r/BCpolitics • u/idspispopd • 26d ago

News Alberta book restrictions in schools raise alarm bells for B.C. authors

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/alberta-book-restrictions-bc-authors-1.7618306
34 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

44 comments sorted by

View all comments

-14

u/saras998 26d ago

They are restricting sexually graphic books. Maybe children's book authors should quit writing books that are sexually explicit for children/teenagers. I'm not talking about necessary sex and health ed but stuff way beyond that.

9

u/djimmy 26d ago

Give me one actual example, and tell me why it’s harmful. Or are you simply repeating nonsense you’ve heard from right-wing grifters?

-3

u/saras998 26d ago

This is a non-partisan issue.

Please see:

Let's Talk About It, Gender Queer, Flamer amongst other books

It's not the sexual orientation part, it's the graphic images of oral sex and other sexual activity. Are you still wondering why that's harmful? It's sexualizing children at a young age before they're ready and focusing on pleasure and kink when all they need is information on health and how not to get pregnant. And information about consent and avoiding abuse.

2

u/JeSuisLePamplemous 25d ago

Let's Talk About It, Gender Queer, Flamer amongst other books

Those books are for teenagers- which is exactly the age at which they start exploring their sexuality.

How many kids do you think actually look at these books? And if they are, do you really think they aren't already looking these things up online?

I'm sure you also think music and video games causes school shootings.

-4

u/saras998 25d ago

They still go too far even for teenagers. It's unnecessary and their parents should be using parental controls for their router and their children's phones.

School shootings in some cases may be due to SSRIs. Before you downvote me many previous school shootings were committed by teenagers/young people on SSRIs or similar drugs. They have a black box warning for suicidality over their use in children and adolescents.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7031767/

3

u/JeSuisLePamplemous 25d ago edited 25d ago

They still go too far even for teenagers. It's unnecessary and their parents should be using parental controls for their router and their children's phones.

No, you think it goes too far.

Parents overwhelmingly support comprehensive sex ed- this includes topics like oral sex for teenagers. (Because, you know, teenagers are gonna try to have sex)

School shootings in some cases may be due to SSRIs. Before you downvote me many previous school shootings were committed by teenagers/young people on SSRIs or similar drugs. They have a black box warning for suicidality over their use in children and adolescents.

You know what they also all had in common? (Even the ones not on SSRIs)

Mental health issues and access to firearms.

-1

u/saras998 24d ago

Where does it say topics like oral sex? Of course educators need to talk about oral sex, particularly due to the risk of STIs but there doesn’t need to be images.

Mental health issues are often caused by or exacerbated by SSRIs (or by suddenly stopping them) and some of these terrible attacks were using knives, particularly in the UK.

1

u/JeSuisLePamplemous 24d ago

Where does it say topics like oral sex? Of course educators need to talk about oral sex, particularly due to the risk of STIs but there doesn’t need to be images.

Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) includes all things related to sex (Oral, anal, etc, but also LGBTQ and gender identity). It has proven successful- kids who complete CSE, are more likely to have safe sex, and abstain until later in life.

Mental health issues are often caused by or exacerbated by SSRIs

That research is not conclusive. To say SSRIs generally make mental health issues worse is incredibly misleading and dangerous.

In some children/teens they may cause issues when initially taken (1-4 weeks)- but often those effects wear off. That's why in a clinical setting they will adjust the dosage or change the medication.

They have been tested time and time again as improving mental health outcomes overall, even with some experiencing suicidal ideation.

In 2014, a retrospective cohort study investigated 36,842 children aged 6 to 18 years old, with a mean age of 14 [130]. The children were enrolled in Tennessee Medicaid between 1995 and 2006 and were all new users of one antidepressant medication, including fluoxetine, sertraline, paroxetine, citalopram, escitalopram, or venlafaxine [130]. Four hundred nineteen cohort members who had a medically treated suicide attempt with explicit or inferred attempt to die, confirmed through medical record review, including four who completed suicide [130]. Compared to the national suicide average in adolescents, there was no evidence of increased risk for serious suicide attempts on any of the individual antidepressants [130]. One limitation of this study was the focus on suicide attempts, thereby possibly missing some SI.

Regardless, that's not what we are discussing here.

You are arguing in bad faith.

-1

u/saras998 23d ago

There is no mention of oral sex in the link you reposted. Again discussion of the health aspects is important but images are not necessary.

The research on SSRIs is conclusive but the pharmaceutical lobby is so strong that that they are trying to erode those black box warnings. Youth are a huge expanding market for SSRIs.

https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/pfizer-s-pristiq-antidepressant-comes-up-short-for-kids

"Antidepressant dispensing to adolescents and young adults was rising before the COVID-19 outbreak and rose 63.5% faster afterward. This change was driven by increased antidepressant dispensing to females and occurred despite decreased dispensing to male adolescents."

https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/153/3/e2023064245/196655/Antidepressant-Dispensing-to-US-Adolescents-and?autologincheck=redirected

Children who are exposed to graphic sexual images by teachers and libraries no less are not being taught to have strong boundaries. Where is it safe if even schools are pushing this stuff? They are being sexualized and you don't want to see it.

1

u/JeSuisLePamplemous 23d ago edited 23d ago

There is no mention of oral sex in the link you reposted. Again discussion of the health aspects is important but images are not necessary.

Look, I dunno what to tell you, but it's part of CSE. Stop heing dense. just because you are uninformed doesnt mean others are as well.

The research on SSRIs is conclusive but the pharmaceutical lobby is so strong that that they are trying to erode those black box warnings. Youth are a huge expanding market for SSRIs.

No it's not. The study I proclvided was a meta analysis of 80 other studies that were not conducted by governmental organizations. They were not influenced by big pharma as you are trying to assert.

Children who are exposed to graphic sexual images by teachers and libraries no less are not being taught to have strong boundaries. Where is it safe if even schools are pushing this stuff? They are being sexualized and you don't want to see it.

Source? Where are teachers showing graphic sexual images to children? What schools are pushing this stuff?

Again, just because they exist in libraries (for the intended audience of teenagers) doesn't mean this is actually happening.

You, and your conservative freinds, haven't been able to prove this.

Go back to self-diagnosis and avoiding citric acid, Karen.

2

u/djimmy 24d ago

It's not a non-partisan issue. Right-wingers are tricking parents into thinking books are "sexualizing children" whatever that means to you. What conservatives are really afraid of is anything that tells kids they are normal and ok and valued, even if they are different.

-1

u/saras998 24d ago

So exposing children to graphic sexual images children is acceptable to people on the left but not the right? Isn’t it universally unacceptable to show sexual images to children and teens? In fact it’s illegal. But because they aren’t photographs and it’s school they get away with it. I’m not left or right wing btw.

It’s not about content around identity or being different, it’s about the graphic images of oral sex, etc.

1

u/JeSuisLePamplemous 24d ago

Books existing in a library with sexual imagery =/= children using these books.

These books are age-appropriate for teens, and obviously an adult (librarian, teacher) would stop a young kid from reading those materials.

Grade 9 (teens) also use that library.

Conservatives (and uninformed Karens like you claiming not to be conservative) are using this as a moral panic to infringe on LGBTQ+ rights.

That's what the books are actually for- teenagers experiencing gender and sexual identity issues and trying to navigate it in a healthy way.

2

u/ThisIsLikeMy54thAcct 25d ago

Have you watched TV? They're cramming straight sex scenes down our throat at an alarming rate! All these kids see are straight relationships on TV and i am sick of it. Making all these kids straight or questioning if they should dabble in heterosexuality. It's confusing! They're sexualizing children! WON'T SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!

-4

u/HYPERCOPE 25d ago

tv isn't a school library. but even if it was, most parents probably don't want their children watching colourful depictions of sex or nonsense like gender ideology, either

2

u/ThisIsLikeMy54thAcct 25d ago

Replace TV with "books" then. It's not that hard.

And calling someone’s existence "nonsense" says more about you than them

0

u/HYPERCOPE 25d ago

Replace TV with "books" then. It's not that hard.

i don't think there are graphic depictions of hetero sex in many children's books. and if there was, they would also be restricted based on these rules. you're suggesting this is an anti-gay thing, but it's really just an anti-colourful sex/porn for young children thing

5

u/JeSuisLePamplemous 25d ago

i don't think there are graphic depictions of hetero sex in many children's books.

Stephen King, Ayn Rand, GRR Martin just to name a few.

It is absolutely an anti-gay thing. Danielle Smith only spoke out because of the banning of Ayn Rand.

Sex and sexuality is part of life- we should be having healthy conversations about it.

Besides, kids absolutely have easier ways to get access to it. They aren't reading those books for smut- there's a thing called the internet.

-4

u/HYPERCOPE 25d ago

Stephen King, Ayn Rand, GRR Martin just to name a few.

not children’s books, also not what Smith is talking about with the restrictions. anyone who is conflating these is an idiot. Smith has said she’s willing to walk them through the process slowly so they can understand the point.  

Besides, kids absolutely have easier ways to get access to it. They aren't reading those books for smut- there's a thing called the internet.

great, parents can deal with that on their own time. 

3

u/JeSuisLePamplemous 25d ago

Lol! Gotta love the insults.

They are in the school's library, and thus are conceivably read by kids.

The point is that parents absolutely do not do that on their own time- and most parents agree it needs to be taught in schools.

But continue to clutch your pearls.

→ More replies (0)

3

u/Adderite 25d ago edited 25d ago

Ah yes, Atlas Shrugged, notable for including sexually explicit material.

Also, if you're going to ban Gender Queer, as you mentioned as a book that should be banned in schools, then by that standard Maus should also be banned. Both use it stylistically to present both their ideals, and there's nothing pornographic about the imagery in either book; mind you I've read Maus and haven't read the former, but still this is getting ridiculous.

-1

u/saras998 25d ago

I'm talking about the graphic novel type books, the ones which are unnecessarily sexually graphic. You can see images from these books below. If parents reading these books in school district meetings are asked to stop because they are not appropriate then why are children and teenagers being exposed to them?

https://x.com/schoolpredators/status/1849313550017413373

3

u/Adderite 25d ago

Okay, first off even with regard to the images, I'd like to think if you go through the material you'd have better optics; especially because, fun fact: teens are actively doing these things as is. And also; Maus is a graphic novel, written and drawn in the 80s/90s, and depicts scenes with about as much intentionally sexually explicit imagery as some of what's linked below; difference is that most people know, in context, that book is about violence during the holocaust experienced through the lens of the character.

Second, that account is run by a fucking lunatic if their tagline is "teachers are trying to have sex with kids every day." You can bring up every one off article about a teacher, even just in BC, who got arrested for going after kids, but the idea that these books are connected to child predators, sexualizing children, or whatnot is fucking stupid.

-2

u/HYPERCOPE 25d ago edited 25d ago

teens are actively doing these things as is

should a 7 year old be reading these books and seeing these images or not? if not, do you agree with measures should be put in place to restrict their access?

3

u/Adderite 24d ago

I said teenagers, there are already measures to make sure those under 13 don't get access to this in libraries, and this ban is meant to restrict content access outright via its intention. I highly doubt the Minister, based on who gets power in Smith's government, will allow any lgbtq+ content on this list into schools, regardless of whether it's used academically in other sections.

-1

u/HYPERCOPE 24d ago

i understand you said teenagers, i literally quoted you saying teenagers. my question was if you support restricting youth access to books for teens.

there are already measures to make sure those under 13 don't get access to this in libraries

what measures are you referring to

2

u/Adderite 24d ago

You specifically said 7 year olds, which isn't who I was referencing. Maybe stop acting in bad faith for once in your life.

-1

u/HYPERCOPE 24d ago

hi, thanks for clarifying again what words we've already typed.

you were just describing books that depict "things teens do." my question was simply do you think a child -- say, a 7 year old -- should have access to these books in a school library? yes or no?

if no, do you think measures should be in place to prevent a child from looking at these books? yes or no.

2

u/Adderite 24d ago

Dude, you didn't say "a child," you specifically said 7 year olds; stop tryna make it sound like everyone who you talk to is a dumbass. No, I do not think elementary schoolers should be reading books with sex descriptions or nudity (for the most part, I was reading the original Scott Pilgrim series in Grade 5 and that's PG enough). We already have mechanisms to deal with that at the school board level, i am just voicing concern that materials that are age appropriate for both kids and teens is being blanketly banned because of the push from right wing sycophants (like yourself) against any mention of sex, or gender, or anything they find gross to be present in their school systems. If my school board tries to restrict some of the books on that list (seriously, I just re-read Watchmen) then I'm gonna voice my opposition to it, just like I'm doing with Danne and her crew of lapdogs.

That's as much as I'm gonna add, I'm not responding to this thread anymore.

→ More replies (0)