Earlier quoted context omitted.
Forcibly removing books (about very specific topics related to oppressed cultural minorities) from public school libraries is not the same thing as enacting a national ban on printing or trading those books, no. But it's a lot closer to a total ban than it is to not banning books. (And I stand by "forcibly," if you've seen any of the adults screaming at school board hearings or issuing threats over these books)
> oppressed cultural minorities What oppressed cultural minorities? Nearly the entirety of the media landscape outright celebrates LGBTQ, if that's what you're talking about. I'd be hard-pressed to think of a more exaggerated use of the word "oppression". Does the fact that you view this group as oppressed make a difference on whether such a ban is more or less valid?
Well yes, because you won't ever see a ISD try to ban a book because it contains a heterosexual couple.
We can play dumb all day long, and sometimes that can be fun. But after a certain point we have to wade through the bullshit.
It's not about sexuality, it's not about protecting children, it's not about inappropriate content. When 100% of proposed book bans "conveniently" target books which, either tangentially or directly, address LGBT topics then clearly THAT is the reason they are being banned.
Of course, nobody is going to tell you that. Because saying "we want this book gone because gays" isn't very nice and doesn't sound very good. However, as human beings, we have been given the power of logic and deductive reasoning. We can look at patterns, locations, history of regions etc. and come to the conclusion that is what they're doing.