Pronoun/Gender Wars Continue Apace

[MustardSeed]

On 7/11/2026 at 7:22 PM, longview said:

This is just foaming-in-the-mouth bizarre. Please CFR the historical evidence.

Surely you knew he’d provide it

[The Nehor]

55 minutes ago, MustardSeed said:

Surely you knew he’d provide it

You realize you just set yourself up for a “and don’t call me Shirley” line.

[longview]

10 hours ago, MustardSeed said:

Surely you knew he’d provide it

Fer shure he was! If something is insanely radical, he will FIND it and exhaustively document down to the most excruciating detail and relishing the depravity of it all. 

ETA: Yours truly, Shirley. 

Edited Monday at 01:27 PM by longview

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, longview said:

Fer shure he was! If something is insanely radical, he will FIND it and exhaustively document down to the most excruciating detail and relishing the depravity of it all. 

I would argue that the depravity in the story of the Institute were the murderous book-burning Nazis and not the tiny marginalized population trying to quietly examine themselves and find a way to coexist peacefully with the rest of society.

Just like today.

One of my favorite historians likes to say that if your side is censoring, restricting, banning, or burning books you are on the wrong side of history.

Edited Monday at 04:46 PM by The Nehor

[smac97]

On 7/10/2026 at 7:43 PM, The Nehor said:

No you wouldn’t. You would dismiss it or pull a quote from the Cass Report and declare victory. I am operating on an abundance of evidence. You have to cherry-pick. But fine, her is a 40 year follow-up study:

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36149983/

From this study:

Quote

Chart review identified 97 patients who were seen for gender dysphoria at a tertiary care center from 1970 to 1990 with comprehensive preoperative evaluations. These evaluations were used to generate a matched follow-up survey regarding their GAS, appearance, and mental/social health for standardized outcome measures. Of 97 patients, 15 agreed to participate in the phone interview and survey. Preoperative and postoperative body congruency score, mental health status, surgical outcomes, and patient satisfaction were compared.

From 97 identified historical patients (1970–1990), only 15 (about 15%) participated in the follow-up survey/phone interview. This introduces strong selection bias—participants were likely those doing well enough (and willing) to respond years later. High loss to follow-up is a well-documented issue in GAS outcome studies and often inflates positive results.

Also, this study has weak controls.  It relies on old charts and self-recall. There is no control group (e.g., dysphoric individuals who did not pursue surgery). Preoperative/postoperative comparisons are limited, and confounding factors (e.g., therapy, social changes, natural resolution of dysphoria) are not well isolated.

The study contributes anecdotal-style long-term data from a surgical perspective, but it appears that it is not considered robust evidence by standards applied in systematic reviews or bodies like the Cass Report.

On 7/10/2026 at 7:43 PM, The Nehor said:

Sweden reportedly made some conclusions based on this study which had to issue a correction:

https://segm.org/ajp_correction_2020

From this article:

Quote

In October 2019, the American Journal of Psychiatry (AJP) published a study from the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, and the Yale School of Public Health which reported that “gender-affirming" surgeries for gender dysphoric patients are associated with improved mental health outcomes (1). Looking at mental health utilization in the year 2015, a retrospective analysis showed that the more time passed since surgery, the fewer mental services were utilized by patients, with an average 8% reduction in mental health utilization for each year following surgery. From this, the study concluded that surgery has a beneficial effect on mental health, and that benefits continue to accrue over time. However, following a reanalysis of the data, this conclusion has now been officially corrected to indicate that there is “no advantage of surgery.”

These are emblematic of the "abundance of evidence" upon which you base your position?

On 7/10/2026 at 7:43 PM, The Nehor said:

And have a systematic review of all peer-reviewed studies in English to pull out a larger picture:

https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/

About this "study":

Quote

But the research does not support these claims. Examining the fifty-two studies that are cited as overwhelming evidence for the efficacy of transition reveals a complex picture that challenges the current transgender agenda. To borrow an analogy, the What We Know Project is trying to show us a brick wall of evidence—solid scientific study stacked on solid scientific study. But a closer look reveals a lot of cardboard painted to look like bricks.
...

Surveying the remaining fifty papers reveals significant limitations. The most obvious problem is the low number of subjects in most of the studies. All else being equal, larger samples yield better results; there are even helpful online calculators to help researchers and pollsters determine how many subjects they need for reliable results.

Of the fifty relevant papers identified by the project, only five studies (10 percent) had more than 300 subjects, while twenty-six studies (52 percent) had fewer than 100. Seventeen studies (34 percent) had fifty or fewer subjects, and five of those had a sample size of twenty-five or less. Smaller studies can still be useful, but when a paper’s findings are presented as authoritative, it matters whether it had a sample size of 2800, 280, or twenty-eight. Unfortunately, the creators of the What We Know Project made no effort to distinguish between study types and sizes. Thus, among the studies touted as providing overwhelming scientific evidence for the efficacy of transition were a qualitative study based on interviews with eighteen subjects and a study of twenty-two trans-women (who were compared to twenty-two women as controls) that examined the utility of occupational therapy in transition. The “mounds of scholarly studies” that Frank cites turn out to include a lot of academic molehills.

And it gets worse.

The five largest studies were methodologically weak. The “2014 British study” that Frank cited in his New York Times piece was “a narrative analysis of qualitative sections of a survey” from 2012 that was hosted online by SurveyMonkey and promoted through the UK by LGBT groups and support organizations. A “narrative analysis” of parts of a self-selecting online survey disseminated by LGBT advocates is not scientifically dispositive, even if the New York Times permitted it to be presented as such.

Another large study recruited subjects for its online survey by advertising “on online groups and discussion forums that were dedicated to FTM [female-to-male] members. . . . Upon survey completion, participants were entered into a lottery drawing for cash prizes.” An Internet survey was also used by a study that recruited subjects online and via flyers and postcards in the San Francisco area, though in that case participants only “received a discount coupon redeemable at an Internet store.” Yet another study consisted of a “1-time self-report survey” completed by a “community sample of 573 transgender women with a history of sex work” who “received financial compensation for their time.” These surveys may provide us with some data, but they are not reliable or representative scientific evidence for the efficacy of transition.

The most rigorous of the five largest studies cited by the What We Know Project was a Swedish review of fifty years of applications for sex reassignment surgery. Its relevant finding was that, “The regret rate defined as application for reversal of the legal gender status among those who were sex reassigned was 2.2 percent for the whole period 1960–2010.” Transgender activists often cite results of this sort, but they are ignoring several difficulties.

The first problem is that this methodology probably undercounts the regret rate, as its definition of regret overlooks those who were unhappy with their transition but did not apply to reverse it. It would not count those who succumbed to depression or addiction, or who lived unhappily after transition. Nor does the What We Know Projects note that a related study by some of the same researchers showed a horrifyingly high rate of suicide among its post-surgery subjects—nineteen times that of the general population. Finally, this data is drawn from a population with strict pre-transition screening, and the results likely do not apply where transition is less regulated. It is dangerous to assume that the regret rate of rigorously screened Swedish adults will apply to poorly screened American adolescents.

In sum, in a set of studies notable for small sample sizes, the five largest all have significant weaknesses, especially in relying on self-selecting subjects taking one-time, online surveys.

The flaws go on from there.

On 7/10/2026 at 7:43 PM, The Nehor said:

I could post dozens more if I thought it would help but a simple Google search would get you a lot of the same data.

As you are apparently not willing to present the evidence on which you rely, I will go ahead and look for data supporting it.  What you have presented so far does not seem very good.

On 7/10/2026 at 7:43 PM, The Nehor said:

Quote

I’m not ignoring reported relief.  Some people do experience short-term improvement in dysphoria after transition. The issue is whether it’s sustained, net positive long-term, with acceptable risks. 

And the data shows that it is.

That does not seem to be the case.  But I will go look.

On 7/10/2026 at 7:43 PM, The Nehor said:

Wrong. Just wrong. Totally wrong. A simple Google search would verify that. Even most AI is smart enough to answer that.

You don’t judge them by any standard of evidence. You have just decided it has a negative effect.

None of those are known to be a cause of gender dysphoria. You’re just making things up.

To what model? What are you even talking about? What nations have abandoned medical transition entirely in favor of talk therapy? You are taking mostly minor changes in how some nations deal with pediatric cases and generalizing to an absurd degree.

I posted a bunch above. You can find more with a simple Google search. Go nuts.

Fine, look at the studies.

No, they didn’t and you asserting it isn’t making it so.

No.

Why is it that changes you like are automatically free of political bias while those you disagree with are monstrous perversions of the system? It is almost as if you make that decision based entirely on whether it agrees with you.

Repeating the same thing over and over is so pathetic.

Nope.

But not enough to Google them?

Vain repetitions.

I am happy to evaluate data.  You provided some, and I found it not very good.  You are declining to provide more which supports your perspective, so I will go look.

On 7/10/2026 at 7:43 PM, The Nehor said:

I am not saying most transphobia is religiously motivated in Europe. I said your transphobia is religiously motivated. I don’t think in general it is religiously motivated. I think people are just uncomfortable with transgender people so they find justifications to back up their bigotry. For some that will be religion.

I think there are ample grounds for reasoned and principled disagreement with many facts of trans ideology and the trans movement.

On 7/10/2026 at 7:43 PM, The Nehor said:

You are absolutely and utterly wrong. Segregation was rooted in biology and trying to find a fundamental difference in races to justify its existence. The reason segregation began to fall legally was not primarily due to any moral advances. Part of it was that judges couldn’t find a key element to definitively differentiate between white and black people. When the binary was found wanting to thread that divide it became unenforceable. Another part was legislation and a lot of that legislation came because the Civil Right Movement was making life intolerable for the segregationist and (more importantly) costing the elite a lot of money.

I appreciate you sharing your perspective on the history of segregation—it's a complex chapter with legal, social, economic, and moral dimensions. However, I don't think the analogy holds for the current debate over pediatric gender medicine in places like the UK, Sweden, Finland, and Norway.

Segregation was a system of racial separation imposed despite clear, consistent evidence of harm (psychological, educational, economic) and in the face of a strong scientific consensus that racial categories did not justify differential treatment under the law or medicine. The shift away from it wasn't primarily because judges "couldn't find a biological difference"—biology was never the core justification for equal rights under the Constitution. It was about fundamental principles of equality and dignity, backed by overwhelming documentation of harm.

In contrast, the recent changes in Europe (e.g., the Cass Review and aligned systematic reviews in multiple countries) stem from independent evidence reviews finding the evidence base for puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones in minors to be weak: low-quality studies, high risk of bias, uncertain benefits for mental health/gender dysphoria, and known risks (bone density, fertility, sexual function, etc.).

These are not fringe sources.  They are commissioned by national health services using standard evidence-based medicine methods. That's why several countries have moved toward restricting routine use in children, prioritizing psychotherapy, and calling for better research. This is a standard medical caution when data are insufficient, not an ideological campaign.

Reasonable people can disagree on how to weigh the evidence or balance distress in gender-dysphoric youth. But comparing evidence-based clinical caution to Jim Crow segregation strikes me as a false equivalence that doesn't advance understanding. I'm happy to discuss specific studies or reviews if you'd like—my goal is careful, individualized care grounded in solid data, especially for kids.

On 7/10/2026 at 7:43 PM, The Nehor said:

You are a broken record.

ROGD is junk science. It is a non-clinical diagnosis. It is not supported by evidence.

Here is a good article examining why it is unproven, where it came from, why the initial data that led to the hypothesis doesn’t work as evidence (which I have shared with you multiple times but you ignore it):

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11876199/

I appreciate the link—I've read critiques of ROGD, including this one. Let's clarify what I'm actually saying.

"Rapid-onset gender dysphoria" (ROGD) isn't a formal DSM diagnosis or "junk science." It is a descriptive, hypothesis-generating term for a real epidemiological pattern observed by clinicians and documented in multiple sources: a sharp post-2010s rise in adolescent-onset (especially natal female) gender dysphoria, often with minimal childhood history, peer clusters, heavy social media influence, and high psychiatric comorbidities (autism, trauma, anxiety, depression, etc.).

This isn't based on one parent survey (Littman's 2018 study, which had limitations but was explicitly exploratory). Supporting observations include:

• Dramatic shifts in sex ratios and age of presentation at gender clinics worldwide (e.g., UK GIDS data, Dutch, Finnish, Swedish clinics).
• Reviews by Kenneth Zucker and others noting the change from predominantly early-onset male cases to adolescent-onset female cases.
• The Cass Review and European systematic evidence reviews acknowledging the unexplained surge and the role of social influences as one plausible contributor among multifactorial causes.

Major health bodies in the UK, Sweden, Finland, and Norway didn't restrict youth medical transitions because of "pseudoscience"—they did so after their own independent reviews found the evidence for puberty blockers/hormones in minors weak, with uncertain long-term benefits and known risks. They emphasize holistic assessment, addressing comorbidities, and caution around social contagion/peer influence.

I'm not claiming ROGD explains every case or justifies blanket denial of care. Many with gender dysphoria benefit from support. But dismissing the documented shift in presentation as "unproven" ignores clinical reality and the reason for caution in pediatric care. The debate exists because the evidence is contested.

I found the hullabaloo about this article interesting.  See also here:

Quote

Springer Nature will retract an article that reported results of a survey of parents who thought their children’s gender dysphoria resulted from social contagion. The move is “due to concerns about lack of informed consent,” according to tweets by one of the paper’s authors. 

The article, “Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria: Parent Reports on 1655 Possible Cases,” was published in March in the Archives of Sexual Behavior. It has not been cited in the scientific literature, according to Clarivate’s Web of Science, but Altmetric, which tracks the online attention papers receive, ranks the article in the top 1% of all articles of a similar age. 

Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD) is, the article stated, a “controversial theory” that “common cultural beliefs, values, and preoccupations cause some adolescents (especially female adolescents) to attribute their social problems, feelings, and mental health issues to gender dysphoria,” and that “youth with ROGD falsely believe that they are transgender,” in part due to social influences. 
...
 

Bailey told Retraction Watch that he would “respond when [he] can” to our request for comment, following “new developments on our end.” Neither Springer Nature nor Kenneth Zucker, editor in chief of Archives of Sexual Behavior, has responded to similar requests. 

The paper reported the results of a survey of parents who contacted the website ParentsofROGDKids.com, with which the first author is affiliated. According to the abstract, the authors found: 

“Pre-existing mental health issues were common, and youths with these issues were more likely than those without them to have socially and medically transitioned. Parents reported that they had often felt pressured by clinicians to affirm their AYA [adolescent and young adult] child’s new gender and support their transition. According to the parents, AYA children’s mental health deteriorated considerably after social transition.” 

Soon after publication, the paper attracted criticism that its method of gathering study participants was biased, and that the authors ignored information that didn’t support the theory of ROGD.

...

The episode prompted a May 5 “Open Letter in Support of Dr. Kenneth Zucker and the Need to Promote Robust Scientific Debate” from the Foundation Against Intolerance and Racism that has now been signed by nearly 2000 people.

On May 10, the following publisher’s note was added to the article: 

“readers are alerted that concerns have been raised regarding methodology as described in this article. The publisher is currently investigating this matter and a further response will follow the conclusion of this investigation.

Six days later, the publisher removed the article’s supplementary information “due to a lack of documented consent by study participants.” 

The story may feel familiar to readers who recall what happened to another paper in 2018. In that paper, Brown University’s Lisa Littman coined the term ROGD. Following a backlash, Brown took down a press release touting the results, and the paper was eventually republished with corrections.

Bailey has been accused of mistreating transgender research participants, but an investigation by bioethicist Alice Dreger found that of the many accusations, “almost none appear to have been legitimate.”

In a post on UnHerd earlier this month, Bailey responded to the reported concerns about the study lacking approval by an Institutional Review Board (IRB), and that the way the participants were recruited biased the results. 

IRB approval was not necessary, Bailey wrote, because Suzanna Diaz, the first author who collected the data, was not affiliated with an institution that required it. “Suzanna Diaz” is a pseudonym for “the mother of a gender dysphoric child she believes has ROGD” who wishes to remain anonymous for the sake of her family, Bailey wrote. 

The paper included the following statement about its ethical approval: 

“The first author and creator of the survey is not affiliated with any university or hospital. Thus, she did not seek approval from an IRB. After seeing a presentation of preliminary survey results by the first author, the second author suggested the data to be analyzed and submitted as an academic article (he was not involved in collecting the data). The second author consulted with his university’s IRB, who declined to certify the study because data were already collected. However, they advised that publishing the results was likely ethical provided data were deidentified. Editor’s note: After I reviewed the manuscript, I concluded that its publication is ethically appropriate, consistent with Springer policy.”

In his UnHerd post, Bailey quoted from the journal’s submission guidelines: 

“If a study has not been granted ethics committee approval prior to commencing, retrospective ethics approval usually cannot be obtained and it may not be possible to consider the manuscript for peer review. The decision on whether to proceed to peer review in such cases is at the Editor’s discretion.”

“Regarding the methodological limitations of the study, these were addressed forthrightly and thoroughly in our article,” Bailey wrote.

More here:

The Rapid Ideological Retraction of a Scientific Article on Rapid Onset-Gender Dysphoria

Some excerpts:

Quote

During the past decade there has been immense growth in the number of young persons diagnosed with and treated for gender dysphoria. Increases have been especially large for adolescent girls (Zucker, 2019). For example, the primary clinic in the United Kingdom saw a 5,000% increase in adolescent girls from 2010 to 2022 (Turner, 2022).

"{A} 5,000% increase in adolescent girls."

Quote

Two primary hypotheses have been offered to explain these changes. The first, favored by many online activists who claim to speak on behalf of transgender individuals (e.g., Ashley, 2020), is that increased cultural tolerance of transgender persons has encouraged those wishing to take steps to align their gender expression with their feelings to do so. These steps include social transition–changing pronouns, outward appearance, and overt behavior–and medical transition–receiving cross-sex hormones and surgery to make the body and face look like the sex one prefers to be. According to this explanation, the changes reflect the desirable expression of transgender persons’ rational choices and are overdue.

I am sure this is operative in some instances.  But then, I think the next one is also:

Quote

The second hypothesis is that there is a recent epidemic of the false belief among emotionally vulnerable adolescents that they are transgender (Littman, 2018). Furthermore, this belief is socially contagious from peer to peer. The condition affecting adolescents has been called “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” (ROGD) by those who believe the second hypothesis. They include many parents distressed by their children’s declarations that they are transgender, despite having no previous signs of gender dysphoria. These parents are also alarmed by the prospect of their children taking unnecessary, harmful, and irreversible medical steps. Supporters of the ROGD hypothesis also include a growing number of clinicians, researchers, and public intellectuals who find it more plausible than the other explanation.

ROGD is controversial for both scientific and nonscientific reasons. The former is understandable–the increase in adolescent gender dysphoria has been so recent that there has been insufficient time to conduct research.

I think this is a valid point.  It's a new theory.

Quote

The latter reflects the efforts of many transgender activists and their allies, who are adamantly opposed to the ROGD hypothesis.

I think this is the more prominent source of opposition.  But that's a guess.

Quote

If the hypothesis is true, then their ideology and activism have been harmful. When the first empirical study investigating ROGD–and finding evidence for it–was published (Littman, 2018), the journal that published it was besieged by complaints, and published a “Statement by PLOS One staff, which stated that

PLOS One is aware of the reader concerns raised on the study’s content and methodology. We take all concerns raised about publications in the journal very seriously, and are following up on these per our policy and COPE guidelines.

Concerns focused on methodological limitations, such as the study’s intentionally biased recruiting method (to see if a sample could be recruited that would show the ROGD phenomena–a “proof of concept” demonstration). These limitations reflected intentional trade-offs rather than mistakes, and they were addressed at length in the article. Nevertheless, the journal required an unnecessary “correction” by the author (Jussim, 2019; Littman, 2019).

---

My retracted article also addressed, and found support for, ROGD. The article’s data were collected by Suzanna Diaz, through the website ParentsOfROGDKids.com.

Suzanna is the mother of a young adult whom Suzanna believes has ROGD. “Suzanna Diaz” is a pseudonym adopted for privacy concerns–I don’t even know her real name.

That she felt it necessary to publish under a pseudonym is interesting.  And unfortunate.

Quote

I met her in 2018 at a small conference of parents, researchers, and clinicians concerned about adolescent gender dysphoria. She presented preliminary results from the survey, and I encouraged her to publish them. We ultimately collaborated on the article. Suzanna is not an academic, and so she did not seek ethics approval prior to conducting the survey. In the United States, approval is given by Institutional Review Boards (IRBs). People conducting research outside of universities and hospitals are not required to obtain IRB approval. This is related to the eventual reason given for retraction. Because I work at a university, I am usually required to get my research approved by an IRB before proceeding. I consulted my IRB about collaborating with Suzanna on a dataset that she had already collected. The IRB administrator confirmed that Suzanna is not required to consult with an IRB and that I could collaborate on a publication provided that the data were deidentified.

Our article contained data from 1,655 parents (or guardians) of youth ages 11– 21 whom parents believed had ROGD. Parents read the following before deciding to participate:

Quote

Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria (ROGD) is a new phenomenon that is only now beginning to be recognized.

The so-called "gender clinics" are not forthcoming with information about demographics or mental health issues of clients who seek out their services. Nor do they publish information on patient outcomes.

The task is left up to us, the parents, to seek out this information on our own.

Please help us gain a better understanding of this emotionally devastating and physically traumatizing, yet increasingly-common phenomenon.

Who Should Complete this Survey

If your child

• Had a relatively normal childhood without showing any signs of discomfort with their gender, and

• Suddenly, seemingly out of the blue, decided they identified as the opposite gender, or some other "gender"

Please take the time to fill out this survey. It takes about 10-15 minutes to complete, a bit longer if you write comments (which are very helpful!)

*Don't worry if the survey skips over some questions. It is designed to skip over questions that do not apply to you.

All responses will be kept strictly confidential.

Thank you, ParentsofROGDkids.com

Furthermore, at the end of the survey respondents were told: “We will publish our data on our website when we have a large enough sample to make our results significant.” Thus, no one could reasonably object that survey respondents did not consent to the publication of their deidentified data. I have provided this detail so that the reader can evaluate whether respondents had adequate information to decide to participate.

Our article’s large sample size allowed detection of many strongly significant effects, and our findings were generally consistent with the ROGD hypothesis. Most (75%) of the gender dysphoric youth reported on by their parents were natal females, who appear especially susceptible to ROGD. The gender dysphoric youth had a high rate of preexisting mental health problems, and those problems predated announcement of transgender status by nearly four years. Most children knew other youth who had become transgender around the same time, and this was especially common for females. Most females had taken steps to socially transition; this was half as common among males. Medical gender transition steps were much less common, with about 7% of youths having taken cross-sex hormones (and similar rates for boys and girls). Disturbingly, youths with more mental health problems were especially likely to have socially and medically transitioned. The strongest predictor of both kinds of transition was family referral to a gender specialist. Parents who consulted with specialists usually felt pressured to transition their gender dysphoric children.

"Parents who consulted with specialists usually felt pressured to transition their gender dysphoric children."

That seems to be a common phenomenon.

Quote

...
Shortly after publication I became aware of pushback against our study. For example, on March 29 “researcher and therapist” Jessica Kant Tweeted “Bailey and Diaz just published what might be the worst methodology I've ever seen. This is truly groundbreaking in all the wrong ways. Bravo.” That Tweet was brought to the attention of Editor Ken Zucker, who forwarded it to me. Sometime in April several academics and activists posted an open letter on the Internet that was “spurred by” the publication of our article (Adams et al., 2023). The letter had 100 signatories, more than half of whom were graduate students. Notable cosigners included: Florence Ashley, a self-described “transfeminine jurist, bioethicist, public speaker, and advocate” (Ashley, 2024), who was removed from the World Health Organization’s transgender health policy panel after her “extreme views” were publicized (Morrison, 2024); Elizabeth Olson, Associate Dean for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion at University of Illinois; Jae Puckett, a Michigan State University psychology professor whose entreaties led to cancellation of my scheduled talk there several years ago; Marci Bowers, Past President of the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) and one of several surgeons who perform “gender-affirming surgeries” (i.e., surgeries to create facsimiles of other-sex genitalia, or to remove female breasts); and Laura King, psychology professor at the University of Missouri. During King’s editorship at Perspectives of Psychological Science, she increasingly nurtured activist scholarship, including Ashley’s on gender identity (Ashley, 2023) and a piece by Steven O. Roberts (2020), whose hyperbolic reactions to its critiques caused a destructive controversy there (Jussim, 2023). To my knowledge no one who believes that Ashley’s and Roberts’ pieces were unworthy of publication–and I am one of those–tried to get them retracted or complained about King’s unscholarly priorities.

Activism seems to be playing a big role in "scholarship" in this area.

The entire article is worth a read.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited Monday at 10:36 PM by smac97

[longview]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

 

One of my favorite historians likes to say that if your side is censoring, restricting, banning, or burning books you are on the wrong side of history.

You make a good point. However, there is NO excuse for force-feeding little children hard-core and explicit pornographic books and pamphlets in school libraries and curriculum.

[Calm]

1 minute ago, longview said:

You make a good point. However, there is NO excuse for force-feeding little children hard-core and explicit pornographic books and pamphlets in school libraries and curriculum.

Are you okay with showing same sex marriages in the same way you want opposite sex marriages portrayed?

[longview]

1 minute ago, Calm said:

Are you okay with showing same sex marriages in the same way you want opposite sex marriages portrayed?

They are NOT to be compared with societies' obligation to support and sustain the "basic unit" consisting of man and woman and rearing of children in love. Other models merely need only the legal contracts for "joint" ownership of assets in the relationship. Noise about homosexual "marriages" or various avant-garde relationships do NOT merit serious treatment. I think it is a crime for government to warp the adoption process to "favor" placement in non-traditional families.

[Calm]

2 hours ago, longview said:

They are NOT to be compared with societies' obligation to support and sustain the "basic unit" consisting of man and woman and rearing of children in love. Other models merely need only the legal contracts for "joint" ownership of assets in the relationship. Noise about homosexual "marriages" or various avant-garde relationships do NOT merit serious treatment. I think it is a crime for government to warp the adoption process to "favor" placement in non-traditional families.

I meant specifically in regards to libraries and curriculum.

[The Nehor]

18 hours ago, longview said:

You make a good point. However, there is NO excuse for force-feeding little children hard-core and explicit pornographic books and pamphlets in school libraries and curriculum.

There is also NO excuse for pretending that is actually happening to any significant degree and the people wanting to censor stuff know it isn’t happening. That is the cover story. The goal is to remove books that suggests gay and other queer people exist from schools by saying that itself is pornography. This is an old tactic. During the earlier gay scares acknowledging that gay people existed was considered obscene.

Also why would queer people even want hard core and explicit porn in schools? What is the supposed motive for this? It is a ridiculous accusation and it is kind of weird that people just believe it despite no evidence of some concerted campaign to ‘sneak’ porn into schools.

[The Nehor]

18 hours ago, longview said:

They are NOT to be compared with societies' obligation to support and sustain the "basic unit" consisting of man and woman and rearing of children in love. Other models merely need only the legal contracts for "joint" ownership of assets in the relationship. Noise about homosexual "marriages" or various avant-garde relationships do NOT merit serious treatment. I think it is a crime for government to warp the adoption process to "favor" placement in non-traditional families.

That is not an answer to the actual question. I do find it funny that the people who scream the most about society’s obligation to support the traditional family seem to be working hard to make that structure economically infeasible so I kind of doubt that this is anything other than propaganda.

[smac97]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

There is also NO excuse for pretending that is actually happening to any significant degree and the people wanting to censor stuff know it isn’t happening.

Seems like it is happening:

Hearing Recap: Explicit Children's Books Edition

Quote

Today, the Committee on Education and the Workforce covered one of the most contentious issues in American politics: children’s books.
...
The first witness to offer testimony was Lindsey Smith, a concerned mother of four. She retold the story of her three-year-old son bringing home a book called Hide and Find, which encourages young children to “find images of ‘leather,’ ‘drag queen,’ and ‘underwear.’” Mrs. Smith’s personal experience with inappropriate children’s books motivated her to get involved in the concerned parents movement and, eventually, testify before Congress today.

Max Eden, Research Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, identified the 10 most-removed children’s books and the sexually depraved content contained within each. To name a few, he listed, “Gender Queer – orally inserting a wearable sex toy. This Book is Gay – a how to guide to meeting strangers on sex apps. Out of Darkness – rape. l8r g8r – a discussion of the finer points of oral sex. All Boys Aren’t Blue – underage incest.”

Mr. Eden also supplied the story of Forsyth school district, which was recently threatened by the Biden administration for pulling Me, Earl, and the Dying Girl from school libraries for review. “In one passage, which I maybe shouldn’t read verbatim, one character asks another if he knows how to perform oral sex on a woman. The other character replies no, but that he has been taught by ‘Papa Gaines’ how to perform oral sex on an anus,” he said.

Megan Degenfelder, Superintendent of the Wyoming Department of Education, rounded out the witness panel. She spoke to the common concern shared by all parents: “It’s common sense that children should not have access to pornography while at school. When did protecting our children become so controversial?”

Once the hearing turned to member questioning, Rep. Burgess Owens (R-UT) opened an exchange with Mr. Eden by asking, “How do these books get into these schools’ libraries in the first place?”

“They get in, in large part, innocently enough on the behalf of school librarians who look at a list and see that certain titles are recommended as being LGBT inclusive, and so they purchase the books,” Mr. Eden replied. 

School system pulls 2 books with graphic sex from libraries

Quote

A northern Virginia school system said it is removing two books from school libraries, including an illustrated memoir that contains explicit illustrations of sexual encounters involving children, after a parent expressed concern about them at a school board meeting.

Stacy Langton, a parent in the Fairfax County school system, questioned the school board at a public meeting Thursday about the books’ availability in high school libraries. As she quoted from explicit passages in the book, a school board member interrupted her and chastised her for using explicit language.
...

“Gender Queer,” an illustrated memoir, contains explicit illustrations of oral sex and masturbation. The novel “Lawn Boy” contains graphic descriptions of sex between men and children. Both books were previous winners of the American Library Association’s Alex Awards, which each year recognize “ten books written for adults that have special appeal to young adults ages 12 through 18.”

Langton said the fact that school board members felt compelled to interrupt her when she read graphic passages aloud illustrates her point about the books’ inappropriate nature.

Parents Objecting to Pornographic Material in School Libraries Aren’t “Book Banners”

Quote

Randi Weingarten, president of America’s second-largest teachers union, didn’t even wait for Banned Books Week to begin before posting on X: “Texas teacher fired for reading Diary of Anne Frank to class - THIS Speaks for itself!!!”

Just the latest example of “book banning” in our schools, it seemed.

But like almost every other aspect of overwrought book-banning claims, the description of this example is distorted. The book in question was not Anne Frank’s classic “Diary of a Young Girl,” but an adaptation of that work, a graphic novel called “Anne Frank’s Diary,” that emphasizes and inflates sexual passages in the original diary.

Specifically, the teacher asked her eighth grade students to read aloud and discuss a sexually explicit passage from that adaptation, in which Anne asks her friend if they could “show each other our breasts” and expresses a “terrible desire to kiss her.” So what was billed by the avatar of the American education establishment as a proto-fascist incident was just parents reacting to a teacher’s choice to emphasize sex in the Anne Frank story.
...

The media has also fabricated the narrative that book bans are about LGBTQ identity. But, as The Washington Post documented, only 7% of parental objections included “LGBTQ” without also including the word “sexual.”

All 10 of the books we found that were actually removed most often contained disturbingly explicit passages about sex. Take, for example, the most-banned “Gender Queer.” That graphic novel features a picture of oral sex being performed on a sex toy. It also contains an X-rated passage.

Lest you think we’re cherry-picking, consider the other top 10 most-removed books.

“This Book Is Gay” provides a how-to guide to find strangers for sex on gay sex apps. “Out of Darkness” contains a rape. “l8r g8r” contains discussions of oral sex. “All Boys Aren’t Blue” contains underage incest. “It’s Perfectly Normal” contains drawings of children masturbating. “Lawn Boy” contains a passage about 10-year-old boys performing oral sex on each other. “Jack of Hearts” talks about a condom that is “covered in s—-.” “Crank” details a meth-fueled rape. “Lucky” also details a rape. And “A Court of Mist and Fury,” tame by comparison, contains an extremely explicit sexual passage.

From Facebook:

Quote

Here’s a list of sexually explicit books (rated 5/5, 4/5, 3/5) found in schools across the country.

https://docs.google.com/.../16kXOBblHt1EeNHQu0v-a.../edit

 

Learn more at

 

https://www.ratedbooks.org/getting-started

And on and on and on.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

That is the cover story. The goal is to remove books that suggests gay and other queer people exist from schools by saying that itself is pornography.  This is an old tactic. During the earlier gay scares acknowledging that gay people existed was considered obscene.

Do you think it is possible to have literature that addresses and acknowledges that "gay and other queer people exist" while not exposing children to graphic and explicit descriptions of sexual acts and behaviors?

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Also why would queer people even want hard core and explicit porn in schools?

That's a good question.  What are your thoughts about it? It seems to be happening (and not just descriptions of "gay" sexual behavior).  But why?

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

What is the supposed motive for this? It is a ridiculous accusation and it is kind of weird that people just believe it despite no evidence of some concerted campaign to ‘sneak’ porn into schools.

This seems to be a legitimate summary of books found in libraries:

https://docs.google.com/.../16kXOBblHt1EeNHQu0v-a.../edit

Blaine County School District libraries offer pornographic books to children as young as elementary school (NSFW)

I actually won't quote this article, as it quotes the books being offered in libraries for children, and those book quotes and illustrations (some shown in the article) are quite sexually explicit.

This stuff seems to be happening.  When it comes to having sexually explicit materials in children's libraries, I think we ought to work to avoid this cyclical pattern:

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited Tuesday at 07:29 PM by smac97

[The Nehor]

20 hours ago, smac97 said:

About this "study":

You are trying to wholesale refute a literature review of several dozen studies using an opinion piece written by one guy.

Well, hopefully he is an expert in the field of medicine or statistical analysis so let’s take a look and……

“Nathanael Blake, Ph.D. is a Fellow in the Life and Family Initiative at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. His research interests include American political theory, Christian political thought, and the intersection of natural law and philosophical hermeneutics. His published scholarship has included work on Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Alasdair MacIntyre, Russell Kirk and J.R.R. Tolkien.”

…..LOL

That is the best you have to counter a literature review of several dozen studies? A hack writing puff pieces for an Institute that is overtly philosophically opposed to transgender people? He also considers the use of the Oxford comma to be optional and therefore deserves to be tried for heresy.

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

I'm not claiming ROGD explains every case or justifies blanket denial of care. Many with gender dysphoria benefit from support. But dismissing the documented shift in presentation as "unproven" ignores clinical reality and the reason for caution in pediatric care. The debate exists because the evidence is contested.

No, the debate exists because there are ideological reasons to believe ROGD exists and what you post just dances around the fact that there is no credible evidence of it existing. The only evidence are from online polls of parents of transgender minors who (based on where the polls were conducted) didn’t want their children to transition. The mother of all sampling biases.

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

I found the hullabaloo about this article interesting.  See also here:

More here:

“Where there is hemming and hawing there must be something behind it.”

“So can we see actual data?”

“No.”

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

The Rapid Ideological Retraction of a Scientific Article on Rapid Onset-Gender Dysphoria

We pulled a paper for not being credible but here is why you should trust it anyways.

Such brainrot.

21 hours ago, smac97 said:

I think this is a valid point.  It's a new theory.

It is not. It is eight years old at this point and there is still no data backing it up.

I get why you want to hold onto it. It tells you what you want to believe. That being queer is contagious. It is a popular lie. Like in the past how there were people saying (without evidence) that gay people can’t reproduce so they are recruiting or indoctrinating your children. Those complaining back then were trying their best to recruit and indoctrinate with conversion therapies and other flawed methodologies and ended up disproving their own point.

Now it is happening again and you are falling for it again. Just stop and actually follow the data. Or stop listening to the groups that keep getting it wrong and want to convince you that this time it will be different.

[The Nehor]

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Seems like it is happening:

Hearing Recap: Explicit Children's Books Edition

 

Gender Queer is not a children’s book. Out of Darkness is a young adult novel that includes a heterosexual rape. How is this evidence that queer people are trying to sneak in perverse books? This is ridiculous. It is a hearing

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

School system pulls 2 books with graphic sex from libraries

 

Again, Gender Queer was written for adults.

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

 

Parents Objecting to Pornographic Material in School Libraries Aren’t “Book Banners”

 

 

But they’re usually idiots. This is High School being discussed and many of the books this discusses aren’t even LGBTQ related.

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

From Facebook:

I refuse to take anything written on Facebook seriously. I have standards.

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

And on and on and on.

We created a moral panic and people are panicking. This is proof the moral panic is a good thing.

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Do you think it is possible to have literature that addresses and acknowledges that "gay and other queer people exist" while not exposing children to graphic and explicit descriptions of sexual acts and behaviors?

Yes, and the question itself clearly comes from a perverted mind. THIS IS DISGUSTING! Seriously, this is sick.

A book mentions that a boy has a crush on another boy. Gay people exist and no graphic descriptions are needed.

So let me ask you an equally stupid question. Do you think it is possible to have literature that addresses and acknowledges that "straight people exist" while not exposing children to graphic and explicit descriptions of sexual acts and behaviors?

What kind of degenerate would think that mentioning a husband and wife in a book somehow exposes children to obscenity? So why do you do the same to queer people? This is just blatant bigotry and a massive double standard.

GROSS!

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

That's a good question.  What are your thoughts about it? It seems to be happening (and not just descriptions of "gay" sexual behavior).  But why?

Because school libraries get batches of donated books and don’t have the manpower to read all of them.

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This seems to be a legitimate summary of books found in libraries:

https://docs.google.com/.../16kXOBblHt1EeNHQu0v-a.../edit

Blaine County School District libraries offer pornographic books to children as young as elementary school (NSFW)

I actually won't quote this article, as it quotes the books being offered in libraries for children, and those book quotes and illustrations (some shown in the article) are quite sexually explicit.

Okay, that is not a specifically LGBTQ book either. It is also not porn. It probably doesn’t belong in an elementary school. Love how the person describing it focuses on the gay sex though. The hetero sex is right there but they clearly want to imply that queer people snuck in the book for some reason.

Why are queer people being blamed for all of this again?

52 minutes ago, smac97 said:

This stuff seems to be happening.  When it comes to having sexually explicit materials in children's libraries, I think we ought to work to avoid this cyclical pattern:

That is not a cyclical pattern that is happening.

No one is saying there aren’t some age-inappropriate books in some school libraries. The problem is that they are arguing that there is some nebulous collection of LGBTQ people flooding schools with inappropriate material, a lot of it mostly or entirely heterosexual for some reason. Seems like a weird way of indoctrinating people. I am kind of offended this group hasn’t invited me to join.

The narrative isn’t that there is some age-inappropriate stuff in schools. That is true. The narrative is that queer people are stocking schools with book to deliberately corrupt children which is not happening. A side effect of this campaign is to label anything that refers to a queer person as obscene and sexually explicit. Basically an attempt to turn all queer people into “walking porn” the same way women with short skirts are I suppose. Then they can purge all mention of queer people as obscene because they’re bigots.

You seem to agree entirely that queer people are themselves graphically sexual just by existing with your disgustingly bigoted question above. Gross. Weird. When you meet someone who is gay does that put images of sex into your brain or something? That would be really weird and is really a you problem. What is wrong with you?

Edited Tuesday at 08:18 PM by The Nehor

[smac97]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

You are trying to wholesale refute a literature review of several dozen studies using an opinion piece written by one guy.

Well, hopefully he is an expert in the field of medicine or statistical analysis so let’s take a look and……

“Nathanael Blake, Ph.D. is a Fellow in the Life and Family Initiative at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. His research interests include American political theory, Christian political thought, and the intersection of natural law and philosophical hermeneutics. His published scholarship has included work on Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Hans-Georg Gadamer, Alasdair MacIntyre, Russell Kirk and J.R.R. Tolkien.”

…..LOL

I'm interested in the substance of what he said.  I don't think particularized credentials are needed to examine "a literature review."

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

That is the best you have to counter a literature review of several dozen studies?

I'm not sure.  I read the review and it seemed to be both substantive and persuasive.  

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

A hack writing puff pieces for an Institute that is overtly philosophically opposed to transgender people?

You are not addressing the substance of what the author wrote.  I think his critique is substantive.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

No, the debate exists because there are ideological reasons to believe ROGD exists and what you post just dances around the fact that there is no credible evidence of it existing.

I think there is substantial evidence of it existing.  From the article:

Quote

During the past decade there has been immense growth in the number of young persons diagnosed with and treated for gender dysphoria. Increases have been especially large for adolescent girls (Zucker, 2019). For example, the primary clinic in the United Kingdom saw a 5,000% increase in adolescent girls from 2010 to 2022 (Turner, 2022).

I also think there is ample evidence of ideological incursions into academic/professional assessments of this theory.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I get why you want to hold onto it. It tells you what you want to believe. That being queer is contagious. It is a popular lie.

I think opposition to it is based on it telling ideologues what do they do not want to believe, namely, that Gender Dysphoria may, in some instances, have a social contagion element to it.

See, e.g., here:

Evidence Backs the Transgender Social-Contagion Hypothesis

Quote

I was an academic scientist at Penn State in February 2020, when I became the target of an online mob for tweeting about transgender identity. I shared a link to an article from the Guardian with the accompanying quote: “Sweden’s Board of Health and Welfare confirmed a 1,500% rise between 2008 and 2018 in gender dysphoria diagnoses among 13- to 17-year-olds born as girls.” My commentary was brief: “Two words: social contagion.”

 

Within hours, colleagues denounced me as a “transphobic” bigot. Anonymous activists emailed universities to poison my job prospects. A professional job board even published mock job listings warning others not to hire me. My academic career never recovered.

The eye-popping numbers here (5,000% increase in the UK, 1,500% rise in Sweden, etc.), plus other evidences, and also just generalized observation, provide ample justification to consider ROGD and "social contagion" as possible contributing factors to what is happening here.

The vitriolic responses to it, such as those experienced by the author here and as demonstrated by you in this thread, are ideological, not clinical or evidence-based, assessments.

Quote

But I wasn’t making an offhand remark or comparing a group of people to a disease vector, as some accused me of doing. I was referring to research published by Lisa Littman, a physician and researcher formerly with Brown university, who had coined the term “rapid-onset gender dysphoria” in a 2018 peer-reviewed paper to describe a newly emerging cohort of adolescents—overwhelmingly girls with no childhood history of gender dysphoria or even sex nonconformity—who suddenly began describing themselves as transgender, often after friends in their peer groups did the same. Dr. Littman proposed that this pattern was best explained by social contagion, meaning the spread of ideas or behaviors through peer influence. The term isn’t an insult; it’s a well-established sociological concept used to describe how trends such as eating disorders and even suicide clusters can spread.

 

Suggesting that social factors might cause or contribute to transgender identification violated fashionable left-wing dogma: that “gender identity” is an innate and immutable trait, and that some people are born with one that conflicts with their sex. This claim underpins both medical practice and legal strategy—from puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones and surgeries for minors to arguments that “gender identity” deserves civil-rights protections akin to race or sex. Progressives treat those who question these ideas as heretics and bigots.

There are ideological and political and emotional reasons for the vitriol.  I think the topic deserves a more objective analysis.

Quote

The dominant counterargument to the social-contagion theory, repeated endlessly by the media and activists, is that the sharp rise in transgender identification over the past decade simply reflects liberation: People today are more comfortable expressing their authentic selves. The favored analogy compares this rise to the historic increase in left-handedness once schools stopped discouraging it. As transgender activist and biologist Julia Serano put it in a 2017 article, “there wasn’t really a rise in left-handedness so much as there was a rise in left-handed acceptance” that allowed its true natural prevalence to emerge. John Oliver popularized this analogy on “Last Week Tonight” in 2022, insisting that the surge in trans identification was simply a sign that “people were free to be who they f— were.”

If transgender identity were an innate trait, like left-handedness, we would expect identification rates to rise at first when it became socially acceptable, then plateau and remain stable at a fixed level. If the phenomenon were instead driven by social contagion, we might expect a boom-and-bust pattern: a spike followed by a rapid decline once the social forces driving it weaken.

 

Recent data offer a mixed picture. An analysis of campus surveys by Eric Kaufmann of the University of Buckingham and the Center for Heterodox Social Science found that the share of college students identifying as transgender fell 50% between 2023 and 2025. Psychologist Jean Twenge’s analysis of the annual Cooperative Election Study, administered by YouGov, found that transgender identification among 18- to 22-year-olds declined by nearly 50% between 2022 and 2024. She concluded that “it looks like the peak of trans identification is in the past.”

 

"{T}he share of college students identifying as transgender fell 50% between 2023 and 2025."

"{T}ransgender identification among 18- to 22-year-olds declined by nearly 50% between 2022 and 2024."

I think these points deserve some attention and discussion.

Quote

A new report from the Society for Evidence-Based Gender Medicine seems to tell a different story. Drawing on data from the larger National College Health Assessment, the report found that transgender and “nonbinary” identification among U.S. college students is at a record high—between 4.7% and 6.7%—though it may be reaching a plateau.

Some activists may wish to interpret this report’s findings as evidence that transgender identity is innate and immutable, but the data bolster the social-contagion hypothesis. The overwhelming majority of those driving the trans craze fall into the “nonbinary” category—adopting identities which are said to be neither, both, or somewhere between male and female. These include labels such as “demiboy,” “genderfluid” or “two-spirit.” These are social identities, not biological ones. Unlike left- or right-handedness, which describe objectively measurable traits, “nonbinary” identities have no anatomical or physiological referent. They are conceptual, political and responsive to cultural trends—hallmarks of social contagion.

The bolded bit above deserves some discussion and evaluation.

Quote

That doesn’t mean the transgender phenomenon will necessarily collapse. It’s possible that these identities will persist, not because they reflect a long-suppressed biological condition, but because activist, scientific and medical institutions have redefined transgender to encompass virtually any degree of nonconformity to traditional sex stereotypes. A masculine girl or feminine boy may now be labeled as “trans.”

 

Activists continue to argue in court that transgender identities are immutable. In Talbott v. Trump (2025), plaintiffs challenging President Trump’s executive order barring people who adopt “a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex” from serving in the military argued that “gender identity” is “innate,” “deep-seated” and “impervious to change through external influences.” They argued that transgender-identifying people constitute a discernible class with distinguishing characteristics and a biological basis. This language mirrors civil-rights arguments for immutable characteristics such as race or sex.

The ideological narrative has a lot to do with legal arguments, in a tail-wagging-the-dog sort of way.  That is, advancing legal arguments for people who identify as "trans" relies heavily on analogizing "trans" identity to race or sex or other constitutionally-protected classes.

Quote

The purported evidence for innate, immutable transgender identity is deeply flawed, however, as is clear upon closer examination. Studies of neuroanatomy, heritability and prenatal hormone exposure that claim a biological basis for gender identity are replete with small and selective samples, poor replication and uncontrolled confounding factors such as sexual orientation and cross-sex hormone treatment. Properly interpreted, they describe correlates of sex nonconformity and same-sex attraction, not proof of an innate transgender identity.

This really gets into some deep philosophical questions for people who invest a lot of value and importance in sexual and/or gender "identity."  But I don't think the answers to these questions are what ideologues want them to be, hence the reliance on vitriolic reactions.

Quote

The notion that transgender identity is biologically hard-wired can’t explain why there has been a more than 20-fold surge in those identifying as transgender in the U.S. since 2010.

 

The social-contagion hypothesis was never hateful. It was purely descriptive: a recognition that social and cultural factors shape human behavior. For years, even hinting that such factors influenced transgender identities could end a career. Now, as data accumulate, this is becoming harder for anyone to deny.

 

The surge in transgender identification in recent years wasn’t the revelation of a hidden biological truth. It was a social phenomenon shaped by imitation, ideology and institutional reinforcement.

 

Mr. Wright is an evolutionary biologist and a fellow at the Manhattan Institute.

These are some solid points, IMO.

Thoughts?

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Like in the past how there were people saying (without evidence) that gay people can’t reproduce so they are recruiting or indoctrinating your children.  Those complaining back then were trying their best to recruit and indoctrinate with conversion therapies and other flawed methodologies and ended up disproving their own point.

Hence the value of examining data.  "The notion that transgender identity is biologically hard-wired can’t explain why there has been a more than 20-fold surge in those identifying as transgender in the U.S. since 2010."

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Now it is happening again and you are falling for it again.

I am reading materials and seeking to have a discussion.

One of the reasons I hold the position I do is because I so frequently encounter advocates who label anyone who disagrees with them as bigots, who rely on ad hominem and other logical fallacies, who resort to vitriol and shaming censorship to stifle voices and discussions rather than engage in measured and evidence-based discourse.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Just stop and actually follow the data. Or stop listening to the groups that keep getting it wrong and want to convince you that this time it will be different.

• "That is right-wing propaganda designed mostly to assuage the consciences of bigots who want to imagine they are supporting lesbians in their hate."
• "Getting bigots to donate to them to applaud their (real or imaginary) fight against the transgender menace probably has the money rolling in."
• "She played transphobes by telling them a carefully curated story that flattered their bigotry and they swallowed it with no critical analysis whatsoever."
• "It is contested primarily on flimsy religious grounds and an appeal to the bigotry of the past as being something that must be preserved for the good of society."
• "You want a society in which transgender people are marginalized or kept out of sight and in which you cannot be called a bigot for wanting things this way."
• "Also quit hating on puppyboy outfits you bigots."
• "If/When that fails who will be the next target of conservative bigotry’s compulsive need for a moral panic?"
• "They have been fed propaganda and view the term as applying primarily to transgender people because propagandists like to simplify the concept to avoid ambiguity and to focus bigotry."
• "I think people are just uncomfortable with transgender people so they find justifications to back up their bigotry."
• "This is just blatant bigotry and a massive double standard."
• "Then they can purge all mention of queer people as obscene because they’re bigots."
• "You seem to agree entirely that queer people are themselves graphically sexual just by existing with your disgustingly bigoted question above."

These are just from the last three pages of this thread.  This stuff is found in the beginning, middle and end of virtually every interaction with you.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited Tuesday at 09:29 PM by smac97

[Calm]

39 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Because school libraries get batches of donated books and don’t have the manpower to read all of them.

I have seen this myself.  Including one horror where the dumpster was full of books rather than selling the rejected ones for a fundraiser or donating them to a charity.  Grabbed many for myself that were within my reach.   Several of them had “donated by” labels in them.

[smac97]

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Gender Queer is not a children’s book.

And yet it is being made available to children.

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Out of Darkness is a young adult novel that includes a heterosexual rape. How is this evidence that queer people are trying to sneak in perverse books? This is ridiculous. It is a hearing

As I noted previously: "It seems to be happening (and not just descriptions of 'gay' sexual behavior).  But why?"

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Again, Gender Queer was written for adults.

Yes, but it is being made available to children.  What are your thoughts about the propriety of this?

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Do you think it is possible to have literature that addresses and acknowledges that "gay and other queer people exist" while not exposing children to graphic and explicit descriptions of sexual acts and behaviors?

Yes, and the question itself clearly comes from a perverted mind. THIS IS DISGUSTING! Seriously, this is sick.

I think sexually explicit material of any sort should not be provided to children.  It looks like we agree on that.

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

A book mentions that a boy has a crush on another boy. Gay people exist and no graphic descriptions are needed.

I am glad we agree on that.

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

So let me ask you an equally stupid question. Do you think it is possible to have literature that addresses and acknowledges that "straight people exist" while not exposing children to graphic and explicit descriptions of sexual acts and behaviors?

Yes.  Hence my opposition to any sexually explicit materials being provided to children.

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

That's a good question.  What are your thoughts about it? It seems to be happening (and not just descriptions of "gay" sexual behavior).  But why?

Because school libraries get batches of donated books and don’t have the manpower to read all of them.

That is an interesting theory.

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

This seems to be a legitimate summary of books found in libraries:

https://docs.google.com/.../16kXOBblHt1EeNHQu0v-a.../edit

Blaine County School District libraries offer pornographic books to children as young as elementary school (NSFW)

I actually won't quote this article, as it quotes the books being offered in libraries for children, and those book quotes and illustrations (some shown in the article) are quite sexually explicit.

Okay, that is not a specifically LGBTQ book either.

My opposition to sexually explicit materials in children's libraries is not limited to "LGBTQ" materials.

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

It is also not porn. It probably doesn’t belong in an elementary school.

Perhaps we agree on some things, then.

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Love how the person describing it focuses on the gay sex though. The hetero sex is right there but they clearly want to imply that queer people snuck in the book for some reason.

The topics include all sorts of sexual matters.

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

No one is saying there aren’t some age-inappropriate books in some school libraries.

Okay.

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You seem to agree entirely that queer people are themselves graphically sexual just by existing with your disgustingly bigoted question above. Gross. Weird.

I think graphic sexual material is perhaps difficult to define with precision, but that does not mean it cannot be defined at all.

Here is the question I posed: "Do you think it is possible to have literature that addresses and acknowledges that 'gay and other queer people exist' while not exposing children to graphic and explicit descriptions of sexual acts and behaviors?"  Your comments seemed to have been characterizing sexually explicit "LGBT" materials as equivalent to acknowledging that "gay and other queer people exist."  I found that to be an unusual perspective, so I asked a measured question about it.  

22 hours ago, The Nehor said:

When you meet someone who is gay does that put images of sex into your brain or something?

No.  I am, and would in fact very much prefer to be, indifferent to the sex lives of other people.  As it is, though, the "community" that per se defines itself by its members' sexual proclivities often injects "images of sex" into their most visible and public demonstrations.  Hence we get sexually explicit stuff at Pride parades, drag queen story hours, and so on.

Some "heterosexual" folks are likewise engaging in public displays of perversion, including exposing children to sexually explicit displays.  All of these things ought to be condemned.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited Wednesday at 06:52 PM by smac97

[Calm]

Smac and Longview, I would like an answer to my question above as it would be helpful to know where the standard of acceptable LGBT+ representation falls for either of you (I am not assuming you have the same standard, so would be interested in both of you responding).

Longview, I am not talking about promotion of any particular lifestyle, just what should and should be allowed to be portrayed in books for kids.

Question:

Are you okay with using the same standards of portraying heterosexual relationships (which I assume is nongraphic, non explicit, non pornographic) for portraying homosexual relationships in books used in public libraries (school and city)?

For example, for kids’ books…if a kid in a story mentions he has to go home because his mom and dad are waiting for him, it’s okay for a character to say he has to go home because his moms are waiting for him or if there is a picture of a man and woman holding hands, it would be okay to have a picture of two men holding hands.  In older kids’ books, if there is a storyline about teens dating, it’s okay if it’s either heterosexual or homosexual.

If agreeing with that, a “yes” is sufficient to satisfy my curiosity and given me a baseline for understanding your objections.  If not agreeing with that, a “no” and an explanation why not would help.

My own POV is I am okay with the same standard for both and my standard is probably seen as prudish by most, lol….though I do prefer realistic to idealistic portrayals.  I do think kids should see real life in the most of the stories they read so they can see ways to cope and process conflict between parents or deal with abuse rather than risk them assuming it’s only happening to their family and therefore it’s their fault, their family is broken, etc.  That creates a difficult standard at times given conflict and abuse can be sexual or violent at times.  I would take each such book on its own to ensure nothing was gratuitous and only as much info was shared as needed.  Part of me wants to have such books only available when asked for, but I also highly doubt the kids who need to read such books wouldn’t ask for them in most cases.  All this would need to be age appropriate, of course.

Edited Tuesday at 09:26 PM by Calm

[smac97]

On 7/14/2026 at 3:12 PM, Calm said:

Are you okay with using the same standards of portraying heterosexual relationships (which I assume is nongraphic, non explicit, non pornographic) for portraying homosexual relationships in books used in public libraries (school and city)?

Broadly, yes.

On 7/14/2026 at 3:12 PM, Calm said:

For example, for kids’ books…if a kid in a story mentions he has to go home because his mom and dad are waiting for him, it’s okay for a character to say he has to go home because his moms are waiting for him or if there is a picture of a man and woman holding hands, it would be okay to have a picture of two men holding hands.  In older kids’ books, if there is a storyline about teens dating, it’s okay if it’s either heterosexual or homosexual.

My own POV is I am okay with the same standard for both and my standard is probably seen as prudish by most, lol….though I do prefer realistic to idealistic portrayals.  I do think kids should see real life in the most of the stories they read so they can see ways to cope and process conflict between parents or deal with abuse rather than risk them assuming it’s only happening to their family and therefore it’s their fault, their family is broken, etc.  That creates a difficult standard at times given conflict and abuse can be sexual or violent at times.  I would take each such book on its own to ensure nothing was gratuitous and only as much info was shared as needed.  Part of me wants to have such books only available when asked for, but I also highly doubt the kids who need to read such books wouldn’t ask for them in most cases.  All this would need to be age appropriate, of course.

Literature often depicts behaviors that conflict with my religious beliefs as a Latter-day Saint. I view sex outside marriage, adultery, and abuse within marriage as wrong. While such things occur, I oppose materials that proactively endorse or normalize them—especially for young children.

I draw qualitative distinctions between healthy opposite-sex marital intimacy (unitive and procreative, within the covenant of husband and wife) and other expressions. My perspective on same-sex behavior is rooted in scripture (Genesis 1-2), The Family: A Proclamation to the World, doctrines of eternal marriage and chastity, and empirical patterns. Some key differences include:

• Biological/Procreative: Opposite-sex complementarity enables natural reproduction and fulfills the command to multiply (Genesis 1:28). Same-sex lacks this capacity.
• Eternal Purpose: Opposite-sex marriage aligns with exaltation and eternal increase (D&C 131-132). Same-sex does not fit this revealed pattern.
• Societal Role: Opposite-sex unions form the historical bedrock for stable, biologically intact families with measurable child-rearing advantages. Same-sex homes can be loving but differ in modeling complementarity and generational continuity.
• Moral Framework: Marital opposite-sex intimacy is sacred; same-sex behavior falls outside the law of chastity. Attraction is not sinful, but behavior is.

These distinctions affirm the divine worth and agency of all as children of God. They do not justify coercion or unkindness.

In civil contexts (e.g., children's libraries), parents hold primary stewardship for their children's moral formation. Public institutions are not co-parents, but I think some folks within them want to be, or even want to supersede parents in some ways.  Explicit sexual content—regardless of orientation—risks premature sexualization and violates "let virtue garnish thy thoughts" (D&C 121:45). Even non-graphic materials that normalize same-sex relationships as equivalent for minors can undermine parental values and doctrinal family teachings.

Consequently, I support age-appropriate boundaries, transparency, viewpoint diversity, and parental rights. Literature aimed at reducing bullying is worthwhile, but libraries should not serve as one-sided ideological tools. Latter-day Saint principles favor shielding children from explicit content and premature ratification of behaviors outside God's ordained pattern, while respecting pluralism for adults. 

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 23 hours ago by smac97

[SeekingUnderstanding]

2 hours ago, smac97 said:

Latter-day Saint principles favor shielding children from … premature ratification of behaviors outside God's ordained pattern, while respecting pluralism for adults. 

This makes it sound like you’re very much against a book that shows a child with two moms being read in a child’s class. But a book with opposite gendered parents would be ok. Correct? 

[Calm]

3 hours ago, smac97 said:

Public institutions are not co-parents, but I think some folks within them want to be, or even want to supersede parents in some ways. …Even non-graphicmaterials that normalize same-sex relationships as equivalent for minors can undermine parental values and doctrinal family teachings.

I agree with much of what you said above in your post in terms of standards. I have a problem with the second sentence though as if presenting same sex relationships is inherently superseding parents.

I disagree with how you phrased this as an attempt to “normalize”behaviour that is in conflict with LDS chastity standards when it comes to public institutions.  It is normal in our society to be a same sex couple.  It is normal to have premarital sex.  It wouldn’t be attempting to normalize these common behaviours if one wrote about them, but it would be attempting to abnormalize them by banning representations imo.  That is giving one ideology preference over another.

Adultery is still viewed as betrayal and therefore wrong and abuse is condemned even more than it used to be, so those views would be the appropriate public standard, imo, not just teaching LDS or similar ideological standards.

 I think public institutions should represent the public and not favor one ideology over another in the sense of even removing content that presents it in a realistic way.  A very basic standard for public tax supported schools and libraries could be representation based on population percentage (not just a local area, but in general, nationwide percentages).   That wouldn’t be a precise measure because most books likely aren’t solely about Black or Asian people or LGBT+ or families where the parents are absent, divorced, or unmarried where there are likely books, especially older ones that portray only white, heterosexual, no sex outside of marriage type of individuals.  Plus does a minor subplot count the same as a major one, a side character as much as a main character….gets messy easily, so at best it’s a rough standard, but it’s a starting point.

The really difficult part is when one ideology explicitly condemns another.  I think at younger ages ideologies in books should focus on the positive, realistic behaviours they want rather than the behaviours they don’t want.  Promote sharing for instance rather than condemning selfishness.  Little kids are too prone to take criticism in ways that damage their self esteem.  Anything that promotes disrespect of others should not be allowed, but that doesn’t require portraying fringe personal behaviours as normal. (And I mean true fringe behaviours, not just behaviours that are unpopular with certain groups, but are present enough to qualify as normal).

Older materials get much more complex and therefore difficult (especially when getting in history, politics, and cultural subjects) and my post will be massive if I try to dissect what I see as the best approach there beyond being civil and respectful of each other, so I am going to skip adding more for now.

Edited Wednesday at 01:41 AM by Calm

[The Nehor]

5 hours ago, smac97 said:

Broadly, yes.

Literature often depicts behaviors that conflict with my religious beliefs as a Latter-day Saint. I view sex outside marriage, adultery, and abuse within marriage as wrong. While such things occur, I oppose materials that proactively endorse or normalize them—especially for young children.

I draw qualitative distinctions between healthy opposite-sex marital intimacy (unitive and procreative, within the covenant of husband and wife) and other expressions. My perspective on same-sex behavior is rooted in scripture (Genesis 1-2), The Family: A Proclamation to the World, doctrines of eternal marriage and chastity, and empirical patterns. Some key differences include:

• Biological/Procreative: Opposite-sex complementarity enables natural reproduction and fulfills the command to multiply (Genesis 1:28). Same-sex lacks this capacity.
• Eternal Purpose: Opposite-sex temple marriage aligns with exaltation and eternal increase (D&C 131-132). Same-sex does not fit this revealed pattern.
• Societal Role: Opposite-sex unions form the historical bedrock for stable, biologically intact families with measurable child-rearing advantages. Same-sex homes can be loving but differ in modeling complementarity and generational continuity.
• Moral Framework: Marital opposite-sex intimacy is sacred; same-sex behavior falls outside the law of chastity. Attraction is not sinful, but behavior is.

These distinctions affirm the divine worth and agency of all as children of God. They do not justify coercion or unkindness.

In civil contexts (e.g., children's libraries), parents hold primary stewardship for their children's moral formation. Public institutions are not co-parents, but I think some folks within them want to be, or even want to supersede parents in some ways.  Explicit sexual content—regardless of orientation—risks premature sexualization and violates "let virtue garnish thy thoughts" (D&C 121:45). Even non-graphic materials that normalize same-sex relationships as equivalent for minors can undermine parental values and doctrinal family teachings.

Consequently, I support age-appropriate boundaries, transparency, viewpoint diversity, and parental rights. Literature aimed at reducing bullying is worthwhile, but libraries should not serve as one-sided ideological tools. Latter-day Saint principles favor shielding children from explicit content and premature ratification of behaviors outside God's ordained pattern, while respecting pluralism for adults. 

Thanks,

-Smac

In other words you want your religious views privileged in education while still somehow having a pluralistic society. In other words you want queer kids isolated from support of any kind or even the acknowledgement that others like them exist in the public sphere. That is often incredibly damaging.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

No.  I am, and would in fact very much prefer to be, indifferent to the sex lives of other people. 

Doubting this.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

As it is, though, the "community" that per se defines itself by its members' sexual proclivities often injects "images of sex" into their most visible and public demonstrations.

Nope. However I think your idea of “images of sex” involves stuff that is not actually about sex but just people showing more skin than you are personally comfortable with.

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

  Hence we get sexually explicit stuff at Pride parades, drag queen story hours, and so on.

The explicit Pride parades are (in the United States) limited to a few parades. San Francisco and a few in the Pacific Northwest are the ones I know of. Most have none.

And a drag queen story hour is not a sexually explicit event unless they are reading erotica or something which is not the norm. Of course this is just what you were doing above and inherently sexualizing the bodies and even just the existence of queer people. 

From the National Women’s Law Center:

“Project 2025’s authors also paint supportive schools as full-on harbingers of moral collapse, infested with the “toxic normalization of transgenderism.” Their efforts to rid schools of this so-called toxicity are downright horrifying. Project 2025 calls for outlawing pornography—and equates that with materials that acknowledge the existence of LGBTQI+ people. Pornography, they say, is “manifested today in the omnipresent propagation of transgender ideology and sexualization of children.” It’s hard to escape the implications of what this means: If affirming LGBTQI+ people = pornography and pornography must be banned, that sounds an awful lot like criminalizing respect for our existence. They take it one step further: They say that people who make this material available should be imprisoned, and teachers and libraries who share it should be forced to register as sex offenders.” 

“Let’s be clear: Criminalizing people like teachers and librarians is not about protecting kids. It’s about vilifying LGBTQI+ youth and turning them into bogeymen in a manufactured culture war. It’s about isolating them by threatening anyone who supports them.”

Yep, isolating queer minors and turning us into pornography. This is where you got the ideology. It didn’t come from scripture. It came from Christian Nationalism. It is an attempt to undo part of the First Amendment and privilege religious views.

And LDS are not part of the chosen if Christian Nationalism ends up working. I doubt it will but if it does and solidifies power LDS people will quickly discover they were only useful idiots. Getting rid of pluralism is a terrible idea when you are a minority of any kind. 

6 hours ago, smac97 said:

Some "heterosexual" folks are likewise engaging in public displays of perversion, including exposing children to sexually explicit displays.  All of these things ought to be condemned.

Then why aren’t you posting long diatribes against taking kids to Mardi Gras so I don’t believe for a second that you consider hetero and homo displays as equivalent.

[smac97]

12 hours ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

Latter-day Saint principles favor shielding children from … premature ratification of behaviors outside God's ordained pattern, while respecting pluralism for adults. 

This makes it sound like you’re very much against a book that shows a child with two moms being read in a child’s class. But a book with opposite gendered parents would be ok. Correct? 

See this prior exchange:

Quote

 

Quote

Are you okay with using the same standards of portraying heterosexual relationships (which I assume is nongraphic, non explicit, non pornographic) for portraying homosexual relationships in books used in public libraries (school and city)?

Broadly, yes.

 

Not quite a simple "correct," because there is some important nuance here.

I apply broadly similar standards to non-graphic, age-appropriate portrayals of family life—whether a child going home to a mom and dad, or (less commonly in traditional literature) to two moms. A passing, neutral description of a child's lived reality isn't the core issue for me. Literature can and does reflect the diversity of family situations children actually encounter.

Where I start to draw the line is when public schools or libraries use such books to proactively normalize and equate and advocate for same-sex relationships as being morally or functionally interchangeable with the divinely ordained pattern of husband-and-wife marriage taught in scripture and The Family Proclamation. For young children especially, this crosses into premature moral formation on a topic where faithful Latter-day Saints (and many others of good will) have reasoned, principled disagreements rooted in biology, theology, and sociology. I wouldn't support school materials that endorse Joseph Smith's First Vision as historical fact, affirm Muhammad's theophanies, take a position on abortion, or push other contested religious or ideological claims—precisely because public institutions aren't equipped or authorized to settle those matters for other people's children.

Parents hold primary stewardship for their children's moral and religious upbringing. Schools act in loco parentis in a limited way for safety and basic education, not as surrogate ideologues. When teachers or librarians quietly/secretly advance one contested view on marriage and sexuality (while sidelining others), it undermines parental rights, viewpoint diversity, and trust. Children benefit from shielding against early immersion in adult-level controversies, especially when the material tilts toward advocacy rather than neutral reflection of reality.

I am fine with age-appropriate literature that fosters kindness, reduces bullying, and acknowledges that families come in varied forms. But public resources shouldn't function as ideological magnets that substitute institutional/teacher preferences for parental ones. Transparency, opt-outs, and balance serve pluralism better than ideologically curated equivalence.

Thanks,

-Smac

[smac97]

On 7/14/2026 at 7:27 PM, Calm said:

Quote

Public institutions are not co-parents, but I think some folks within them want to be, or even want to supersede parents in some ways. …Even non-graphicmaterials that normalize same-sex relationships as equivalent for minors can undermine parental values and doctrinal family teachings.

I agree with much of what you said above in your post in terms of standards. I have a problem with the second sentence though as if presenting same sex relationships is inherently superseding parents.

That's not quite what I intended to say, but I can see how you could surmise that.  I apologize for creating confusion.

On 7/14/2026 at 7:27 PM, Calm said:

I disagree with how you phrased this as an attempt to “normalize” behaviour that is in conflict with LDS chastity standards when it comes to public institutions.  It is normal in our society to be a same sex couple.  It is normal to have premarital sex.

It is also "normal" for people to have affairs, get abortions, and do other things that reflect ongoing controversies in society.  I don't think teachers and schools should be using their positions of trust to ideologically influence/instruct children toward one side of hotly-contested social issues, particularly when they do so obliquely or secretly (sometimes even deliberately subversively).

On 7/14/2026 at 7:27 PM, Calm said:

It wouldn’t be attempting to normalize these common behaviours if one wrote about them, but it would be attempting to abnormalize them by banning representations imo.  That is giving one ideology preference over another.

Again: Literature often depicts behaviors that conflict with my religious beliefs. I view sex outside marriage, adultery, and abuse within marriage as wrong. While such things occur, I oppose materials that proactively endorse or normalize them—especially for young children.

I no longer have children in elementary school, but I quite understand the sentiments of parents who send their kids to school expecting teachers to teach them the Three Rs, history, science and other topics intended to help them become functioning and productive members of society.  I think many parents dislike the idea of activists and idealogues using schools and their "captive audience" students to endorse one side or the other of controversial social/moral issues, particularly when this is done so secretively and/or subversively.

This video comes to mind:

And this:

And this:

And this:

Many more like this.

On 7/14/2026 at 7:27 PM, Calm said:

 I think public institutions should represent the public and not favor one ideology over another in the sense of even removing content that presents it in a realistic way.  

I agree that public institutions should remain viewpoint-neutral and not favor one ideology. That's exactly why schools shouldn't be in the business of endorsing contested moral or social views, whether on family structure, sexuality, religion, or politics, by integrating them into required reading or classroom discussions for young children.

"Representing the public" is best served by sticking to core academics: reading, writing, math, science, history, and the arts. These prepare kids without substituting institutional preferences for parental ones on deeply debated topics. Neutral, age-appropriate exposure to the real world's variety is one thing; proactive normalization or equivalence as part of moral formation is another. Parents, not public employees, hold primary responsibility there.

On 7/14/2026 at 7:27 PM, Calm said:

A very basic standard for public tax supported schools and libraries could be representation based on population percentage (not just a local area, but in general, nationwide percentages).   That wouldn’t be a precise measure because most books likely aren’t solely about Black or Asian people or LGBT+ or families where the parents are absent, divorced, or unmarried where there are likely books, especially older ones that portray only white, heterosexual, no sex outside of marriage type of individuals.  Plus does a minor subplot count the same as a major one, a side character as much as a main character….gets messy easily, so at best it’s a rough standard, but it’s a starting point.

A demographic quota approach (nationwide percentages for race, family structure, LGBT+ representation, etc.) sounds straightforward but quickly becomes problematic as a standard for public schools and libraries.

It turns curators into social engineers, forcing subjective judgments: How much does a "minor" subplot or side character “count”? Do we weight by protagonist, page count, or implied endorsement? Older classics get penalized for reflecting their era, while newer books are prioritized for activism over literary quality. This shifts the focus from excellence, truth, and age-appropriate education to engineered outcomes.

Public institutions funded by taxpayers should prioritize core skills over mirroring fluid cultural or ideological demographics, especially on morally contested issues like sexuality and family formation. Parents, not distant statisticians or librarians, should guide their children’s exposure to these topics. Viewpoint neutrality and parental rights serve pluralism far better than rough proportional representation that risks becoming one-sided advocacy.

Neutral, high-quality literature reflecting human experience is valuable. Mandated demographic balancing in children’s materials is a different project entirely.

On 7/14/2026 at 7:27 PM, Calm said:

The really difficult part is when one ideology explicitly condemns another.  I think at younger ages ideologies in books should focus on the positive, realistic behaviours they want rather than the behaviours they don’t want.  Promote sharing for instance rather than condemning selfishness.  Little kids are too prone to take criticism in ways that damage their self esteem.  Anything that promotes disrespect of others should not be allowed, but that doesn’t require portraying fringe personal behaviours as normal. (And I mean true fringe behaviours, not just behaviours that are unpopular with certain groups, but are present enough to qualify as normal).

I agree with much of this. For young children, literature should emphasize positive virtues, such as kindness, sharing, honesty, respect, rather than criticism or shaming. Protecting self-esteem and avoiding material that promotes disrespect is a good baseline.

The challenge arises when “positive” portrayals cross into proactively normalizing contested moral or relational behaviors as equivalent to the traditional family pattern. For me as a Latter-day Saint (and many others), same-sex relationships aren’t simply another “normal” variation but fall outside the divinely ordained husband-wife pattern taught in scripture and the Family Proclamation. Presenting them as interchangeable in books for young kids can function as implicit (and, in many circumstances, explicit) moral instruction on a topic where parents hold primary stewardship.

We can show realistic diversity in families without turning public schools and libraries into venues for ideological affirmation on sexuality and marriage. Focus on universal character traits and let parents guide the deeper worldview conversations. That approach better respects pluralism and keeps the emphasis on positive development rather than settling adult-level debates.

On 7/14/2026 at 7:27 PM, Calm said:

Older materials get much more complex and therefore difficult (especially when getting in history, politics, and cultural subjects) and my post will be massive if I try to dissect what I see as the best approach there beyond being civil and respectful of each other, so I am going to skip adding more for now.

Fair point.  Older materials, especially in history, politics, and culture, do get far more layered and context-dependent. I appreciate you keeping the focus on civility and mutual respect.  That is a strong foundation we can all agree on.

I’m happy to leave it there for now or pick up the conversation later if you’d like. Thanks for the thoughtful exchange.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 23 hours ago by smac97

[smac97]

On 7/14/2026 at 10:08 PM, The Nehor said:

In other words you want your religious views privileged in education

I don't think what I have said speaks to privileging religious views.  

On 7/14/2026 at 10:08 PM, The Nehor said:

while still somehow having a pluralistic society.

Yes, I think we can do this.  We have done it in the past.  Schools can and should focus on core academics: reading, writing, math, science, history, the arts, stuff like that. These prepare kids for life without substituting institutional preferences for parental ones on deeply debated topics.

On 7/14/2026 at 10:08 PM, The Nehor said:

In other words you want queer kids isolated from support of any kind or even the acknowledgement that others like them exist in the public sphere. That is often incredibly damaging.

No, that’s not what I’m saying at all.

I want no child isolated or unsupported. Every kid deserves kindness, safety, and the ability to talk with trusted adults (especially their parents) about hard things. Reducing bullying and fostering basic human decency is worthwhile.

What I oppose is public schools and libraries using their authority and proximity to children to proactively affirm contested moral and sexual viewpoints as equivalent or normative, especially for young kids. That crosses from neutral education or anti-bullying into ideological formation, which many parents (of all backgrounds, including faithful Latter-day Saints) see as undermining their primary stewardship.

Acknowledging that families come in different forms is one thing. Framing same-sex relationships as morally interchangeable with the husband-wife pattern taught in scripture and the Family Proclamation is another. The latter is not neutral — it’s a particular worldview on sexuality, marriage, and family that not all families share.

Parents, not institutions, should guide their children’s moral formation on deeply personal and religious questions. Transparency, age-appropriate boundaries, and viewpoint diversity protect pluralism better than one-sided normalization. Kids can be supported without public resources becoming tools for advocacy on adult-level controversies.

On 7/14/2026 at 10:08 PM, The Nehor said:

The explicit Pride parades are (in the United States) limited to a few parades. San Francisco and a few in the Pacific Northwest are the ones I know of. Most have none.

Is exposing children to such sexualized material anywhere appropriate?  

I think the issue is sufficiently common/widespread that it deserves some public discussion and debate.  This is particularly so where there are people openly advocating that children be exposed to such sexualized events/venues.

On 7/14/2026 at 10:08 PM, The Nehor said:

Yep, isolating queer minors and turning us into pornography. This is where you got the ideology. It didn’t come from scripture. It came from Christian Nationalism. It is an attempt to undo part of the First Amendment and privilege religious views.

And LDS are not part of the chosen if Christian Nationalism ends up working. I doubt it will but if it does and solidifies power LDS people will quickly discover they were only useful idiots. Getting rid of pluralism is a terrible idea when you are a minority of any kind. 

No, that misrepresents my position.

I am not calling for isolation of any child, nor equating anyone with pornography. Every minor deserves safety, kindness, and support — including queer youth. Reducing bullying is good.

My concern is public institutions (schools/libraries) using tax-funded resources and authority over minors to proactively normalize contested moral views on sexuality and family as equivalent to the husband-wife pattern taught in scripture and The Family Proclamation. That’s not neutral education; it’s ideological formation on topics many parents want to handle at home according to their own values and faith.

This isn’t “Christian Nationalism” or undoing the First Amendment. It’s defending parental rights and viewpoint neutrality — the same principle that would prevent public schools from teaching Joseph Smith’s First Vision as fact or pushing any particular religious or political orthodoxy on other people’s children. Pluralism means public institutions don’t get to pick winners on deeply divisive moral questions involving minors.

Latter-day Saint teachings on chastity and eternal marriage come from scripture and modern revelation, not nationalism. Shielding children from premature sexualization (regardless of orientation) and respecting parental stewardship is reasonable, not extreme.

On 7/14/2026 at 10:08 PM, The Nehor said:

Then why aren’t you posting long diatribes against taking kids to Mardi Gras so I don’t believe for a second that you consider hetero and homo displays as equivalent.

I have repeatedly condemned public displays of sexual licentiousness of any sort, including Mardi Gras.  Here, here, here, here, here.

I am not sure if Mardi Gras is "coded" as a "straight" event.  Moreover, I am not seeing anyone justifying/rationalizing exposing children to sexualized stuff at that event, whereas there is plenty of such advocacy relative to "Pride" events.

The difference here is context and advocacy. I don’t see widespread efforts to bring explicit or sexualized Mardi Gras content into children’s libraries or classrooms as “age-appropriate” or “inclusive.” With some Pride-related materials, I do see that push — including non-graphic books that normalize contested views on sexuality and family for minors.

From scripture and the Family Proclamation, I draw qualitative distinctions between opposite-sex marital intimacy (unitive + procreative within husband-wife covenant) and same-sex behavior. These distinctions are rooted in biology, doctrine, and observed patterns — not Christian Nationalism, not bigotry.  Just reasoned disagreement.  Attraction isn’t sinful; behavior is. These beliefs do not justify unkindness.  The Church's teachings in this area are quite good.

Public institutions shouldn’t function as co-parents or ideological tools on deeply contested moral issues. Parents hold primary stewardship. Age-appropriate boundaries, transparency, and viewpoint diversity protect pluralism better than one-sided normalization for children.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited yesterday at 04:44 AM by smac97