Aug 6, 2023·edited Aug 6, 2023Liked by Julie Szego
Really interesting post, thank you. I've only seen screenshots of parts of the book but was struck that the section about sexual orientation had nothing much to say about human relationships and chemistry between people. Nor did it do the 1990s message to same sex attracted teens of "You're feeling a lot of feelings at your age, that's normal, so don't worry, take your time, hang out with good friends and don't feel pressured - maybe you'll turn out gay, maybe not, but you'll be fine either way and you'll always have people who love you". It might have been cheesy but it reassured us! Instead this book encourages teens to ruminate endlessly on their own inner "identity". Seems a recipe for dysphoria and loneliness amongst anxious teen girls.
Interesting observation Pat, thanks for sharing it. The authors do say something like "your identity may change over time," but like you say, what on earth is "identity".
I meant to add: I really like the distinction you make between Gen X kids sneaking a look at some hippie parents' copy of The Joy of Sex, knowing it was definitely meant for adults, versus kids nowadays having this stuff written for and handed to them. Developmentally, I think it's a very different experience.
Terrific piece. So important to have this unfettered, unrestricted and brave piece on issues that have been bogged down in culture war battles. Empty battles. Thank you!
Interesting review of WTS. As a retired teacher I went to look at it in a bookshop. My first response was yuck! Six pics on one page of vulvas was too much information and likewise other illustrations. I thought the aesthetics of the book were poor. There are children who would find the whole tone of it distasteful.The suggestion that an 8 year old could skim through it is simply irresponsible.
Having spent a lifetime in teaching and school librarianship at both primary and secondary schools my view is that it’s not appropriate for anyone under 15. If it were in a secondary school library it would not be on the open shelves.
Brilliant review, thanks. Looking forward to more of your unfiltered opinions on Substack!
Sad that this controversy came to light as a U.S. style book banning controversy, making it look like everyone with reservations about the book is a bible basher. When my daughter is older, I'd like her to read your review and read the book. I want her to understand that sending nudes is a really bad idea, even for adults, and anal sex is no fun for women, so tell the boys no thanks. Oh and yeah, you don't need a gender identity so you can forget about that part!
But much of WTS, which claims to be targeted at 11-15-year-olds, is not appropriate for that age group. The vast majority of them are too young to be having sex.
Somewhere along the line, the idea that:
--kids about to go or going through puberty need to understand what's happening to their bodies and why;
got confused in lefty minds with the idea that
--teens about to go or going through becoming sexually active need to understand how to protect and enjoy themselves and why.
There is a large, important gap of years between those two stages, and blurring them together makes lefties look irresponsible at best, groomers at worst.
The more you learn about the people trying to prematurely expose children to sexual topics, the more you realize they are fundamentally lacking in a sense of appropriate boundaries. They reflexively oppose boundaries of any kind.
And there are a lot of them.
Including in the World Health Organization, who believe that pre-pubescent kids are sexual beings who need to be taught masturbation:
And in a Youth Sexual Education Charity which produced a video in which adults suggestively quizzed pre-pubescent kids about their supposed masturbatory habits:
Oh Julie, I so love your work. I was completely frustrated by the reporting on this book, that never actually told the reader exactly what people were objecting to - which of course gave us no opportunity to figure out what our own position should be. As you say, we were all just supposed to line up on tribal lines, mindlessly supporting anything that right-wing conservatives opposed. It's as if an idea can be guilty by association - and it not just here, it's everywhere.
I can’t really describe how grateful I am to have Australian voices weighing in here Julie. So thanks. Looking forward to seeing the end of this overtly misogynistic period. Fantastic observation re. soft homophobia too.
Most sex education aimed at children, by emphasising contaception and pregnancy avoidance, completely misses a key objective for women and girls which is how to understand, preserve, protect and ultimately deploy their fertility. At least part of the demand for IVF services, often unsuccessful, can be attributed to this folly.
That same thought crossed my mind with this book. Even when the subject was avoiding STDs the authors didn't explicitly warn about the threat to future fertility.
Aug 7, 2023·edited Aug 7, 2023Liked by Julie Szego
I tend to think the progressive/techno utopian idea that IVF (if necesary, using donor gametes) is a near perfect substitute for natural fertility ignores drawbacks and unknowns, including financial cost and emotional danage. Similarly, trans ideology ignores the cost in terms of fertility of "gender affirming" care, presumably on a similar basis.
Maybe this means you can't really have a good sex ed book for "kids". It should be one for boys, and one for girls. although certainly each kid should have access to both, and know what the other kids are being taught. In-person sex-ed usually separates out girls from boys.
It also strikes me that boys are much more likely to have the problem "I really want to have sex, and I can't find anyone who wants to have it with me" and girls are more likely to have the problem "OMG, I'm sixteen and suddenly the world is full of OLD DUDES who want to have sex with me - how can I get rid of them all?". And this probably needs to be addressed too - I don't know if it was in this book in any way
I'd like to challenge your assessment of the grooming allegations, they are not all paranoid. You are assuming that "grooming" necessarily has to of the sexual kind. But I don't think it does. Drag queen story time is essentially designed to normalise behaviour that isn't normative - this is the essence of grooming, misleading children as to what is normal so they can later go along with what the groomer wants. In this case to believe in the gender-ideology worldview. I am not implying all people involved are suspect but there haven been so many of these performers later outed as sex offenders that it is becoming regular You cannot ignore what is clearly stacking up as a pattern: https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/drag-queen-story-hour-who-is-it-for
These people are coopting the umbrella of gay rights as a shelter to practise their fetishism in public, and progressive parents are rushing their kids off to see it as though its their duty.
Indeed, I'm certainly not ignoring that pattern, Fredro. Graham Linehan does a superb job keeping tabs on these disturbing trends. As we know, there are bad actors sheltering under the LGBTQ umbrella; just as there were bad actors who had tried to hitch themselves to the gay rights movement decades back. But-- there are two distinct issues here. The first is drag queen story time; and I bracketed this issue to say I'd come back to it. I agree with you that both drag queen story time and WTS seek to normalise gender ideology. I say as much in this piece. The "groomer" allegation I was referring to was about the book specifically and people were using it in the traditional sexual sense. That, to me, is a dizzying leap in logic. Otherwise, I think that term should be used very sparingly in this space. It does the cause no good at all.
Really interesting post, thank you. I've only seen screenshots of parts of the book but was struck that the section about sexual orientation had nothing much to say about human relationships and chemistry between people. Nor did it do the 1990s message to same sex attracted teens of "You're feeling a lot of feelings at your age, that's normal, so don't worry, take your time, hang out with good friends and don't feel pressured - maybe you'll turn out gay, maybe not, but you'll be fine either way and you'll always have people who love you". It might have been cheesy but it reassured us! Instead this book encourages teens to ruminate endlessly on their own inner "identity". Seems a recipe for dysphoria and loneliness amongst anxious teen girls.
Interesting observation Pat, thanks for sharing it. The authors do say something like "your identity may change over time," but like you say, what on earth is "identity".
I meant to add: I really like the distinction you make between Gen X kids sneaking a look at some hippie parents' copy of The Joy of Sex, knowing it was definitely meant for adults, versus kids nowadays having this stuff written for and handed to them. Developmentally, I think it's a very different experience.
Yeah I loved that too
Terrific piece. So important to have this unfettered, unrestricted and brave piece on issues that have been bogged down in culture war battles. Empty battles. Thank you!
Thanks so much for the encouragement, Michael! Empty battles-- for sure.
Interesting review of WTS. As a retired teacher I went to look at it in a bookshop. My first response was yuck! Six pics on one page of vulvas was too much information and likewise other illustrations. I thought the aesthetics of the book were poor. There are children who would find the whole tone of it distasteful.The suggestion that an 8 year old could skim through it is simply irresponsible.
Having spent a lifetime in teaching and school librarianship at both primary and secondary schools my view is that it’s not appropriate for anyone under 15. If it were in a secondary school library it would not be on the open shelves.
I agree the cutesy aesthetics don't work. Not when you're giving kids a how-to manual on rimming and anal sex!
Brilliant review, thanks. Looking forward to more of your unfiltered opinions on Substack!
Sad that this controversy came to light as a U.S. style book banning controversy, making it look like everyone with reservations about the book is a bible basher. When my daughter is older, I'd like her to read your review and read the book. I want her to understand that sending nudes is a really bad idea, even for adults, and anal sex is no fun for women, so tell the boys no thanks. Oh and yeah, you don't need a gender identity so you can forget about that part!
Yes that advice would pretty much cover it! Thanks for the lovely words; they're very much appreciated.
But much of WTS, which claims to be targeted at 11-15-year-olds, is not appropriate for that age group. The vast majority of them are too young to be having sex.
Somewhere along the line, the idea that:
--kids about to go or going through puberty need to understand what's happening to their bodies and why;
got confused in lefty minds with the idea that
--teens about to go or going through becoming sexually active need to understand how to protect and enjoy themselves and why.
There is a large, important gap of years between those two stages, and blurring them together makes lefties look irresponsible at best, groomers at worst.
The more you learn about the people trying to prematurely expose children to sexual topics, the more you realize they are fundamentally lacking in a sense of appropriate boundaries. They reflexively oppose boundaries of any kind.
And there are a lot of them.
Including in the World Health Organization, who believe that pre-pubescent kids are sexual beings who need to be taught masturbation:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12082967/Fury-WHOs-sex-education-early-childhood-masturbation-FOURS.html
And in a Youth Sexual Education Charity which produced a video in which adults suggestively quizzed pre-pubescent kids about their supposed masturbatory habits:
https://reduxx.info/do-you-ever-play-with-your-dick-youth-sexual-education-charity-scrambles-to-scrub-child-masturbation-video-from-internet/
And in a Theater Company specializing in Family-Friendly Edutainment that produced a "sex show" claiming to be family-friendly down to age 5:
https://reduxx.info/family-sex-show-cancelled-amidst-outrage/
And in a private school which showed masturbation videos to 1st-graders:
https://nypost.com/2021/05/29/dalton-parents-enraged-over-masturbation-videos-for-1st-graders/
And in a Junior Kindergarten giving little kids masturbation homework:
https://tnc.news/2022/05/13/bc-school-gave-kindergarteners-masturbation-homework-assignment/
Of course, these are just the ones that have made enough news to be Google-able.
Wow. I'll check out the links, Hazel. Thanks. Crazy stuff...
Don't be sorry, that's EXACTLY how it feels!! Brilliant, thank you - we are not alone in our orifices!
LOL! Thanks Mikalina.
Oh Julie, I so love your work. I was completely frustrated by the reporting on this book, that never actually told the reader exactly what people were objecting to - which of course gave us no opportunity to figure out what our own position should be. As you say, we were all just supposed to line up on tribal lines, mindlessly supporting anything that right-wing conservatives opposed. It's as if an idea can be guilty by association - and it not just here, it's everywhere.
I can’t really describe how grateful I am to have Australian voices weighing in here Julie. So thanks. Looking forward to seeing the end of this overtly misogynistic period. Fantastic observation re. soft homophobia too.
Most sex education aimed at children, by emphasising contaception and pregnancy avoidance, completely misses a key objective for women and girls which is how to understand, preserve, protect and ultimately deploy their fertility. At least part of the demand for IVF services, often unsuccessful, can be attributed to this folly.
That same thought crossed my mind with this book. Even when the subject was avoiding STDs the authors didn't explicitly warn about the threat to future fertility.
I tend to think the progressive/techno utopian idea that IVF (if necesary, using donor gametes) is a near perfect substitute for natural fertility ignores drawbacks and unknowns, including financial cost and emotional danage. Similarly, trans ideology ignores the cost in terms of fertility of "gender affirming" care, presumably on a similar basis.
Maybe this means you can't really have a good sex ed book for "kids". It should be one for boys, and one for girls. although certainly each kid should have access to both, and know what the other kids are being taught. In-person sex-ed usually separates out girls from boys.
It also strikes me that boys are much more likely to have the problem "I really want to have sex, and I can't find anyone who wants to have it with me" and girls are more likely to have the problem "OMG, I'm sixteen and suddenly the world is full of OLD DUDES who want to have sex with me - how can I get rid of them all?". And this probably needs to be addressed too - I don't know if it was in this book in any way
No it wasn't really addressed-- not explicitly. I certainly got the impression the book was trying to be all things to all people.
That the terrible advice on sexting images was passed by the publisher's lawyers is astonishing in its negligence.
Definitely odd that no-one picked up the error. Of course, that's not the only thing that's odd!
I'd like to challenge your assessment of the grooming allegations, they are not all paranoid. You are assuming that "grooming" necessarily has to of the sexual kind. But I don't think it does. Drag queen story time is essentially designed to normalise behaviour that isn't normative - this is the essence of grooming, misleading children as to what is normal so they can later go along with what the groomer wants. In this case to believe in the gender-ideology worldview. I am not implying all people involved are suspect but there haven been so many of these performers later outed as sex offenders that it is becoming regular You cannot ignore what is clearly stacking up as a pattern: https://grahamlinehan.substack.com/p/drag-queen-story-hour-who-is-it-for
These people are coopting the umbrella of gay rights as a shelter to practise their fetishism in public, and progressive parents are rushing their kids off to see it as though its their duty.
Indeed, I'm certainly not ignoring that pattern, Fredro. Graham Linehan does a superb job keeping tabs on these disturbing trends. As we know, there are bad actors sheltering under the LGBTQ umbrella; just as there were bad actors who had tried to hitch themselves to the gay rights movement decades back. But-- there are two distinct issues here. The first is drag queen story time; and I bracketed this issue to say I'd come back to it. I agree with you that both drag queen story time and WTS seek to normalise gender ideology. I say as much in this piece. The "groomer" allegation I was referring to was about the book specifically and people were using it in the traditional sexual sense. That, to me, is a dizzying leap in logic. Otherwise, I think that term should be used very sparingly in this space. It does the cause no good at all.