Videos by OutKick
The Washington Post opinion section has come out strongly in favor of incorporating pornographic books in schools.
In a twist as unsurprising as it is offensive, the Post’s opinion stands in direct opposition to common sense and rationality, all because their ideological enemies want to ensure that inappropriate material isn’t seen by kids.
The debate over the inclusion of certain books in schools has become much more heated over the past few years. Activist groups and teachers unions, which are now virtually indistinguishable from one another, have worked hard to push inappropriate books as long as they conform to currently acceptable progressive opinion.
This push received national attention last week when Senator John Kennedy from Louisiana read passages from several books, “Gender Queer” and “All Boys Are Blue,” in the senate in front of Democratic witnesses whose states defend the indefensible.
For many, the inherently funny and disturbing nature of Kennedy’s recitation conclusively showed that these books should not be given to kids. Yet the Post took the opposite view, asking one of the writers to defend porn being included in schools.
“The main thing was it was very clear that the senator picked the one page out of a 240-page book that he thought would be the most shocking,” “Gender Queer” author Maia Kobabe told the Post. “And it’s interesting he chose to read the words without showing the images. Because the images on that page are not salacious at all — it’s an illustration of me sitting at my job, which was in a library, reading text messages from someone I was dating.”
Debate Over Inappropriate Books Intensifies
Kobabe said the book was initially written to better explain pronouns to family members.
“I started writing an early draft in mid-2016,” said Kobabe in the Washington Post interview. “I was already out as queer to my family, but I wanted to come out as nonbinary and ask them to start using the pronouns that I use today — which are e, em, er — and I was having a really hard time explaining this.”
Explaining the use of whatever “e, em, er” pronouns refers to apparently requires pornographic material. Who knew?
To be fair to Kobabe, e, em, er does say that they don’t recommend the book to children. But that’s who it’s being targeted to with inclusion in schools. And Kobabe’s defense of the book, that Kennedy picked the most salacious passage, is entirely irrelevant.
It doesn’t matter if the rest of the book is appropriate and unoffensive. The section he read from isn’t appropriate. If a pornographic movie contains 90% “story” and 10% pornography, it’s still porn. And children would immediately gravitate toward images, or “comics” as Kobabe describes them, regardless of the rest of the text.
The writer of the Washington Post article says that they’d recommend this book to minors who are “looking into chest binding.”
“But I could see recommending it to my kid if they were 17. If they were looking into chest binding, for example — I’d rather they learn about how to do it safely, as you discuss in the book, instead of winging it.“
As if 17-year-old girls are not still children, incapable of making life altering decisions.
Inappropriate Material Is Still Inappropriate, Regardless Of Ideology
Any serious, rational adult reading this text and viewing these images would immediately agree that they’re inappropriate in schools. The reaction of the far left Illinois Secretary of State to hearing Senator Kennedy read the text is a perfect example.
“We’re not advocating for kids to read porn,” Giannoulias said. “We are advocating for random parents not to have the ability, under the guise of keeping kids safe, to try and challenge the world view of every single manner on these issues.”
“Under the guise of keeping kids safe” is about a perfect a summation of the nonsensical, dangerous views of the far left as you can possibly have. Giannoulias and his allies excuse pornography as representing an important learning tool for children because it aligns with their nonsensical views on radical gender ideology.
As always with progressives however, they’re missing the point. It’s inappropriate to target these types of messages and images to children. Regardless of how many distractions or misdirections or explanations they try to give.
It’s wrong. And their reactions show that deep down, they know it’s wrong too.