A Parent’s Guide to Preventing Homosexuality
Submitter: I found this oldie when I was helping a patron prepare for a high school presentation on queer issues. I was embarrassed that we not only own this but that it last circulated in August of last year (2018). We’re a mid-sized public library in a fairly liberal state that already banned conversion therapy. Luckily, we have a lot of other, better, newer resources to balance this one out, but this submission is going to the “can we please weed this” pile.
Holly: An “Opposing Viewpoints” or “Points of View” type of book on this topic would be better because it explains both sides of the issue. It isn’t as easy as simply weeding it because we don’t like the message in the book. We don’t get to decide what’s right and wrong for our patrons; we only provide them with the information they request, without comment or judgement. (Ok, we definitely judge because we’re human…but we do NOT comment or act on that judgment!) On the other hand, we weed books all the time that are harmful because of racism, ageism, sexism, etc. Shouldn’t we also put homophobia in that category? Submitter explains that their library is in a state that has banned conversion therapy, so this book is no longer relevant in their community due to that legality.
This book needn’t be weeded because you don’t like it’s message; it can be weeded because it’s based on a premise that is untrue (homosexuality is something that can/should be prevented). It has no value as a historical document, since the history of attitudes toward homosexuality is documented in better-written, more comprehensive books than this one.
It shouldn’t all be banned…if people want to seek therapy, let them. Just don’t let it be forced on anyone.
I do think an Opposing Viewpoints book would be better for a public library though.
Weed, weed, weed! This is outdated because it’s almost twenty years old.
Thank you for putting this one in the ‘weed out’ pile. What a shameful use of the English language and the public library system.
I would weed a book that based its core premise on factual claims proven by rigorous process to be false.
Thank you for the prophylactic presentation. A 30-year interim that chapter two’s quotation omitted before the last sentence (from books.google, “Growth Into Manhood: Resuming the Journey”):
“I was one of those boys. I cannot pinpoint exactly when I took my detour — perhaps somewhere around age eight or ten — but I know when I got back on the main road: I was thirty-eight years old. In the interim, as with so many boys, my detour took me into the world of homosexuality.”
When reading the book pages offered, the voice in my head was that of Dr. Alfred Carroll, school principal of Tell Your Children (AKA Reefer Madness). I accept that voice, without ever elevating it to the same status as my perfectly normal voice.
My favorite part of the film is his rather sorry attempt at being a witness in court.
According to anti-vaxxers all you need to do to prevent homosexuality is not vaccinate your kids.
Well, I guess you can’t be gay if you die at 3 from the measles.
“The boy in Brockton, Massachusetts is not a “she” no matter how many judges or therapists pretend he is. He is a boy with a severe gender identity disorder who needs real help.”
Yeah, weed this.
I feel awful for the kid whose parent brings this home!
Outrageous — and outrageous that anyone actually believed this. What mental contortions these cruel people go through to make their assertions! Possibly they do not mean to be cruel, but they are.
I feel like you can weed this because, at least from what I have read here, the author hasn’t got a shred of evidence. “Scientists know” and “Mental health professionals think” does not equal proof. If it’s all written like this you can safely weed it. It’s just somebody’s opinion.
Comments are closed.