If you didn't catch it, the short version is this: the Voice of Youth Advocates magazine published a review of a book called Run and recommended it for mature audiences due to “many references to Bo being bisexual and an abundance of bad language.” Certain parties were offended (rightly so, I believe) that (A) references to the fact of bisexuality were equated morally with "an abundance of bad language" and (B) references to the fact of bisexuality were themselves grounds for audience restriction. Just to be clear, a recommendation for a "mature" audience is not direct censorship, but it can have a chilling effect on the reception of a book by parents and educators. VOYA tried to claim that sexuality was the issue, not bisexuality. However, Phoebe North (according to Hannah Moskowitz) unearthed VOYA's history of recommending books with queer characters for mature audiences, but not restricting their recommendations for books that depicted heterosexual sex. This is a good account of the whole thing, if you want more detail: Oy, VOYA on SorryWatch.
This brings up three specific issues for me: the definition of bias, the definition of sexuality, and the interaction of identity politics and the workplace. I would define bias as the tendency to treat something as morally different from similar things. Morality, as I see it, often is apparent in terms of what “should” be done with a thing: Should it be allowed? Should kids have access to it? If I say a thing would upset the psychological development of a child, I am making a moral judgment about that thing. From what I understand, the folks at Voice of Youth Advocates repeatedly made a moral judgment about non-heterosexuality that they did not make about heterosexuality. On multiple occasions, VOYA recommended for mature audiences only YA books that showed homosexual relationships or made explicit that certain characters were gay or bisexual, even if no sexual act was depicted. At the same time, VOYA reviewed other books containing heterosexual sex scenes without restricting their recommendation. Clearly, if all of this is correct, it is not sexuality that VOYA believes is not for children, but certain kinds of sexuality. VOYA has a bias against homosexuality and bisexuality, based on their past and present publications. *** Some would agree with VOYA’s implicit moral statement. Many people from the LGBTQ community, understandably, do not agree. Many YA authors disagree. Many librarians, following professional values that celebrate diversity and inclusiveness, also disagree. I, personally, disagree. It is reasonable to expect a magazine with such a large audience of librarians to adhere to the values of librarians. When they clearly did not, many of us felt injured and insulted. As they persisted in refusing to admit the bias and make amends, the injury and the insult grew. The depth and sting of the cut I think is related to my second issue: homosexuality and bisexuality and other queer sexualities are not just about sex. They are about identity, emotions, romantic attraction, intimacy, and other things that are perfectly safe for children to read about, as well as about sex. Sex itself is not bad for children, but there are developmental considerations, and there are some depictions of sexual feelings and acts that are widely understood to be not good for kids up to a certain age. But sex is also a loaded term that carries connotations of explicit pornographic material. Many people who disagree with VOYA that bisexuality is harmful to children would agree with the statement that sex is harmful to children. The fact that the word bisexuality contains the word sex allows VOYA to excuse themselves by stating that sexuality is the problem, not bisexuality. It's bullshit, but it's a reasonable dodge, given the common (mis)understanding of sexuality. But the issue still stands: how do we talk about the non-sexual aspects of sex and sexuality? Do we need a new vocabulary to avoid pitfalls like these? *** Part of Tristina Wright’s response to this whole mess was this article, which brings up for me the issue of identity in the workplace. Identity politics is a tricky thing. Those of us whose identities cross into some realms that are not fully understood or accepted in society have a dilemma. Improvements in the situation can only come when more of us “come out” so that society can see different versions of “normal” and the young ones discovering their own identities can feel safe and validated. In the meantime, the more we "come out," the greater the danger we're in, especially if we work with kids. If I say, as Wright does, that I'm a bisexual with diagnosed mental illnesses, I have to take into account other people's (mis)understandings of sexuality, bisexuality, and mental illnesses. Should I be open about who I am and possibly suffer changes in my employment (which, depending on parental reaction and pressure, may be an issue)? Or should I proudly stand up and proclaim who I am, so that the next kid growing up with mood swings or multidirectional attractions doesn't have to feel quite so ashamed. This is nothing to take lightly. Wright cites some startling statistics: compared to gays and lesbians, bisexuals are more likely to experience mental illness and four times more likely to commit suicide. Something has to change. So, by the way ...
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorJeffrey Babbitt, MLIS, is a graduate of the School of Library and Information Science at Wayne State University who is pursuing a career as a librarian in Michigan. Subject Headings
All
Inter- Library Loan004.02020025.431027.62090813.009Archives
June 2021
|