Maia Kobabe felt a wave of relief on Tuesday morning. Waking up on the West Coast, an early morning peek at emails revealed a Virginia court had dismissed a lawsuit seeking to label Kobabe’s book Gender Queer as obscene and restrict its sale to minors in Virginia. The suit was among the latest in an onslaught of challenges to Kobabe’s memoir, which was the most challenged book of 2021, according to the American Library Association (ALA).
In the 2019 illustrated graphic memoir, Kobabe, who uses e/em/eir pronouns, explores eir process of coming out as nonbinary and asexual. It was a 2020 winner of the ALA Alex Award, given to books written for adults that have special appeal for young adults 12-18, as well as the Stonewall Book Award-Israel Fishman Non-Fiction Honor Award for books with exceptional merit relating to the LGBTQ experience.
Let’s see how Kobabe “explores eir process of coming out as nonbinary”?
Through graphic and outright pornographic illustrations of weirdos sucking on strap ons. How else? The images speak for themselves, but the text just before this is arguably even more explicit.
I can’t wait to have your cock in my mouth – I’m going to give you the blow job of your life. Then I want you inside me.
That’s what this pervert thinks minors should be exposed to.
Not to mention this pervert, Judge Pamela S. Baskervill, of the Virginia Judiciary.
Remember folks, there’s nothing obscene about sucking on strap-ons or talking explicitly about oral sex, along with vaginal or other orifice penetration.
At the same time, the book has been heavily criticized by GOP lawmakers for its inclusion of some explicit images, including depictions of masturbation and some sexual experiences. Gender Queer has been banned in school districts and libraries across the country and served as a popular talking point for GOP lawmakers, such as South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster, who called the work pornographic and said it likely meets “the statutory definition of obscenity.”
Jaime, can we pull up that still again please?
This is gaslighting of the highest degree. If this book wasn’t for the AIDS-community, then it’d be banned without controversy as it’s clearly pornographic. Instead, because it’s extremely important to “eir” groomers, there is this constant reality denial where they pretend that an open and shut case of obscenity is something that should in fact be streamed into the eyeballs of four year olds.
Kobabe, 33, isn’t the only author to face serious new challenges to eir material.
According to research by PEN America, a nonprofit organization that advocates for free expression, 1,145 books by 874 different authors were banned from school libraries and classrooms between July 1, 2021 and March 31, 2022. Of those books, 41% contained protagonists or prominent secondary characters of color, and 33% explicitly addressed LGBTQ themes. As book bans rise, some LGBTQ advocates argue the Virginia lawsuit may be the first in a new wave of obscenity lawsuits, which could not only remove books from bookshelves but also restrict their sale altogether.
Conservatives have finally done something actually good. I don’t mean Republicans of course, who are no doubt scheming with their donors as to how they can get out in front of this and make sure it goes nowhere. But these low level peasants have picked an unobjectionable fight to take. Don’t let this article gaslight you by thinking that judicial dictators have just overruled all of this and there’s no point. There have been lots of successful groomer material bannings.
And even when not successful, they force our robed dictators to go mask off on an objectively unpopular issue, where the law is 100% on our side. You can’t talk about blowing people in books aimed at minors – unless you’re trying to groom them. That’s what the “Honourable” Judge Pamela Baskervill says, peasant.
In a related story, we see a brave El Paso, Texas high school teacher clapping back at the bigots in her class who use the White Colonizer term of “pedophile,” for Minor Attracted Persons.
Teacher: Stop calling them that, you’re not allowed to label people like that.
*Some kid* What?!
Teacher: Stop it, Diego! We’re not gonna call them that. We’re gonna call them “MAPs”, “Minor Attracted Persons”.
*Various kids in class mumble disagreement*
Teacher: So stop judging someone just because they want to have sex with a five year old.
Kid: The fu-
It does need to be noted that the teacher herself was mocking these people, and saying this ironically. When the video first made its rounds she got taken out of context.
A student who was in the class told CBS4 the video was taken out of context.
“She was expressing how it was ridiculous how society might not be able to call people pedophiles. That we will probably have to start calling them MAPs because it can be offensive to them pedophiles. The class agreed,” Ryann Ruvalcaba, a junior at Franklin High School said.
But the point is that it’s believable for some groomer teacher to be out there saying something like this. Beyond believable. In fact I’m more surprised that it’s fake than real.
Wrapping up today’s coverage of child abusing perverts, we have Chloe Cole. Chloe is a Californian girl, now woman, who was groomed by these perverts. She was put on testosterone from age 13, got both breasts chopped off at 15, before realizing her horrible mistake at age 16. Yes, you read that correctly, the state of California allowed her to consent to a doctor chopping both of her breasts off at the age of 15.
Let’s see what the state of California doesn’t allow minors to do, with this 2011 law.
Minors in the state of California will no longer be allowed to use tanning beds after Governor Jerry Brown signed a bill on Sunday prohibiting anyone under the age of 18 from using ultraviolet tanning devices.
It’s so nice to see the Pedophilia-normalizing child abusers normalizers taking a firm stand against children being able to make informed consent of *check notes* tanning beds.
Not chopping both your breasts off. Not being put on permanently sterilizing hormones. No, you can do that from age 13 of course. But can we really say that seventeen year olds have the wherewithal to do something so risky as going to the tanning salon?
It’s a sentiment that Chloe herself brings up, and for good reason. It’s just amazing to me the contrast here. You can’t put any potentially sexually explicit, or maybe even implicit stuff in front of kids… unless it’s faggot shit. And seventeen year olds cannot consent to going tanning, but they can consent to being put on permanently sterilizing hormones and having both of their breasts chopped off, and can do so from the age of 13.
We live in a World where you’ll get punished for giving your kid a bit of alcohol when they’re eighteen. But take them down to the local Minor Attracted Surgeon, get both their breasts lopped off, and you’ll be promoted by the Epstein Killed Himself Liars as the model of progressive parental benevolence.