Michael Rosen, queering children’s literature

Also, I NEVER use qu* to refer to gay and lesbian people. My Gen Z dd doesn't use it for herself and finds it offensive, so if people want to talk to me about gay and lesbian representation in books, they can jolly well use the words gay and lesbian representation.

My friend has two mums ? Lovely.

"Queering" ? The erosion of boundaries ? No thank you. Not for kids.

He just tweeted, asking for input, twitter.com/MichaelRosenYes/status/1217373545803780097here. I don't have twitter - I don't find the endless fights enlivening - but if people want to explain then this is an opportunity.

My suggestion would be providing the BISH guide, which is every bit as sexist and regressive, and also the Hayward Gallery exhibition being deemed suitable for primary aged children, despite featuring latex, a furry suit and an erect penis. Interesting exhibition for adults, absolutely, but horrific for school trips. That should be well under the heading of A Level age plus.

Might also be worth pointing out that a book which centres the feelings of an adult trans person over their child, aimed at children, is not ideal. And that Stonewall's present stance erases women's rights to safety and privacy from people with male bodies - because those people are provably a risk to us, and social transition does not alter that reality one iota - and is in some ways homophobic. And that women wanting to meet to talk about this are so threatened and abused that they have to hold those meetings in secret venues for their own safety - yet they are the ones called hateful bigots.

He always has seemed one of the good guys, and he's asking for input in a reasonable, concerned way.

It's absolutely right that people should show respect and concern for the needs of trans people. It's just that ignoring the needs of women to prioritise the needs of people of male biology, and calling that progressive, is clearly deeply and wholly misogynist. As is saying little girls are pink and fluffy, and boys strong and adventurous, and if you deviate from that then your gender identity is fluid. Which I imagine Mr Rosen is also startled by - hence the asking for more information.

we had this in the 70s!

Thank you, yes, we did!

They were often god-awful books, mind you, because they aimed to 'educate', but they were on my bookshelf as a kid!

Brave man. But then men don’t get like ons like women.

Everyone is sexual. Children are born one sex or the other.

Preadolescent children are sexually latent, but have a strong sense of their sexual identity. They gravitate to same-sex friendships and show marked differences of attitude. Boys are more competitive. Girls are more co-operative.

It's a nature-nurture thing.

This

uncommongroundmedia.com/the-trojan-unicorn-queer-theory-and-paedophilia-part-i-%EF%BB%BF-dr-em/

And it's sequel are a good critique of queer theory

I think there's a grneral problem with language confusion (not particularly on this thread, just in general) between 'queer' as a catch-all term for LGBT and 'queering' as a shorthand for 'transgressing boundaries being axiomatically good'.

Yes, there is a big difference between representing a variety of human relationships, and the specific concept of 'queering'. Queer Theory is not an ideology that should be promoted to children. 'Queering' is a problematic concept because it is based on the underlying premise that all social norms and boundaries should be transgressed and that transgressions are inherently a good thing. This seems superficially and naively progressive, unless you understand the implications and logical conclusions of such an ideological position. Many of the original proponents of Queer Theory were big supporters of paedophilia, and this should not be surprising, because if you take the ideological position that any social boundary / convention / norm is inherently bad and breaking those taboos and norms are inherently good, then you have no philosophical justification as a society for the collective stigma and disgust around problematic behaviour like paedophilia since it is yet another boundary that needs to be transgressed.

People probably use queering without any understanding of the original concepts. They never seem to think through the implications of assuming that every single social norm is something that should be destroyed.

how many children's authors sit down to write a story that isn't a story about LGBTQ inclusivity and just happen to make the central character kid have a non-het couple as their parents, not to make a point or be a major part of the storyline but just because it's a perfectly reasonable possibility?

This is what should be happening more, as a kind of natural evolution but the problem is that if an author does this, it's going to get picked up on by the woke and they would be called out for not making more of it in the story, for not using that character to push agendas, it's almost as though in the current climate it's not OK just to be different from the "norm", it has to be front and centre.

It would be awesome to have characters in childrens books that had, for example two mums, but for that to just be the fact and not made the main theme because it is an everyday situation and would truly help to show children that lots of different types of family setups are perfectly normal.

"Queering the classroom" has nothing to do with "having more gay and lesbian characters in children's books". Having gay and lesbian characters in children's books is obviously fine.

Queer theory is about subverting mores, breaking boundaries and destroying the normative. None of which is appropriate in material directed at primary school children.

You'll notice the other panellist is the author of the Usborne book we are currently critiquing for valorising the emotional abuse of a child by making it the caretaker of the feelings of its parent. The kind of boundary queer theory breaks that shouldn't be broken.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3792431-Usbourne-publishing-calling-mums-transphobes

I agree with @Sunkisses - Children aren't sexual and shouldn't be being encouraged to be either. It's abuse in my opinion.

how many children's authors sit down to write a story that isn't a story about LGBTQ inclusivity and just happen to make the central character kid have a non-het couple as their parents, not to make a point or be a major part of the storyline but just because it's a perfectly reasonable possibility?

It wasn't literature, but this is basically what happened in Doctor Who under Russel T Davies.

Yeah ilthere needs to be a much wider representation of gay relationships in kids books. More Tabby Mc Tat and less Heather has Two Mommies. Totally agree about the no kink though.

@Apache Yes, that would be the right way to do it. I think books like that would still be marketed a certain way though (and are unlikely to get published as the message is not deemed strong enough).

I think there's a grneral problem with language confusion (not particularly on this thread, just in general) between 'queer' as a catch-all term for LGBT and 'queering' as a shorthand for 'transgressing boundaries being axiomatically good'.

I have no problem with age-appropriate LGBT representation in children's books, so long as it's not gaslighty like the recent usborne book. I would have a problem with other bits of the alphabet soup (eg 'kink') appearing in children's books. I certainly have a problem with 'transgressing boundaries being axiomatically good' in kids' books.

The words 'queering' and 'children' never belong together, imo. I do not support a blurring of boundaries around children.

Can someone explain the issue to me as I'm not sure I fully see it.

"Such and such has two dads" type books have been in our classrooms for years.

indeed. but how many ordinary story books which just happen to mention in passing dad Sam and dad Tom without it being the focus or title of the story? the existence of books like Heather Has Two Mummies is only a very basic starting point - we have only created a culture where kids can grow up and realise they are gay and not feel weird about it if there are numerous pervasive and positive examples in all kinds of media not just of token "look this is how to be inclusive" didactic stories which are still quite "othering" as they make a big deal of the difference.

how many children's authors sit down to write a story that isn't a story about LGBTQ inclusivity and just happen to make the central character kid have a non-het couple as their parents, not to make a point or be a major part of the storyline but just because it's a perfectly reasonable possibility?

What exactly is the aim here?

And for the record - we had this in the 70s! I remember a book in the school library about a kid with two dads.

The current trend seems to be more adult centred rather than child. Adult themes in a child’s world.

He's interviewing students who have written about LGBT issues. It seems to me he's interested in people's views and encouraging debate.
<a class="break-all" href="https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=morningstaronline.co.uk/article/b/radical-women-hold-feminist-jamboree-matchwomens-festival&ved=2ahUKEwiUiuupiYXnAhWPSxUIHWxTBKgQFjADegQIAxAB&usg=AOvVaw01_jNnPNtHOvTqWexr2lXq&cshid=1579073294210" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Morning Star link He attends feminist debates too.

I hardly think the children’s books will be discussing the bedroom antics of the two mums or dads...this is nothing to do with sexualising children’s literature, it’s about representing a wider range of people to reflect the diversity that is present in modern society.

I think the problem with the term "queering the classroom" is that "queering" essentially talks about gender identity - and the less we encourage children to obsess on their gender identity, the better. It's encouraging a completely narcissistic and naval-gazing culture amongst our young people.

"Such and such has two dads" type books have been in our classrooms for years.

Why are people wanting to introduce sexuality to pre-sexual children? It's an adult agenda that should have no place in children's lives.

This is so fair. So no more talking about mums and dads, no more stories with families, no more role-playing 'house' with a mum and/or dad and children, no more fairytales, no books with weddings in at all, nothing in history that talks about wives or children.

Or is it just gay and lesbian couples that are 'too adult' for children?

It is possible to explore sexuality without discussing sex acts. Heterosexuality is a sexuality, it's not just the default.

Because if children think a child with 2 dads is normal and something they see in other places, not just one child but in books and tv, then they are less likely to bully that child.

And as they grow into their sexuality they will not think themselves abnormal if they would rather be in. 2 dad situation

Like lots of things , nothing is simple black and white, in this case it's about having age appropriate information, which is where things often go wrong of course

there should be stories where the princess is rescued by another princess

Like Frozen, you mean?

Why are people wanting to introduce sexuality to pre-sexual children? It's an adult agenda that should have no place in children's lives.

This.