Blog

Like Index on Censorship (IoC), we are against censorship and book banning – Transgender Trend has never called for it and would oppose any groups or individuals doing so.

So we were surprised to see our well-researched piece on trans picture books mentioned in this context in an article entitled Banned: school librarians shushed over LGBT+ books, written by IoC assistant editor Katie Dancey-Downs. Nowhere did we claim that banning books was our intention in writing our piece.

What Dancey-Downs writes about us is factual enough:

Another group, Transgender Trend, which uses the strapline “No child is born in the wrong body”, has published a lengthy essay on “trans picture books for little children” and describes some of them as “militantly activist”.

However, this comes within a list of examples that begins with ‘chapters of right-wing Christian groups and politicians’ in the US, and moves seamlessly on to Mumsnet, Safe Schools Alliance and us. The implication is clear: it is the usual lazy smear that anyone raising concerns about the trans content of children’s books is associated with the religious right.

For the assistant editor of an organisation that calls out censorship it is surprising that Dancey-Downs does not seem to realise how censorship works. Nor is there any understanding of who is being censored in the debate about ‘trans’ content in children’s books.

In fact, the article itself is a prime example of how censorship of debate, critical analysis and challenge of ideas works. First: these things are framed in a thoroughly negative way, as ‘censorship’ and ‘book banning.’ Second: negative associations are presented, as in the example quoted above, backed up by the ubiquitous mention of Section 28. From this we learn that critical analysis of some themes of children’s books is bad, and only bad people do it.

It is surprising that Dancey-Downs does not seem to realise that assessing age-inappropriate content in films, books and tv programmes is a normal part of safeguarding. Adults do this job to protect children from content they are not developmentally equipped to understand and may cause them confusion or distress. It is completely unremarkable that analysis of content is applied to children’s books. The problem is not that adults are applying the same level of scrutiny to ‘trans’ books for children as is routine for any children’s book, but that adults who should be doing so are not. Publishers, booksellers and librarians are not doing their job. Is it surprising therefore that parents are doing it for them?

There is an existing problem, and that is that children’s books, even by much-loved authors such as Roald Dahl, are being censored because they do not fit a modern social justice narrative. Trans books for kids are absolutely central to the new post-modernist social justice project, they are readily available in every bookshop chain such as Waterstones, and publishers are in bidding wars for new titles. They are certainly not being ‘banned.’ Dancey-Downs appears to be addressing the problem of censorship, while in fact doing the opposite.

Censorship of trans books for children is not the problem; censorship of debate about it is, and the IoC article is a prime example of this.

There is a glaring disconnect between what the article complains about and what is actually happening in the children’s publishing world. Books that teach children to think their bodies may be ‘wrong’ are not being banned, but eagerly commissioned and promoted. It is books that teach children that their bodies are absolutely fine as they are that are being banned. The problem is the opposite of what Dancey-Downs proclaims.

Award-winning children’s poet Rachel Rooney lost her career through publishing a joyful book encouraging children to accept and celebrate their bodies for what they can do. Rooney faced a campaign of harassment on Twitter/X, including public defamatory comments by over fifty colleagues, some of which were reposted by the writers’ union Society of Authors. Her other publishers refused to tag her into her own publicity of her books. My Body is Me! was described as ‘terrorist propaganda.’

Has any author of a trans book for children faced this level of harassment or attempt to destroy their career? No, these authors are feted and promoted without question.

Dancey-Downs uses other well-worn techniques of silencing debate by obfuscation of the issues. Using the acronym LGBT+ without explaining the differences between each of the letters, and the undefined, ambiguous + is a failure of basic investigation. It positions those who are concerned about anti-science ideas presented as fact in the same camp as those who are anti-gay and may be just bigoted.

The whole article is dominated by examples of objection to ‘LGBT+ themes’ on religious grounds and conflates this with objection to trans content on scientific and safeguarding grounds. By failing to distinguish differences, the message the article wants to convey is clear: anyone objecting to trans content in children’s books is an intolerant, homophobic religious extremist.

It is important when discussing books for children and adolescents to be aware of the differences within the acronym, and not to bring an adult understanding of sexuality and emotions into the classroom. Also central to any discussion of children’s literature is an understanding of child development, and the necessary benchmarks for a child forming a stable identity.

Sexual orientation tends to be fixed and resistant to change. Identity, the trans part of the acronym, is entirely different. The Cass Review, whose findings are now adopted by the NHS and the government, describes the development of identity that kick-starts during puberty and continues until our mid-twenties. It is much more fluid and changeable than sexual orientation. Foreclosing an identity during childhood is psychologically harmful. The most extreme form of foreclosure is asserting that a child is ‘trans.’

Perhaps the author and the librarians quoted should ask themselves why parents are concerned about their children reading books promoting unevidenced gender identity ideological propaganda? Failure to distinguish between this and same-sex sexual orientation is just lazy, thoughtless and a failure of safeguarding.

On the basis of statistically unsound evidence Katie Dancey-Downs says there is a problem of censorship in UK schools which she calls a ‘pernicious practice.’ However the figures do not bear this out. Only 53 librarians took part in the survey. Of these 29 had been asked to remove books and of these only 15 actually did remove books. 15 librarians removing books is not censorship or book banning.

Without specifying which books were removed, for which age group and for what reason, we cannot draw any conclusion from the article and it is a shame that Index on Censorship has chosen to publish such shoddy research.  

We wrote about trans picture books for primary school children, mainly for the under 8s, arguing that this was an entirely new category of literature aimed at children. These books have only appeared in the last decade. This coincides with the sudden, unprecedented increase in teenagers attending GIDS at the Tavistock, and the adoption of the T into the LGB by most gay rights groups. Stonewall is the most prominent case, adding transgender to its campaigning in 2015.

In the IoC article there is a clue in the testimony of a librarian that “a recent uptick in complaints is related to the wealth of available LGBT+ material that wasn’t around before” but this fact is not examined or expanded upon. The sudden influx of published trans books for children is unprecedented; they simply did not exist ten years ago. Our article analyses sixty trans picture books just for Primary and Early Years; is Dancey-Downs not even slightly curious about the impact on children this young or why parents may be concerned about it?

Parents don’t want their children being told there are over 100 genders (BBC) or being taught neo-pronouns (Stonewall’s primary school curriculum) and are likely to find some of the books for children, aged 2 upwards, inappropriate. Ms Dancey-Downs dismisses the objections of parents discussing ‘She’s My Dad’ on Mumsnet.

This picture book is written for 3-7 year olds and tells the story of a parent who transitions from male to female. A child of that age is incapable of knowing that sex is immutable and that having long hair and nail varnish does not make a man into a woman. To suggest it does is destabilising to a child’s sense of reality. What thought has been given to the possible confusion and distress of a child whose daddy suddenly announces they are now mummy?

We also listed factual picture books for this prepubescent group which showed double mastectomy scars. They say that parents ‘guessed’ the sex of their child when they were born. We do not think children should be taught untruths as facts or should be told that breast removal makes a girl into a boy.

Nowhere in our work do we call for these books to be banned. We have analysed them and found them promoting the idea of ‘gender identity’ as a fact. They rely on sex stereotypes such as clothing and hair length to suggest to children that they may be a different sex to the one they were born.

The job of school librarians is not just to stock books but to curate the school library. An understanding of child and adolescent development and the kind of content that is appropriate for children entails making qualified judgments. What is most concerning about the IoC article is that there is no example of a librarian who expresses any concern that children are being taught they are ‘trans’ at an age when they cannot possibly understand what this truly means. The article does not question why this may be.

The reality is that it is those who have concerns who have the most to fear. The IoC article is only likely to prevent more librarians from admitting such concerns, for fear of being seen as ‘anti-LBGT+’ and accused of ‘book banning’ and ‘censorship,’ putting their careers and livelihoods at risk. In the debate about child safeguarding versus adult ideology, by framing concerns as ‘censorship’ the IoC has just nailed its colours to the mast.