The process is frighteningly easy, especially if there are like-minded allies with a platform or some degree of power. In recent memory, we were inundated with extralegal coronavirus related public health decrees, a number of which were arbitrary, known to be ineffective, or downright silly. Nevertheless, if you were onboard with the establishment, there was no need to consider the arguments of those who questioned the mandates, you merely had to call them conspiracy theorists, “anti-science,” or declare “they want people to die! and your comfortable shell remained intact: it felt good to be on the side of “science” and against “wanting people to die.”

When is comes to any all all things supportive of Trump, there are a plethora of generic and vaguely defined accusations at hand, including the well-tread fascist, racist, hate-filled, and Nazi. Depending on the issue, there are more tailored words and slogans, for example Islamophobe, transphobe, and neo-colonial genocidist. These all serve to shield the fragile minded from having to actually think about anything, words and slogans worn like armor to protect the perpetual righteous and dainty. If someone goes as far as to read the introductory paragraph in a Wikipedia article, which predictably will support their progressive and often privileged view, they are virtually a scholar.

A subsidiary accusation of the progressive left is that conservatives-Trump supporters-Republicans want to “ban books!” a practice Americans traditionally view unfavorably. An internet search for “Trump book ban” immediately brings up dozens of websites, essentially all of them anti-Trump. The question that is never really asked in such circles is, “What is meant by banning books?”

I spent most of my adulthood in the Adirondacks of NY, and the local library had a VHS tape of what was a chic 1999 movie called Eyes Wide Shut. It proved to be not much more than soft core porn, and when I returned it I told the librarian something like, “I’m no anti-porn crusader, but in case you didn’t realize, this movie is pretty much just porn.” To me it simply wasn’t appropriate for a small town community library. I have no idea what happened, but if it was removed from circulation I guess an activist could have accused the library of “banning movies.” Two blocks away all the porn you could want was available for rent at the video store.

The US has a long and contradictory history regarding book banning. Way back in 1835 the first Democrat President and slave enthusiast, Andrew Jackson, prohibited the Postal Service from delivering abolitionist publications to Southern states, the pre-technological version of the Biden administration ordering social media platforms to remove posts and ban organizations that weren’t in concert with their policies and viewpoints (here is a fascinating and well-balanced history of this: https://www.stateoftheunionhistory.com/2020/12/1835-andrew-jackson-us-post-office.html). Similarly, the seismic 1852 anti-slavery novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin was banned (truly banned) in several Southern states. As an aside, it’s a shame that, in modern times, Uncle Tom’s Cabin has been scorned by progressive black forces, to the extent that a great insult to a black person is to be called “a Tom,” highly suggestive that those who malign the book have never actually read it.

The seminal Jim Crow era 1960 book To Kill A Mockingbird, with a profound condemnation of racism was, to an extent, “banned” early on in areas where racism was common and accepted. Paradoxically, in recent times it has been “banned” because it is considered (by the usual suspects) to be patronizing to black people- a white lawyer stands up for and defends an innocent black man accused of rape. It has been claimed that some people might feel “uncomfortable” reading it, partly due to the use of the infamous “N” word. One might ask if it is a requirement of literature to make people feel “comfortable,” but also what does that actually mean?

Like so many words and accusations emanating from the progressive left, the definitions are flexible. My contention is that a true book ban is a governmental action that prohibits publication, distribution, and even the reading of a particular book. One can picture a list of books in Nazi-era Germany where good citizens, if they had copies, were directed to bring them to the book burning bonfire, and possession of such books could have serious consequences. The left is infatuated with using the most dramatic of words, and “ban” is among them. In current context, “banning” runs a range from limiting availability (eg making an item adults only), removing it from a required reading list or, in the more extreme case, removing the item from circulation in a particular facility. In all situations, the item is available a few clicks away at Amazon: “banning” in today’s usage means a semi-governmental entity, especially schools and libraries, not making an item readily available at no cost.

There is a fervently leftist activist organization euphemistically called American Library Association (ALA) which, needless to say, is all in with everything LGBTQQIAP+. They maintain a list of “most challenged” books, and #2 is “Gender Queer: A Memoir,” a comic book by Maia Kobabe, a “nonbinary, queer” author and illustrator with a MFA in comics from California College of the Arts. It seems she is biologically XX but her “pronouns” are e/em/eir. The (paperback) comic book was published by Lion Forge Comics in 2019 and currently costs $16.89 at Amazon.

Gender Queer was placed in school libraries but quickly became “outed” as pornographic, and demands by parents that it be removed ignited outrage among the progressive left. The publisher stated, "The fact is, 'Gender Queer' is an important, timely piece of work that serves as an invaluable resource for not only those that identify as nonbinary or genderqueer, but for people looking to understand what that means." But is it pornographic? On page 166 an apparently adolescent male reads a text message: “I got a new strap-on harness today. I can't wait to put it on you. It will fit my favorite dildo perfectly. You're going to look so hot. I can't wait to have your c**k in my mouth. I'm going to give you the b****w**b of your life, then I want you inside of me.” Page 167 illustrates two young males engaging in fellatio. The ALA lamented the push to remove the book from schools because it was merely “...claimed to be sexually explicit.”

Initially, Gender Queer was recommended for ages 12-18. As its sexualized content was increasingly made public the author, in 2023, declared it was not recommended for kids. In other words, outrage that such a wonderful and profound comic book was said to be pornographic, then age restricted because it was pornographic.

I fear the elite publishing-book selling-library world began to regard shock value and conformity to the preferred narrative above literary value. The cartoon illustrations in Gender Queer reflect, to my eye, artistic talent (then again I got a “D” in 8^th grade art class). The writing, however, is not much more than the angst-filled ruminations of a privileged white adolescent with sexual fantasies: it doesn’t really require talent to achieve writing success in the vacuum of a culture where constant affirmation and titillation are the criteria for books.

Literary value is obviously subjective, and we do need to be careful about “banning” books while being forthright that limiting access to an item or removing it from circulation isn’t really banning anything. What is not subjective is that trite books with no value other than shock, sex, and indoctrination should not be made available to children. As adults have all the kinks you want, but please keep them among you and your partner(s): you needn't publish a book about them and become outraged that it's not placed in the elementary school library. In other words...let's keep our fetishes to ourselves and not exploit children in an attempt to normalize them.