Banning books in schools (3 Viewers)

[Optimus Prime]

Excellent article I thought deserved its own thread
=========================

On the surface, it would appear that book censors and censored authors like myself can agree on one thing: Books are powerful.

Particularly books for children and teens.

Why else would people like me spend so much time and energy writing them?

Why else would censors spend so much time and energy trying to keep them out of kids’ hands?

In a country where the average adult is reading fewer and fewer books, it’s a surprise to find Americans arguing so much about them.

In this election year, parents and politicians — so many politicians — are jumping into the fray to say how powerful books can be.

Granted, politicians often make what I do sound like witchcraft, but I take this as a compliment.

I’ll admit, one of my first thoughts about the current wildfire of attempted censorship was: How quaint.

Conservatives seemed to be dusting off their playbook from 1958, when the only way our stories could get to kids was through schools and libraries.

While both are still crucial sanctuaries for readers, they’re hardly the only options. Plenty of booksellers supply titles that are taken off school shelves.

And words can be very widely shared free of charge on social media and the rest of the internet. If you take my book off a shelf, you keep it away from that shelf, but you hardly keep it away from readers.

As censorship wars have raged in so many communities, damaging the lives of countless teachers, librarians, parents and children, it’s begun to feel less and less quaint.

This is not your father’s book censorship…..

Here’s something I never thought I’d be nostalgic for: sincere censors. When my first novel, “Boy Meets Boy,” was published in 2003, it was immediately the subject of many challenges, some of which kept the book from ever getting on a shelf in the first place.

At the time, a challenge usually meant one parent trying to get a book pulled from a school or a library, going through a formal process.

I often reminded myself to try to find some sympathy for these parents; yes, they were wrong, and their desire to control what other people in the community got to read was wrong — but more often than not, the challenge was coming from fear of a changing world, a genuine (if incorrect) belief that being gay would lead kids straight to ruination and hell, and/or the misbegotten notion that if all the books that challenged the (homophobic, racist) status quo went away, then the status quo would remain intact.

It was, in some ways, as personal to them as it was to those of us on the other side of the challenge.

And nine times out of 10, the book would remain on the shelf.

It’s not like that now. What I’ve come to believe, as I’ve talked to authors and librarians and teachers, is that attacks are less and less about the actual books.

We’re being used as targets in a much larger proxy war.

The goal of that war isn’t just to curtail intellectual freedom but to eviscerate the public education system in this country.

Censors are scorching the earth, without care for how many kids get burned.

Racism and homophobia are still very much present, but it’s also a power grab, a money grab. The goal for many is a for-profit, more authoritarian and much less diverse culture, one in which truth is whatever you’re told it is, your identity is determined by its acceptability and the past is a lie that the future is forced to emulate.

The politicians who holler and post and draw up their lists of “harmful” books aren’t actually scared of our books.

They are using our books to scare people.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/books/2022/09/23/standing-up-new-censorship/

 

[brandon]

Notice the word "penis" does not appear? Did his daughters fondle and suck his penis to get him erect before raping him? We don't know, because the bible was not explicit. The praise "lay with him" will mean nothing to a child who has not been given explicit instruction in sex.

Here is the "Lawn Boy" version of a description of a sexual encounter:

Speaking of goalposts, I believe the one you erected (no pun intended) was that the word “penis” did not appear, and therefore kids wouldn’t understand.

But in the snippet you posted from the book you find offensive, the word “penis” also doesn’t appear.

As a kid who read the Bible frequently, I knew what the phrase “lie together” meant at a very early age, because that phrase shows up a lot in the Bible. Enough times that I had to go and ask an adult what it meant.

Meanwhile, while I assume I also knew what dick meant at a young age, and could easily have put together the implication of what “salamander” meant in context, I can also assure you I would have cared about it when I read it exactly as much as “lied together” in the Bible.

As a kid, I literally learned what rape was by reading the story of Tamar.

I learned that it was kinda ok I guess that David checked out Bathsheba taking a bath on the roof every day until he decided to have her husband killed so he could “lie with her.”

I have so many sex stories I read from the Bible at literally seven or eight years old. And yes, I knew and understood what they meant.

Even if this was targeted at that age range, I’m wondering how many times the content shows up? As in, you’ve posted these two lines. Are there more examples from the book, or is that it?

Because I could go on for paragraphs about sex I read about in the Bible as a kid.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

This is why I asked you what your reaction would be if I showed you evidence that the books were in a school library or whether it was just in the classroom libraries that are overseen/curated by individual teachers for a small group. I knew when you refused to answer that if I showed you exactly what you asked for, you would move the goalposts.

I specifically refrained from making an argument until you provided evidence to support your claim. I then addressed that claim. That's the opposite of moving the goalposts.

So, what will you say if I show you evidence that the book was available to elementary or middle schoolers? Will you admit that it doesn't belong there? Or will you then demand proof that it was read aloud by pre-K students?

I actually addressed middle school in the post you quoted. If you want to know my opinion on whether this book is appropriate for grade school, fine. All you had to do was ask. I don't need to know whether any elementary school made this available to their students to know that if they did, I would object to it.

If you will just move the goalposts again, why should I bother?

It's almost like you don't know how to have a real conversation.

Yes, they could relate to it just as easily without the explicit descriptions and pictures. More people can relate to a book about a kid who experimented sexually with a person of the opposite sex and remembers it as an adult. But such explicitness would be neither needed, nor appropriate.

That's how some people talk. For example, I cuss. A lot. When I am remembering how something made me feel, there is almost always a cuss word involved in said recollection. Just because someone else doesn't think the cuss word is needed or appropriate doesn't make me wrong or them right.

Do you think that it is important to have books like "Lawn Boy" and "Gender Queer" available to help kids feel comfortable with feelings of attraction to the same sex, or feelings of being non-binary?

I think they are important because we, as humans, learn how to show empathy by learning about others, their experiences, and the ways in which we can relate to them.

Show me some examples of heterosexual relationships between underage boys and girls that are as explicit as the homosexual descriptions in "Lawn Boy" and "Gender Queer." You might want to read those books before you look for similar heterosexual books. Then find the school libraries that are stocking the boy/girl versions.

You clearly don't know much about the Judy Blume heyday of YA fiction.

Kids today are certainly inundated with examples of homosexual relationships and trans people.

And a lot of what they are seeing and hearing is negative. Do you have a problem with positive portrayals?

Funny, though . . . I don't see a lot of trans relationships. It seems that "transwomen" appeal to neither gay or straight men. Or at least few of them care to be seen in public with the Dylan Mulvaney's of the world.

As if the quotation marks didn't give it away, your lack of desire to understand a single thing about the trans community is clear.

That makes no sense for you to insist on evidence for something that you already knew to be true. Unless you were just hoping to stall the debate.

I asked you to provide it so we could have a common starting place.

I agree that last sentence was snarky. I believe I said that I was working on being less snarky, not that I never am. If you don't like snark, you may want to avoid that "wild goose strategy" you used on me. Stunts like that tend to bring out the snark.

You mean the "strategy" where I asked you to provide evidence for your claim so we could discuss it?

You are welcome to have whatever opinion you like about me. You just are not welcome to have whatever facts you make up.

As the great philosopher Bart Simpson once said, "the ironing is delicious."

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Here's your chance:

Amazon product ASIN B07BSTZ1RN

Whatever you inked didn't show up.

One day you may tell me why you think it is problematic. No rush at all, though.

If an adult has to tell a child what something says instead of letting them find out and learn for themselves, it's stifling and fails to teach the child how to think and understand for themselves.

Yes, if it is a legit part of the plot, and not meant to sexually arouse. In fact if it is meant to sexually arouse, it's still fine. Just not for kids.

If "Lawn Boy" had said something like, "As I was watching Doug drink his coffee, I remembered when fooled around at church camp," I wouldn't object. If it was as is and not in schools I would not object.

From the passages you posted earlier, I don't see how Lawn Boy is meant to sexually arouse anyone. It also seems to be an important part of the plot, given that the character comes to realize at this point in his life that he's gay, so the only reason to be upset is that you don't like the language. I find this especially hypocritical, given your derogatory comments on how the left likes to censor language in the public sphere.

If you read the book, most of it is a typical leftist "businessmen are evil" propaganda piece. But the author knew what he was doing putting in the kid sex. The name of the character who has his dick sucked by the fourth grader is "Doug Goble." These literary types think they're clever, alright.

You realize that not everyone benefits from capitalism, right? This goes back to what I've said a few times now. Learning about other people's lives is one way we learn empathy. Your desire to break this down into left vs right makes me think that you are only interested in your side vs the other side.

Is the child gay sex in Lawn Boy a shocking obsenity to you? I don't find it so, just its explicitness and it's promoting to children by librarians. Which I still believe was a misunderstanding. The Alex Award description says nothing about sex. Whoever gave it the award probably is a left-leaning English major who liked the idea of real estate mogul as evil jerk. The smart people in college take engineering and business.

Again, you come across as a free speech proponent that wants to ban a book because you don't like the explicit language. You're also still making it tribal while also insulting the librarians you claimed earlier to respect.

I'd sooner see all that left out of public schools.

Problem with including the bible in a study of all religions is that parents could take that to imply that all religions are equal. Under the U.S. system "all religions are equal" should be the official stance of any government organization. But that's not the stance of anyone in a particular religion. They all believe that theirs is "the one."

My home state of Texas is bad about getting around that by pretending that kids run Christian clubs, and the adults only "sponsor" them. In my middle school, two teachers sponsor the students and they recruit this years' 7th graders to be next years student leaders of the club, so they perpetuate the fiction. They bribe the kids to attend with donuts on Thursday morning.

Nothing particularly horrible about that. But then they act surprised when atheists and Satan worshippers demand and get a club of their own.

I don't have a problem with comparative world religion courses. It seems your issue is based on a misunderstanding. Comparing religions in an educational setting doesn't take the stance that all religions are equal any more than biology class takes the stance that mammals and insects are equal. There is no hierarchy involved. It's just looking at similarities and differences in things under the same umbrella.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

You asked me for proof it was in school libraries. I gave you that proof, and you asked for proof it was in middle school and elementary libraries. That is a textbook example of moving the goal posts.

In the post MT quoted, you mentioned how easy it would be for elementary and middle school librarians to stock the book because it won an award. Asking if this is a thing actually happening is a logical question, not an attempt to shift the goalposts.

Would you be more comfortable with the phrase "Minor Attraction?"

In your response, why did you separate out the phrase MT used to preface her point and then make this snarky response? It's juvenile bullshirt.

 

[Snarky Sack]

As if the quotation marks didn't give it away, your lack of desire to understand a single thing about the trans community is clear.

I was perfectly happy with the "trans community," when it was adults who went through long periods of counseling, hormones, and surgery before having the final bottom surgery before they expected to be treated like members of their new sex. Not so happy with that male tennis player who turned into a woman tennis player, but he was but one example, so I never thought about it much.

It's nothing new. The Brady dad went through the surgery on an episode of "Marcus Welby" in the 1970's. Nobody much cared.

This new idea that any male can just say "I'm trans" and they get all of the extra protections and extra rights we have long given women and girls is the exact opposite of putting the needs of the many ahead of the needs of the few. That some of them are using this new idea to gain access to girls and women in order to sexually assault them in spaces that were once private for females is an incredible injustice.

That kids are being rushed through the medicalization and surgicalization now pushed by "Gender Specialists," is one of the grossest human rights violations in the 21st century.

Nearly all of that is not being perpetuated by people who actually suffer from Gender Dysphoria as defined in the DSM-V, but by fakers, posers, and shameless opportunists.

Whatever you inked didn't show up.

Yeah, Don't know why that didn't.

If an adult has to tell a child what something says instead of letting them find out and learn for themselves, it's stifling and fails to teach the child how to think and understand for themselves.

I doubt there are many children under thirteen or so who would learn much from the KJV. That's why we teach children instead of just handing them books.

That's why people write children's versions of bible stories, with illustrations. If someone wrote a child's book with explicit illustrations or descriptions of the actions of Lot's daughters I would call that inappropriate.

From the passages you posted earlier, I don't see how Lawn Boy is meant to sexually arouse anyone. It also seems to be an important part of the plot, given that the character comes to realize at this point in his life that he's gay, so the only reason to be upset is that you don't like the language. I find this especially hypocritical, given your derogatory comments on how the left likes to censor language in the public sphere.

Again (and I feel like I'm repeating myself quite a bit here) I don't object to the language, I object to that language in a book presented as a children's book, in a tax-funded school library. If a parent said, "My kids library doesn't have this book. I'm getting it for him!" I would say, "Parent on, Parent!" None of my business.

You realize that not everyone benefits from capitalism, right? This goes back to what I've said a few times now.

Everyone in a country with a free market benefits from capitalism. Before capitalism, people wore the same clothes with no wash for weeks on end. Very unsanitary. With capitalism, the people that worked in clothing factories could afford to buy those clothes which was much healthier. That's one of millions of examples of how people who are not themselves capitalists benefit from capitalism.

This might be a topic for another part of the board.

Learning about other people's lives is one way we learn empathy. Your desire to break this down into left vs right makes me think that you are only interested in your side vs the other side.

I grew up in HISD, in schools that were evenly divided between blacks, "Chicanos" and whites. I've served in the military, lived overseas, worked for UPS, taught English as a second language to adults taking night school, and I now teach Special Education with an emphasis on dealing with behavior disabilities to kids who speak English as a second language including a skyrocketing number of newcomers. I have five grown kids, who have pursued various lifestyles including the gay lifestyle, and the polyamorous lifestyle.

I don't need your condescention about how I don't understand people different from myself and that's why I disagree with you.

Again, you come across as a free speech proponent that wants to ban a book because you don't like the explicit language.

I don't want to ban it, I just dont' want it included as a children's book on the limited space of a school library. I showed you how to order it on Amazon. I take it you will not read it.

You're also still making it tribal while also insulting the librarians you claimed earlier to respect.

Tribal? Really? Can you explain why it is "tribal" or is that just a word you throw out?

I don't have a problem with comparative world religion courses. It seems your issue is based on a misunderstanding. Comparing religions in an educational setting doesn't take the stance that all religions are equal any more than biology class takes the stance that mammals and insects are equal. There is no hierarchy involved. It's just looking at similarities and differences in things under the same umbrella.

Agree to disagree then.

In the post MT quoted, you mentioned how easy it would be for elementary and middle school librarians to stock the book because it won an award. Asking if this is a thing actually happening is a logical question, not an attempt to shift the goalposts.

It was moving the goalposts because first she asked me if it was in school libraries and when I showed her it was, she asked if it was in middle school and elementary libraries. The award specified that it was for "young adults" 12 - 18, which would include middle school kids. She having not acknowledged that the book was in schools, why would I go running to do more research for her?

But we've beaten that horse enough. You or she are welcome to the last word on that topic.

In your response, why did you separate out the phrase MT used to preface her point and then make this snarky response? It's juvenile bullshirt.

Again, your defending MT will get confusing. Calling her "MT" was confusing, I just started on this board, and I thought 'who is MT?'

But I'll answer your question, because I told MT, I would give her the last word in our exchange.

 

[Snarky Sack]

In your response, why did you separate out the phrase MT used to preface her point and then make this snarky response? It's juvenile bullshirt.

Would you be more comfortable with the phrase "Minor Attraction?"

I gave a snarky response to MT15's snarky comment:

3. Your ideas about pedophilia are a bit weird.

If MT15 made a snarky comment to a poster whose login name is "Snarky Sack" and did not expect snark in return, she should take a break from snarking at posters and read "The Frog and the Scorpion."

Here's a hint to you, cuddlemonkey, MT15 and any other poster who is sensitive to snark and would prefer to not prompt it from me: It is not necessary to tell my why you think I have certain opinions. Just tell me your own opinion and the evidence that supports it, or why you think my evidence doesn't support my opinion.

It's your choice, though. Be condescending and I will be snarky.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I gave a snarky response to MT15's snarky comment:


If MT15 made a snarky comment to a poster whose login name is "Snarky Sack" and did not expect snark in return, she should take a break from snarking at posters and read "The Frog and the Scorpion."

Here's a hint to you, cuddlemonkey, MT15 and any other poster who is sensitive to snark and would prefer to not prompt it from me: It is not necessary to tell my why you think I have certain opinions. Just tell me your own opinion and the evidence that supports it, or why you think my evidence doesn't support my opinion.

It's your choice, though. Be condescending and I will be snarky.

It wasn't snarky. At least, it didn't read that way to me. She said it was weird because what you were talking about was not pedophilia in any way. You should really try to up the discourse. There's a lot of great conversation to be had here and you are going to miss out on it.

 

[brandon]

This new idea that any male can just say "I'm trans" and they get all of the extra protections and extra rights we have long given women and girls is the exact opposite of putting the needs of the many ahead of the needs of the few. That some of them are using this new idea to gain access to girls and women in order to sexually assault them in spaces that were once private for females is an incredible injustice.

The only thing new is these two made-up situations the right is using to get you riled up for votes.

Mission accomplished.

 

[Snarky Sack]

It wasn't snarky. At least, it didn't read that way to me. She said it was weird because what you were talking about was not pedophilia in any way. You should really try to up the discourse.

It seemed snarky to me for her to say that my ideas are weird. If she meant that what I was talking about was not about pedophilia in any way, she would have been welcome to say that what I was talking about was not about pedophilia in any way. She could have said why she thought that, since that would be my logical question.

If you don't believe it is snark, agree to disagree.

There's a lot of great conversation to be had here and you are going to miss out on it.

I doubt that I would miss out on the great conversation. I might miss out on posters being condescending to me and then getting upset when I am snarky because of it.

I hold minority opinions it seems, so I will always have multiple posters who will want to debate me.

Simple supply and demand.

 

[Snarky Sack]

The only thing new is these two made-up situations the right is using to get you riled up for votes.

Mission accomplished.

So, no males have been allowed into women's teams and into women's spaces by claiming to identify as women?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

It seemed snarky to me for her to say that my ideas are weird. If she meant that what I was talking about was not about pedophilia in any way, she would have been welcome to say that what I was talking about was not about pedophilia in any way. She could have said why she thought that, since that would be my logical question.

She did, in the very next sentence. The one you separated out to make your shirtty comment.

If you don't believe it is snark, agree to disagree.

I doubt that I would miss out on the great conversation. I might miss out on posters being condescending to me and then getting upset when I am snarky because of it.

I hold minority opinions it seems, so I will always have multiple posters who will want to debate me.

Simple supply and demand.

The conversation will still be here long after you are banned, I assure you.

 

[brandon]

So, no males have been allowed into women's teams and into women's spaces by claiming to identify as women?

No.

Edit: To be more clear, you will need to differentiate between people who are actually trans and the very few heterosexual sex offenders who may have committed crimes by pretending to be trans. These are not the same thing.

The teams issue is still up for debate as to how to properly handle the fairness issue for transgender people. But the issue of heterosexual men deciding to pretend to be trans in order to win in female sports is nonexistent.

In both situations, your issue is with heterosexual men.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Tribal? Really? Can you explain why it is "tribal" or is that just a word you throw out?

I want to address this part specifically before the rest, just to make sure we are on the same page. You said:

"Is the child gay sex in Lawn Boy a shocking obsenity to you? I don't find it so, just its explicitness and it's promoting to children by librarians. Which I still believe was a misunderstanding. The Alex Award description says nothing about sex. Whoever gave it the award probably is a left-leaning English major who liked the idea of real estate mogul as evil jerk. The smart people in college take engineering and business."

Do you really not see how you have boiled this down to tribes, politically speaking?

 

[Snarky Sack]

No.

LoL! Laughing at myself because I asked a question with a negative so I'm not sure what your "no" actually means. I hate when I do that!

Edit: To be more clear, you will need to differentiate between people who are actually trans and the very few heterosexual sex offenders who may have committed crimes by pretending to be trans. These are not the same thing.

Yes, I make that differentiation, or at least I will if you tell me how to do it.

A person who is biologically male says, "I'm a transwoman, so don't be surprised when I walk into the bathroom that you seem to be waiting for your wife or daughter outside of," how do I differentiate between her as a transwoman or him as a sex offender?

I think it is pretty important that we do that, if we want to protect women's rights and private spaces.

The teams issue is still up for debate as to how to properly handle the fairness issue for transgender people. But the issue of heterosexual men deciding to pretend to be trans in order to win in female sports is nonexistent.

Is it?

What makes you sure that - for example - Lia Thomas is a transwoman and not a heterosexual man who decided to pretend to be trans in order to win female sports?

Why do you say "heterosexual" when talking about sports? I get it in the case of heterosexual males claiming to be transwomen or transgirls in order to rape females in bathrooms and women's prisons. That is well documented to have happened many times already in spite of this uptick in men claiming to be trans is fairly recent.

That's why we need to know how to tell the difference, as I'm sure you would agree.

But Lia Thomson could be a heterosexual or homosexual male and still pretend to be trans in order to win women's swimming.

On the other hand, I've never seen Lia with a boyfriend, or wearing women's clothes other than the tuckable swimsuit. I guess if he were a gay guy and wanted to pretend to be a woman, he would recruit a gay guy to pretend to be attracted to transwomen.

Do you have something against heterosexual men, or are you just trying to make it tribal?

 

[Snarky Sack]

I want to address this part specifically before the rest, just to make sure we are on the same page. You said:

"Is the child gay sex in Lawn Boy a shocking obsenity to you? I don't find it so, just its explicitness and it's promoting to children by librarians. Which I still believe was a misunderstanding. The Alex Award description says nothing about sex. Whoever gave it the award probably is a left-leaning English major who liked the idea of real estate mogul as evil jerk. The smart people in college take engineering and business."

I'll plead guilty to being cleverly snarky, but not to any poster on here.

Do you really not see how you have boiled this down to tribes, politically speaking?

No, but you could save time by just telling me why you think it is, instead of asking me if I really don't see it.

I'm a teacher, so I'll give you a sentence stem:

Your statement about the person who awarded the Alex award is tribal because __________________________ .

To me accusations of being "tribal" are just a way to stall the conversation with irrelevancies. FWIW, I first heard people on the right doing it, accusing "liberals" of being tribal. I thought it was just a stall the first time I heard it.

 

[MT15]

Sack, you have put words in my mouth, and spouted some really insulting nonsense in this thread. It’s not worth my time to continue this conversation with you. You contradict yourself whenever you find it convenient to do so. I don’t really see any effort at true discussion and your tired insults are just sad and indicate a closed mind.

Your side won’t win, Americans don’t generally like censorship, especially when people try to tell other people how to raise their own kids or how to live their own lives. People like you are a vast minority in this country, and it will only get more and more lopsided as your side resorts to more and more radical attempts to control everyone else.

 

[brandon]

A person who is biologically male says, "I'm a transwoman, so don't be surprised when I walk into the bathroom that you seem to be waiting for your wife or daughter outside of," how do I differentiate between her as a transwoman or him as a sex offender?

I think it is pretty important that we do that, if we want to protect women's rights and private spaces.

I don’t know how you tell the difference between a trans woman and a heterosexual male sex offender by just looking at them.

Do you attempt to differentiate between regular men and pedophiles who enter the men’s room to prey on little boys?

I think it is pretty important that we do that, if we want to protect boys from sex offenders.

What makes you sure that - for example - Lia Thomas is a transwoman and not a heterosexual man who decided to pretend to be trans in order to win female sports?

Because no self-respecting heterosexual man would get pride from winning in women’s sports.

Why do you say "heterosexual" when talking about sports? I get it in the case of heterosexual males claiming to be transwomen or transgirls in order to rape females in bathrooms and women's prisons. That is well documented to have happened many times already in spite of this uptick in men claiming to be trans is fairly recent.

That's why we need to know how to tell the difference, as I'm sure you would agree.

I say heterosexual because that’s typically who we have to assume are doing the impersonating to sneak into women’s areas, but…

But Lia Thomson could be a heterosexual or homosexual male and still pretend to be trans in order to win women's swimming.

On the other hand, I've never seen Lia with a boyfriend, or wearing women's clothes other than the tuckable swimsuit. I guess if he were a gay guy and wanted to pretend to be a woman, he would recruit a gay guy to pretend to be attracted to transwomen.

Point conceded that a gay man could also pretend to be a woman to win at women’s sports.

I find that equally as ridiculous as a heterosexual man feeling some sort of pride in winning women’s sports.

I do think that Occam’s Razor applies here. If a person wanting to participate in women’s sports claims to be a trans woman, that is the most likely thing to be true.

Again, we can debate the fairness issues and how best to create a level playing field, but to deny that the person is who she claims to be, without evidence, is pretty far-fetched.

Do you have something against heterosexual men, or are you just trying to make it tribal?

As a heterosexual man, I have no issue pointing out that the vast majority of sex offenders happen to also be heterosexual men.

 

[Snarky Sack]

I don’t know how you tell the difference between a trans woman and a heterosexual male sex offender by just looking at them.

Then for safety's sake, we should not be letting people who you would look at and say, "I don't know which, but they are either atranswomen or a heterosexual male sex offender" into girls bathrooms.

Do you attempt to differentiate between regular men and pedophiles who enter the men’s room to prey on little boys?

Fair question. I always marveled at parents who sen their young children into public bathrooms without them, even though when my kids were little, no one in their right mind would have knowingly allowed this guy:

to walk into the bathroom after their daughter. But the danger to my sons from homosexual male sex offenders was just as real, so I stuck with them until they were old enough to know what to do if approached.

We may need to move to individual bathrooms for all public bathrooms. An expensive solution, but with the always existing danger from homosexual sex offenders and the increased danger from undetectable by sight heterosexual sex offenders, we may just need to spend that cash.

Yes, it will be the store owners who will foot the bill, but I will gladly pay when they pass that cost onto me. I'm fine with tax dollars spent to keep little girls in school safe from the creeps as well.

I think it is pretty important that we do that, if we want to protect boys from sex offenders.

See above.

Because no self-respecting heterosexual man would get pride from winning in women’s sports.

Lia doesn't look self-respecting to me. What's to self-respect? he was a mediocre mens college swimmer who took advantage of the latest absurdity to become a champion "women's" swimmer. He's a shameless opportunist.

Your idea that we can trust their self-respect seems to be an invitation to ruining girl's and women's sports.

I say heterosexual because that’s typically who we have to assume are doing the impersonating to sneak into women’s areas, but…

Point conceded that a gay man could also pretend to be a woman to win at women’s sports.

I find that equally as ridiculous as a heterosexual man feeling some sort of pride in winning women’s sports.

Yes, they are ridiculous for doing that.

I do think that Occam’s Razor applies here. If a person wanting to participate in women’s sports claims to be a trans woman, that is the most likely thing to be true.

Occam's razor tells me that if a guy has a penis, has had no surgery to alter his body, is never seen in public dressed as a woman, and went from being a mediocre athlete to a champion just by claiming to be a woman in a time of deliberate gullibility over that idea, that he is not a transwoman.

Again, we can debate the fairness issues and how best to create a level playing field, but to deny that the person is who she claims to be, without evidence, is pretty far-fetched.

I'm happy for her to be who she claims to be all day long. I don't care. I'll call her "ma'am" and "she" even if I see her wearing a man's suit, but I know it is Lia Thomas who identifies as a woman. I call transwomen by their preferred pronouns and would consider it rude not to.

As long as she has enough self-respect to understand how unfair her beating out women in sports having been a man all her life previously. She doesn't, so not only am I going to decry the unfairness, the lack of integrity and sportswomanship means I will also question her sincerity.

As a heterosexual man, I have no issue pointing out that the vast majority of sex offenders happen to also be heterosexual men.

Yes, I'm just not sure why it matters. If a bisexual male pretended to be a transwoman and raped a woman in prison, she's not any less raped, is she?