"It won't be banned any more if it changes its content" is not a defence-- especially since the law it supposedly broke is intentionally vague enough to allow the authorities to apply it to whatever they don't like.
It is possible to state something correct and lose an argument by doing so. As is the case with the general book banning conversation. Almost everyone is appalled by the idea of book bans, until you identify the books actually being banned from primary schools and they've got explicit illustrations or descriptions of sex acts, and then suddenly people stop being appalled by book bans.
Pearl-clutching about sex education as a justification for removing educational materials.
You're completely misrepresenting those books, lying by omission and flat out lying about said books that you've never read
I have read both "This Book Is Gay" and "Gender Queer", both of which have been pushed at young school children
Specifically the law in questions prohibits "training or instruction that espouses, promotes, advances, inculcates, or compels such student or employee to believe any of the following concepts:"
By this metric, talking about Japanese American reparations for internment during WW2 is "CRT" and should be banned
So yeah, lying about and misrepresenting the books. Hell, Gender Queer ends with the author miserable with er own body, not liking sex, and quietly living in the closet to not cause a ruckus. It's basically the end result you want for all queer people, if you can't
I'm assuming you're thinking it would violate 5 and 7, specifically regarding those whose national origin is the US? But I'm not seeing how teaching about the reparations act requires teaching US-born students that they should feel guilt or responsibility for the actions of the US government during WW2.
Wild how you've never seen a conservative argue. What about this curriculum violates the rules?
Why would I need more? Why would I need to describe the authors surprise to learn not everyone reads slash fiction? How does there being more objectionable content help your argument?
Well, because the context makes it clear the intent isn't pornographic, and you cut it in order to mislead people into thinking it is pornographic.
The explicit intent of the author was a book for people 16 and older.
Because it clearly shows that you haven't read, and are subsequently lying about, the book in question. Wouldn't want kids to learn that sex can be mundane or even something it's okay to avoid, then it wouldn't have that Forbidden Fruit tangibility that you can demonize
You really think I'm pretending to have read a book when I haven't? That is a silly thing. It's not even long, and its a graphic novel, it takes almost no effort to read the whole thing.
And yet, here we are, you having done just that
Why not? Middle schoolers are entering puberty, where something like Gender Queer can help some of them put names to feelings. And Animorphs will "mess with a kid's mind" way more than that will. Let them read Crime and Punishment, if they want. That's about the time I read The Stand. You're raising fragile adults
Feelings are not a fixed attribute. They are controllable and malleable. Puberty does not inherently develop an affinity for erotic internet fanfiction within someone who doesn't know it exists, I don't want books in schools to expose children to that kind of culture.
Again, misrepresentation and lies. Was talking about the queer kids and how they're starting to feel with the hormones kicking up, but the only thing you know about Gender Queer are the two pages that the memes told you to be mad at so you have zero idea what I'm talking about.
Name two things that happen that aren't these two specific things you always bring up
