Dude, they're kids. These are awkward attempts at exploring new feelings, not deliberate attempts at emotional blackmail.
You seem to be suffering under the delusion that children aren't horrible people.
I don't need to justify it.
If you want to defend it as required reading, you absolutely do. The story that started this was this version of Anne Frank's diary being assigned reading.
But hey, here's a justification; it humanizes her. Instead of Anne Frank the symbol of the Nazi persecution of the Jewish people, we get to see a bit of Anne Frank the girl who has a crush on another girl.
We've circled back to the idea that only sex can humanize her. Why are her hobbies, her family interactions, her fears, her dreams, etc. insufficient to humanize her. Why is a memory of a prepubescent sexual interaction important in relating to her?
Just so we're clear here, Anne Frank did not agree to have any of her diary made available for public consumption.
"Dearest Kitty....
You've known for a long time that my greatest wish is to be a journalist, and later on, a famous writer. We'll have to wait and see if these grand illusions (or delusions!) will ever come true, but up to now I've had no lack of topics. In any case, after the war
I'd like to publish a book called The Secret Annex. It remains to be seen whether I'll succeed, but
my diary can serve as the basis."
I'm sure you'll nitpick this, but she wrote in the diary that she'd like to write a book based on her diary. And 9 days later, she started to rewrite her earlier diary entries. I'm pretty sure that written approval holds up in court. Has anyone else actually read The Diary of Anne Frank?
You keep pursuing this point even though it's been pointed out the motivation for that removal is an unknown quantity.
She knew she was writing a book at the editing stage. She wanted to be a successful author, which means playing by the standards of the time.
Stop acting like the removal was her deeming the content as unsuitable for her story, it is an unknown quantity.
As said before, she may have removed it for personal reasons or in the pursuit of publication and success. Or both, or neither.
Your views do not default to being correct.
You're not disputing that she decided not to include it. It doesn't matter why she made that decision, that's a distinction without a difference. If you were disputing that she planned on publishing the content, there'd be a difference, and again, none of it should have been published in that case. But if we agree that she was editing her writing in preparation for publishing it as a book, and she decided not to include some content in that version, then she made the editorial decision that the content should not be published. Whatever more specific reason is irrelevant.
