There's Something Queer Going on in the LGBT Movement

[Octavious]

In recent years it seems like elements of the LGBT movement have completely lost their minds. Unfortunately, instead of being given a good slapping by the rest of the community and wider society, poor deluded prats (no doubt being motivated by all this ally crap you hear about these days, or maybe just acting in fear of being labelled a bigot) are actually enabling and encouraging the lunatic wing.

The latest incarnation is the utterly bizarre and highly disturbing occurrence of illustrations of people in festish gear featuring in books aimed at the youngest children and provided in preschools.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-66591848

On the one hand is the worrying idea that there are people in charge of children who somehow think this kind of shit is ok, when they really shouldn't be anywhere near them. On the other is the scary idea that this will lend credibility to the anti-LGBT hate groups who have long made arguments about them being depraved perverts and have now been gifted a legitimate news story that backs them up.

Like all areas of society, the LGBT community contains some complete twats and nasty sods. These people shouldn't be given any special privileges out of some instinct to be kind and inclusive.

[Jamiet99uk]

"Books", by which you actually mean "a book".

[Octavious]

The world has moved on from the days when books were painstakingly hand written and illustrated by monks, old chap. I imagine there are thousands of them

[Jamiet99uk]

Yes but you're presenting this as if it's some kind of organised campaign by the LGBT movement to put badly-illustrated books featuring lazy "queer" stereotypes into schools.

Having read this BBC story, I don't see any such thing. I think you're making a fuss about very little. I assume you were very bored at work this afternoon.

Don't turn into Fluminator. Find something better to do.

[Octavious]

No I'm not. I'm presenting it as a fringe element of the LGBT movement putting highly sexualised images into schools out of a twisted belief that this is a positive thing.

In an ideal world there would be no greater obligation on the wider LGBT community to act against it than for anyone else, but this is the real world and the reality is that this is a bigger threat to the LGBT community than I think you appreciate. There will be a hardcore group of haters that will always hate and actively try to spread hatred, usually without success. The majority of people couldn't care less what other people get up to and have a live and let live attitude. But when things like this appear live and let live is no longer an option. Because of things like this for increasing numbers of people the LGBT community are switching from a group that can be effectively ignored to a direct threat to children and women's rights.

These are dangerous times, and it is vital to crack down on the lunatic fringe of the LGBT community as hard as with the lunatic fringe of the right wing

[Jamiet99uk]

What is it you find "highly disturbing" about the images in question, anyway?

Aren't you being rather prudish?

[flash2015]

LOL, your new image.

[flash2015]

When this sort of thing happens in the US, there would have been some Republican politician that would have come out claiming that children have been groomed. There would have been a reflective outcry from activists claiming that conservatives are trying to "erase" LGBTQIA+ people.

Major news networks would have outed the guy as a Nazi and a homophobe (the part about him being gay himself would have been irrelevant) and create story after story about how extremists are trying to ban books. They would have interviewed some teacher about the book and the teacher would have explained how they are just trying to promote inclusion and anyone that disagrees is a hateful bigot.

Thankfully it feels like the UK is still an island of sanity in all this.

[flash2015]

Damn, misread the story. Got confused between the parent and the head of Hull's LGBT forum. Wish I could update the previous post.

[Octavious]

What is it you find "highly disturbing" about the images in question, anyway?

Aren't you being rather prudish?

Is that a serious question? Just to clarify incase I am misunderstanding you, you are asking what's disturbing about images of men in fetish gear in books for young children? Is there some subtlety that I'm missing here?

[Jamiet99uk]

What is it you find "highly disturbing" about the images in question, anyway?

Aren't you being rather prudish?

Is that a serious question? Just to clarify incase I am misunderstanding you, you are asking what's disturbing about images of men in fetish gear in books for young children? Is there some subtlety that I'm missing here?

It's just people wearing things. It's not pornographic or anything.

This evening walking in London, I saw large billboard adverts for Calvin Klein and Armani underwear, featuring attractive male and female models, wearing nothing but the said underwear, and emphasising their sexual desirability. Children will see these adverts.

I assume you would like all such advertising to be banned?

[flash2015]

I am curious - What would your line be here then? What would they need to have in the book before you say "hold on, that's a bit much for young kids, isn't it?"

[Octavious]

It's just people wearing things

Utterly ludicrous statement, as you well know. Clothing has meaning, and has done since humanity first developed a culture. People who wear bright colours want people to notice them. People who wear expensive brands want people to think they are powerful and successful. Judges wear grey wigs for them all to appear experienced and learned. Strippers wear clothing designed to stimulate their customers. Moseley's blackshirts wore black shirts to intimidate and to provide group identity. Clothing has meaning. You can debate what that meaning may be, but there's no valid argument that the meaning doesn't exist.

This evening walking in London, I saw large billboard adverts for Calvin Klein and Armani underwear, featuring attractive male and female models, wearing nothing but the said underwear, and emphasising their sexual desirability. Children will see these adverts.

I assume you would like all such advertising to be banned?

I would, certainly. I'm surprised that you need to ask. I am also grateful for your acknowledgement that they have chosen clothing whose purpose is to show sexual desirability.

There is an order of magnitude of difference, however, between adverts targeted at adults that may be seen by children, and images in a book directly targeted at children

[Jamiet99uk]

I am curious - What would your line be here then? What would they need to have in the book before you say "hold on, that's a bit much for young kids, isn't it?"

Thatcherism.

[Jamiet99uk]

It's just people wearing things

Utterly ludicrous statement, as you well know. Clothing has meaning, and has done since humanity first developed a culture. People who wear bright colours want people to notice them. People who wear expensive brands want people to think they are powerful and successful. Judges wear grey wigs for them all to appear experienced and learned. Strippers wear clothing designed to stimulate their customers. Moseley's blackshirts wore black shirts to intimidate and to provide group identity. Clothing has meaning. You can debate what that meaning may be, but there's no valid argument that the meaning doesn't exist.

This evening walking in London, I saw large billboard adverts for Calvin Klein and Armani underwear, featuring attractive male and female models, wearing nothing but the said underwear, and emphasising their sexual desirability. Children will see these adverts.

I assume you would like all such advertising to be banned?

I would, certainly. I'm surprised that you need to ask. I am also grateful for your acknowledgement that they have chosen clothing whose purpose is to show sexual desirability.

There is an order of magnitude of difference, however, between adverts targeted at adults that may be seen by children, and images in a book directly targeted at children

I continue to fail to see any kind of extreme LGBT conspiracy at work, and I continue to not think this is a very big deal.

I do not share your moral outrage.

What actual harm do you believe is being done here?

[Octavious]

I do not share your moral outrage.

Do you at least understand it?

[Jamiet99uk]

I do not share your moral outrage.

Do you at least understand it?

Well, first of all, I continue to think you're being prudish.

If I try to understand you, I guess you think children's innocence needs to be protected from a wide range of corrupting influences. I think such an approach risks wrapping children in cotton wool and simply leaving them at risk in different ways.

[flash2015]

Reading up on the author it looks like he has a full on political agenda here.

"As a result, Harry was able to use their time at Herts not just to learn about illustration, but also queer theory, LGBT history, and the various political and social movements that intersect those two topics. All of this inspired Harry’s artistic practice. In the final year, Harry wrote a dissertation on LGBT representation in children’s books.

They looked at not only the characters and storylines in the books, but also the authors and illustrators making those stories. They also looked at the publishing industry as a whole and how it deals with representation and diversity. Harry’s dissertation was the inspiration for their debut picture book, called Grandad's Camper, which publishes with Andersen Press in the UK in spring 2021."

https://www.herts.ac.uk/about-us/equali ... y-woodgate

[Octavious]

If I try to understand you, I guess you think children's innocence needs to be protected from a wide range of corrupting influences. I think such an approach risks wrapping children in cotton wool and simply leaving them at risk in different ways.

In what way does not seeing images of men in fetish gear leave preschool children at risk?

[Jamiet99uk]

If I try to understand you, I guess you think children's innocence needs to be protected from a wide range of corrupting influences. I think such an approach risks wrapping children in cotton wool and simply leaving them at risk in different ways.

In what way does not seeing images of men in fetish gear leave preschool children at risk?

No I mean in the broader sense, taking the attitude that children must be protected from everything and sealed off in a cotton wool bubble can, if you ask me, leave them unprepared for real life.

In this specific case, what risk or harm is being caused?