Michael Rosen, queering children’s literature

[LiterallyProblematic]

I could cry.
twitter.com/wwwritingclub/status/1217210625153290240?s=20

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.

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.

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

Queering! It’s queer theory. It’s blurring of all boundaries and lines. At the thin, and I would say helpful, end of the wedge it encourages diversity, shows children that families can be different (two mums etc) and happy and healthy too.
At the other end of queer theory teaching is a blurring of sensible lines and boundaries in other ways. Make no mistake, when a discussion focuses on ‘queering children’s literature’ or ‘queering the classroom’, a vast array of inappropriate and dangerous agendas are at play. Decent people get sucked in.
Shelley Charlesworth has written an excellent report on this www.transgendertrend.com/no-outsiders-queering-primary-classroom/

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.

Well look at this. My heart may mend. Michael Rosen has said he is going to learn about this. twitter.com/MichaelRosenYes/status/1217373545803780097?s=20

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

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!

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.

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 hasn't healed my heart.

A hundred bucks he 'learns' that women with concerns can rightfully be dismissed as transphobes. Very few men are prepared to stand with women.

If you think that discussing the representation of homosexuality in children's literature is "abuse", if you think it's all about sex, you have a massive fucking problem imo. You'd never think the same about a kids' book with a mother and father. Blatant homophobia, and therefore anti-feminist.

the representation of homosexuality in children's literature

is not the name of the event Rosen is attending.

If it was, I would be quite interested to attend myself.

Proponents of gender identity and queer theory really need to stop riding on the coat tails of the LBG.

Maybe he’ll stand up for free speech if he won’t stand up for women? mobile.twitter.com/MichaelRosenYes/status/1217368788238315520

I'm not holding my breath.

Shame he can't have a chat with Rachel Rooney.

Oh, for clarity, when I say people with male bodies are a risk to women, and social transition doesn't change that, I don't mean transition increases that risk in any way whatsoever, either. I've seen GC women accused so often of saying all trans people are perverts when we raise male statistical risk, and that's bullshit. It's the male risk that's the issue. I don't care what someone's gender identity is in that context - transmen aren't an issue, because the biology remains female.

I am so fed up with the way women pointing out male-pattern violence, and its prevalence and the need for single sex spaces on that basis, are being silenced by screams of transphobia. MRAs must be watching in breathless admiration. It's not transphobic to acknowledge that people with male bodies pose a risk to people with female bodies, and the gender identity in any direction does not affect that risk.

Of course our kids should know that families have different parent set ups, some hetero, some gay some lesbian. Anyone who has an issue with that has a problem.

But why is it now being badged as "queer"? We all know this word has been hijacked to cover things that people do when having sex/pleasuring themselves and is no longer used just to indicate "gay".

This is really dangerous. Or have I misunderstood?

'Queering' = queer theory.

'Qu**r" = a slur for L, B or G people, sometimes reclaimed, often avoided.

Apologies, as ever my choice of word and my articulation is clumsy. Basically Novina said it as I imagined it in my head

Thanks Janes.
Apologies if crap wording in my other post offended anyone, that wasn't my intention.

@KnickerBockerAndrew this is about queer theory, not homosexuality. Different concepts.

If this were about gay parenting, I'd be absolutely with you.

Woah, its kicking off on twitter isn't it.

Rachel Rooney tweeted him.

I fear he'll take the easy route out of here...

Woot woot Rachel!!!