.
 
Obstructing nature's beauty with distractions of any kind SUX.

ALL giant flags in or on National Parks should be immediately removed.
I take offence to not having American and in CA bear flags. Why do you hate America?
 
I take offence to not having American and in CA bear flags. Why do you hate America?
<cruzshake>

An American flag would be fine my way. I'm glad to have lived my life as a proud AF American willing to put my life on the line to preserve the great American way of life.

California flag ? No F'n Way.​

Cali's scumbag governer Newsome has been a crooked and traitorous POS by allowing ANY Sanctuary City to be in HIS state. There are So Many good citizens living there that are negatively affected from the policies that permit lawlessness in and out of the government - California is a complete embarrasment to what America stands for.
 
Back
Top