Self-immolation is a horrible way to go, but no one seems to have told
that to the childrenrCOs publishing industry. Driven by religious and ideological fervour, childrenrCOs literature has rushed to adopt rCyinclusivityrCO and progressivism at the cost of diversity of thought. The result is a stream of turgid books obsessed with rCytransrCO.
On 17 June the group SEEN in Publishing (SiP) launched its latest report
in the House of Lords, hosted by Baroness Jenkin of Kennington. ItrCOs a document that publishers should heed, though they have a history of
sticking their fingers in their ears. That obtuseness is all part of
their desperation to burnish their devotion to rCyprogressivenessrCO at all costs rCo even, in the case of transgenderism, at the cost of childrenrCOs wellbeing.
The report, Through the Looking Glass, as its title suggests, is an exploration of a world where reality is inverted and truth distorted. It hears from authors and childrenrCOs advocates, and is backed up by contributions from medical authorities. Its conclusions are damning, its seven recommendations sane and urgent. ItrCOs a pity, then, that sanity is unfashionable in the world of childrenrCOs literature. ItrCOs far from clear that the report will be accepted by those who should take it very
seriously indeed.
That obtuseness is all part of their desperation to burnish their
devotion to rCyprogressivenessrCO at all costs rCo even, in the case of transgenderism, at the cost of childrenrCOs wellbeing.
In 2025, only a third of children between the ages of eight and 18 were reading for pleasure rCo a fall of 36 per cent since 2005 rCo according to the National Literacy Trust (NLT). This is so disastrous that a tiny
uptick of 2 per cent in 2026 was celebrated by industry news sheet the Bookseller as divine salvation rather than a potential margin of error.
The NLTrCOs list of possible solutions rCo TV tie-ins, digital formats rCo reads like a prescription from 2005, studiously avoiding the central
problem: that the publishing industry is churning out books for children
with an agenda rCo and the books are terrible.
Spare a thought and a momentrCOs pity for the reportrCOs contributors (I was one of them), who had to read the unscientific, inaccurate and downright dangerous bilge that major publishers have been publishing since at
least 2015. Bilge might be halfway excusable if the books were readable,
but theyrCOre turgid, predictable, preachy; itrCOs inclusivity by spreadsheet.
Propaganda starts even before school. Stephanie Davies-Arai, a British
author and the founder of Transgender Trend, points out that one of the earliest offenders, the Penguin Land series, loads all responsibility
for massive, life-altering decisions on to the shoulders of very young children. In these books, parents are no more than witless, literally irresponsible rCyaffirmersrCO. That message alone should have set alarms ringing; instead the likes of Bloomsbury joined the party with
Introducing Teddy, wherein the titular bear becomes a girl bear by
moving his bow tie to the top of his head.
ItrCOs as if the childrenrCOs publishing industry has never heard of child protection. That extends to its ecosystem, not least libraries. Sibyl
Ruth, an author who lost work over her view on sex and gender, describes
how the industry fails girls in particular at every level, from the
Chartered Institute of Library and Information ProfessionalsrCO devotion
to trans to the wilful mis-shelving of teenage books in the junior
sections. Far too many rCyqueerrCO books pitched to children glorify self-harm, celebrate medical intervention, and describe and recommend
adult kinks and sexual practices. The Young Adult sector is wildly homophobic, too: girls win the love of gay men by cutting off their
breasts and changing their pronouns. The very successful Heartstopper
series is the sugary idolisation of gay romance for teenage girls; talk
about appropriation.
In the industry there is effectively censorship of biological reality,
as well as womenrCOs and gay rights. Should an author be reckless enough
to submit a book on these themes to a major publisher, it will be
strangled at the commissioning stage and the writer blacklisted. ItrCOs ironic that the NLT recommends rCyfreedom to chooserCO as one way of reversing reading decline rCo when there is no choice for readers.
This is where commercial self-harm kicks in. ItrCOs not just editorsrCO airy disregard for fact-checking and legal jeopardy; itrCOs that this stuff isnrCOt wanted (bar the aforementioned Heartstopper, which is very popular with straight girls). The television and film industries are finding
this out the hard way. If people wanted a Queer Theory sermon, Starfleet Academy and latter-day Doctor Who wouldnrCOt have been catastrophic failures.
Ultimately, the publishing industry is destroying its own talent base,
and IrCOm not talking about the brutal cancellations of authors from
jealousy and spite. A lesbian, disabled author who has contributed to
Through the Looking Glass had to remain anonymous because she doesnrCOt believe in trans dogma.
A fog of fear and timidity is strangling childrenrCOs literature; even the writers who remain are too afraid to think independently, to veer from
the path demanded by their less talented peers, to risk a challenging
theme or a complex character. PublishingrCOs current output is grey and didactic. Unreadable, in fact.
ThatrCOs why children donrCOt read, and thatrCOs why the industry might as well douse itself in petrol and strike a match.
Gillian Philip
On Jun 30, 2026 at 9:15:00rC>AM EDT, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Self-immolation is a horrible way to go, but no one seems to have told
that to the childrenrCOs publishing industry. Driven by religious and
ideological fervour, childrenrCOs literature has rushed to adopt
rCyinclusivityrCO and progressivism at the cost of diversity of thought. The >> result is a stream of turgid books obsessed with rCytransrCO.
On 17 June the group SEEN in Publishing (SiP) launched its latest report
in the House of Lords, hosted by Baroness Jenkin of Kennington. ItrCOs a
document that publishers should heed, though they have a history of
sticking their fingers in their ears. That obtuseness is all part of
their desperation to burnish their devotion to rCyprogressivenessrCO at all >> costs rCo even, in the case of transgenderism, at the cost of childrenrCOs >> wellbeing.
The report, Through the Looking Glass, as its title suggests, is an
exploration of a world where reality is inverted and truth distorted. It
hears from authors and childrenrCOs advocates, and is backed up by
contributions from medical authorities. Its conclusions are damning, its
seven recommendations sane and urgent. ItrCOs a pity, then, that sanity is >> unfashionable in the world of childrenrCOs literature. ItrCOs far from clear >> that the report will be accepted by those who should take it very
seriously indeed.
That obtuseness is all part of their desperation to burnish their
devotion to rCyprogressivenessrCO at all costs rCo even, in the case of
transgenderism, at the cost of childrenrCOs wellbeing.
In 2025, only a third of children between the ages of eight and 18 were
reading for pleasure rCo a fall of 36 per cent since 2005 rCo according to >> the National Literacy Trust (NLT). This is so disastrous that a tiny
uptick of 2 per cent in 2026 was celebrated by industry news sheet the
Bookseller as divine salvation rather than a potential margin of error.
The NLTrCOs list of possible solutions rCo TV tie-ins, digital formats rCo >> reads like a prescription from 2005, studiously avoiding the central
problem: that the publishing industry is churning out books for children
with an agenda rCo and the books are terrible.
Spare a thought and a momentrCOs pity for the reportrCOs contributors (I was >> one of them), who had to read the unscientific, inaccurate and downright
dangerous bilge that major publishers have been publishing since at
least 2015. Bilge might be halfway excusable if the books were readable,
but theyrCOre turgid, predictable, preachy; itrCOs inclusivity by spreadsheet.
Propaganda starts even before school. Stephanie Davies-Arai, a British
author and the founder of Transgender Trend, points out that one of the
earliest offenders, the Penguin Land series, loads all responsibility
for massive, life-altering decisions on to the shoulders of very young
children. In these books, parents are no more than witless, literally
irresponsible rCyaffirmersrCO. That message alone should have set alarms
ringing; instead the likes of Bloomsbury joined the party with
Introducing Teddy, wherein the titular bear becomes a girl bear by
moving his bow tie to the top of his head.
ItrCOs as if the childrenrCOs publishing industry has never heard of child >> protection. That extends to its ecosystem, not least libraries. Sibyl
Ruth, an author who lost work over her view on sex and gender, describes
how the industry fails girls in particular at every level, from the
Chartered Institute of Library and Information ProfessionalsrCO devotion
to trans to the wilful mis-shelving of teenage books in the junior
sections. Far too many rCyqueerrCO books pitched to children glorify
self-harm, celebrate medical intervention, and describe and recommend
adult kinks and sexual practices. The Young Adult sector is wildly
homophobic, too: girls win the love of gay men by cutting off their
breasts and changing their pronouns. The very successful Heartstopper
series is the sugary idolisation of gay romance for teenage girls; talk
about appropriation.
In the industry there is effectively censorship of biological reality,
as well as womenrCOs and gay rights. Should an author be reckless enough
to submit a book on these themes to a major publisher, it will be
strangled at the commissioning stage and the writer blacklisted. ItrCOs
ironic that the NLT recommends rCyfreedom to chooserCO as one way of
reversing reading decline rCo when there is no choice for readers.
This is where commercial self-harm kicks in. ItrCOs not just editorsrCO airy >> disregard for fact-checking and legal jeopardy; itrCOs that this stuff
isnrCOt wanted (bar the aforementioned Heartstopper, which is very popular >> with straight girls). The television and film industries are finding
this out the hard way. If people wanted a Queer Theory sermon, Starfleet
Academy and latter-day Doctor Who wouldnrCOt have been catastrophic failures.
Ultimately, the publishing industry is destroying its own talent base,
and IrCOm not talking about the brutal cancellations of authors from
jealousy and spite. A lesbian, disabled author who has contributed to
Through the Looking Glass had to remain anonymous because she doesnrCOt
believe in trans dogma.
A fog of fear and timidity is strangling childrenrCOs literature; even the >> writers who remain are too afraid to think independently, to veer from
the path demanded by their less talented peers, to risk a challenging
theme or a complex character. PublishingrCOs current output is grey and
didactic. Unreadable, in fact.
ThatrCOs why children donrCOt read, and thatrCOs why the industry might as >> well douse itself in petrol and strike a match.
Gillian Philip
I doubt that this is why kids don't read. Kids don't read because their parents don't read or read to them. It' s easier to give them your phone or some device to play games on. Childrens books have (many of them) always been politicized and propagandized to reflect and promote the values of the moment.
It's just that, sadly, this is Woke value time. But, not to worry, most kids aren't reading books anyway.
On 30/06/2026 14:59, Tara wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 9:15:00rC>AM EDT, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote: >>
Self-immolation is a horrible way to go, but no one seems to have told
that to the childrenrCOs publishing industry. Driven by religious and
ideological fervour, childrenrCOs literature has rushed to adopt
rCyinclusivityrCO and progressivism at the cost of diversity of thought. The
result is a stream of turgid books obsessed with rCytransrCO.
On 17 June the group SEEN in Publishing (SiP) launched its latest report >>> in the House of Lords, hosted by Baroness Jenkin of Kennington. ItrCOs a >>> document that publishers should heed, though they have a history of
sticking their fingers in their ears. That obtuseness is all part of
their desperation to burnish their devotion to rCyprogressivenessrCO at all >>> costs rCo even, in the case of transgenderism, at the cost of childrenrCOs >>> wellbeing.
The report, Through the Looking Glass, as its title suggests, is an
exploration of a world where reality is inverted and truth distorted. It >>> hears from authors and childrenrCOs advocates, and is backed up by
contributions from medical authorities. Its conclusions are damning, its >>> seven recommendations sane and urgent. ItrCOs a pity, then, that sanity is >>> unfashionable in the world of childrenrCOs literature. ItrCOs far from clear
that the report will be accepted by those who should take it very
seriously indeed.
That obtuseness is all part of their desperation to burnish their
devotion to rCyprogressivenessrCO at all costs rCo even, in the case of
transgenderism, at the cost of childrenrCOs wellbeing.
In 2025, only a third of children between the ages of eight and 18 were
reading for pleasure rCo a fall of 36 per cent since 2005 rCo according to >>> the National Literacy Trust (NLT). This is so disastrous that a tiny
uptick of 2 per cent in 2026 was celebrated by industry news sheet the
Bookseller as divine salvation rather than a potential margin of error.
The NLTrCOs list of possible solutions rCo TV tie-ins, digital formats rCo >>> reads like a prescription from 2005, studiously avoiding the central
problem: that the publishing industry is churning out books for children >>> with an agenda rCo and the books are terrible.
Spare a thought and a momentrCOs pity for the reportrCOs contributors (I was
one of them), who had to read the unscientific, inaccurate and downright >>> dangerous bilge that major publishers have been publishing since at
least 2015. Bilge might be halfway excusable if the books were readable, >>> but theyrCOre turgid, predictable, preachy; itrCOs inclusivity by spreadsheet.
Propaganda starts even before school. Stephanie Davies-Arai, a British
author and the founder of Transgender Trend, points out that one of the
earliest offenders, the Penguin Land series, loads all responsibility
for massive, life-altering decisions on to the shoulders of very young
children. In these books, parents are no more than witless, literally
irresponsible rCyaffirmersrCO. That message alone should have set alarms >>> ringing; instead the likes of Bloomsbury joined the party with
Introducing Teddy, wherein the titular bear becomes a girl bear by
moving his bow tie to the top of his head.
ItrCOs as if the childrenrCOs publishing industry has never heard of child >>> protection. That extends to its ecosystem, not least libraries. Sibyl
Ruth, an author who lost work over her view on sex and gender, describes >>> how the industry fails girls in particular at every level, from the
Chartered Institute of Library and Information ProfessionalsrCO devotion >>> to trans to the wilful mis-shelving of teenage books in the junior
sections. Far too many rCyqueerrCO books pitched to children glorify
self-harm, celebrate medical intervention, and describe and recommend
adult kinks and sexual practices. The Young Adult sector is wildly
homophobic, too: girls win the love of gay men by cutting off their
breasts and changing their pronouns. The very successful Heartstopper
series is the sugary idolisation of gay romance for teenage girls; talk
about appropriation.
In the industry there is effectively censorship of biological reality,
as well as womenrCOs and gay rights. Should an author be reckless enough >>> to submit a book on these themes to a major publisher, it will be
strangled at the commissioning stage and the writer blacklisted. ItrCOs
ironic that the NLT recommends rCyfreedom to chooserCO as one way of
reversing reading decline rCo when there is no choice for readers.
This is where commercial self-harm kicks in. ItrCOs not just editorsrCO airy
disregard for fact-checking and legal jeopardy; itrCOs that this stuff
isnrCOt wanted (bar the aforementioned Heartstopper, which is very popular >>> with straight girls). The television and film industries are finding
this out the hard way. If people wanted a Queer Theory sermon, Starfleet >>> Academy and latter-day Doctor Who wouldnrCOt have been catastrophic failures.
Ultimately, the publishing industry is destroying its own talent base,
and IrCOm not talking about the brutal cancellations of authors from
jealousy and spite. A lesbian, disabled author who has contributed to
Through the Looking Glass had to remain anonymous because she doesnrCOt
believe in trans dogma.
A fog of fear and timidity is strangling childrenrCOs literature; even the >>> writers who remain are too afraid to think independently, to veer from
the path demanded by their less talented peers, to risk a challenging
theme or a complex character. PublishingrCOs current output is grey and
didactic. Unreadable, in fact.
ThatrCOs why children donrCOt read, and thatrCOs why the industry might as >>> well douse itself in petrol and strike a match.
Gillian Philip
I doubt that this is why kids don't read. Kids don't read because their
parents don't read or read to them. It' s easier to give them your phone or >> some device to play games on. Childrens books have (many of them) always been
politicized and propagandized to reflect and promote the values of the moment.
It's just that, sadly, this is Woke value time. But, not to worry, most kids >> aren't reading books anyway.
Yes, I suppose the decline began with TV or even Radio.
On 30/06/2026 14:59, Tara wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 9:15:00?AM EDT, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote: >>
Self-immolation is a horrible way to go, but no one seems to have told
that to the childrenAs publishing industry. Driven by religious and
ideological fervour, childrenAs literature has rushed to adopt
ainclusivityA and progressivism at the cost of diversity of thought. The >>> result is a stream of turgid books obsessed with atransA.
On 17 June the group SEEN in Publishing (SiP) launched its latest report >>> in the House of Lords, hosted by Baroness Jenkin of Kennington. ItAs a
document that publishers should heed, though they have a history of
sticking their fingers in their ears. That obtuseness is all part of
their desperation to burnish their devotion to aprogressivenessA at all
costs u even, in the case of transgenderism, at the cost of childrenAs
wellbeing.
The report, Through the Looking Glass, as its title suggests, is an
exploration of a world where reality is inverted and truth distorted. It >>> hears from authors and childrenAs advocates, and is backed up by
contributions from medical authorities. Its conclusions are damning, its >>> seven recommendations sane and urgent. ItAs a pity, then, that sanity is >>> unfashionable in the world of childrenAs literature. ItAs far from clear >>> that the report will be accepted by those who should take it very
seriously indeed.
That obtuseness is all part of their desperation to burnish their
devotion to aprogressivenessA at all costs u even, in the case of
transgenderism, at the cost of childrenAs wellbeing.
In 2025, only a third of children between the ages of eight and 18 were
reading for pleasure u a fall of 36 per cent since 2005 u according to
the National Literacy Trust (NLT). This is so disastrous that a tiny
uptick of 2 per cent in 2026 was celebrated by industry news sheet the
Bookseller as divine salvation rather than a potential margin of error.
The NLTAs list of possible solutions u TV tie-ins, digital formats u
reads like a prescription from 2005, studiously avoiding the central
problem: that the publishing industry is churning out books for children >>> with an agenda u and the books are terrible.
Spare a thought and a momentAs pity for the reportAs contributors (I was >>> one of them), who had to read the unscientific, inaccurate and downright >>> dangerous bilge that major publishers have been publishing since at
least 2015. Bilge might be halfway excusable if the books were readable, >>> but theyAre turgid, predictable, preachy; itAs inclusivity by spreadsheet. >>>
Propaganda starts even before school. Stephanie Davies-Arai, a British
author and the founder of Transgender Trend, points out that one of the
earliest offenders, the Penguin Land series, loads all responsibility
for massive, life-altering decisions on to the shoulders of very young
children. In these books, parents are no more than witless, literally
irresponsible aaffirmersA. That message alone should have set alarms
ringing; instead the likes of Bloomsbury joined the party with
Introducing Teddy, wherein the titular bear becomes a girl bear by
moving his bow tie to the top of his head.
ItAs as if the childrenAs publishing industry has never heard of child
protection. That extends to its ecosystem, not least libraries. Sibyl
Ruth, an author who lost work over her view on sex and gender, describes >>> how the industry fails girls in particular at every level, from the
Chartered Institute of Library and Information ProfessionalsA devotion
to trans to the wilful mis-shelving of teenage books in the junior
sections. Far too many aqueerA books pitched to children glorify
self-harm, celebrate medical intervention, and describe and recommend
adult kinks and sexual practices. The Young Adult sector is wildly
homophobic, too: girls win the love of gay men by cutting off their
breasts and changing their pronouns. The very successful Heartstopper
series is the sugary idolisation of gay romance for teenage girls; talk
about appropriation.
In the industry there is effectively censorship of biological reality,
as well as womenAs and gay rights. Should an author be reckless enough
to submit a book on these themes to a major publisher, it will be
strangled at the commissioning stage and the writer blacklisted. ItAs
ironic that the NLT recommends afreedom to chooseA as one way of
reversing reading decline u when there is no choice for readers.
This is where commercial self-harm kicks in. ItAs not just editorsA airy >>> disregard for fact-checking and legal jeopardy; itAs that this stuff
isnAt wanted (bar the aforementioned Heartstopper, which is very popular >>> with straight girls). The television and film industries are finding
this out the hard way. If people wanted a Queer Theory sermon, Starfleet >>> Academy and latter-day Doctor Who wouldnAt have been catastrophic failures. >>>
Ultimately, the publishing industry is destroying its own talent base,
and IAm not talking about the brutal cancellations of authors from
jealousy and spite. A lesbian, disabled author who has contributed to
Through the Looking Glass had to remain anonymous because she doesnAt
believe in trans dogma.
A fog of fear and timidity is strangling childrenAs literature; even the >>> writers who remain are too afraid to think independently, to veer from
the path demanded by their less talented peers, to risk a challenging
theme or a complex character. PublishingAs current output is grey and
didactic. Unreadable, in fact.
ThatAs why children donAt read, and thatAs why the industry might as
well douse itself in petrol and strike a match.
Gillian Philip
I doubt that this is why kids don't read. Kids don't read because their
parents don't read or read to them. It' s easier to give them your phone or >> some device to play games on. Childrens books have (many of them) always been
politicized and propagandized to reflect and promote the values of the moment.
It's just that, sadly, this is Woke value time. But, not to worry, most kids >> aren't reading books anyway.
Yes, I suppose the decline began with TV or even Radio.
On Jun 30, 2026 at 10:35:47rC>AM EDT, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30/06/2026 14:59, Tara wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 9:15:00rC>AM EDT, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Self-immolation is a horrible way to go, but no one seems to have told >>>> that to the childrenrCOs publishing industry. Driven by religious and
ideological fervour, childrenrCOs literature has rushed to adopt
rCyinclusivityrCO and progressivism at the cost of diversity of thought. The
result is a stream of turgid books obsessed with rCytransrCO.
On 17 June the group SEEN in Publishing (SiP) launched its latest report >>>> in the House of Lords, hosted by Baroness Jenkin of Kennington. ItrCOs a >>>> document that publishers should heed, though they have a history of
sticking their fingers in their ears. That obtuseness is all part of
their desperation to burnish their devotion to rCyprogressivenessrCO at all
costs rCo even, in the case of transgenderism, at the cost of childrenrCOs >>>> wellbeing.
The report, Through the Looking Glass, as its title suggests, is an
exploration of a world where reality is inverted and truth distorted. It >>>> hears from authors and childrenrCOs advocates, and is backed up by
contributions from medical authorities. Its conclusions are damning, its >>>> seven recommendations sane and urgent. ItrCOs a pity, then, that sanity is >>>> unfashionable in the world of childrenrCOs literature. ItrCOs far from clear
that the report will be accepted by those who should take it very
seriously indeed.
That obtuseness is all part of their desperation to burnish their
devotion to rCyprogressivenessrCO at all costs rCo even, in the case of >>>> transgenderism, at the cost of childrenrCOs wellbeing.
In 2025, only a third of children between the ages of eight and 18 were >>>> reading for pleasure rCo a fall of 36 per cent since 2005 rCo according to >>>> the National Literacy Trust (NLT). This is so disastrous that a tiny
uptick of 2 per cent in 2026 was celebrated by industry news sheet the >>>> Bookseller as divine salvation rather than a potential margin of error. >>>> The NLTrCOs list of possible solutions rCo TV tie-ins, digital formats rCo >>>> reads like a prescription from 2005, studiously avoiding the central
problem: that the publishing industry is churning out books for children >>>> with an agenda rCo and the books are terrible.
Spare a thought and a momentrCOs pity for the reportrCOs contributors (I was
one of them), who had to read the unscientific, inaccurate and downright >>>> dangerous bilge that major publishers have been publishing since at
least 2015. Bilge might be halfway excusable if the books were readable, >>>> but theyrCOre turgid, predictable, preachy; itrCOs inclusivity by spreadsheet.
Propaganda starts even before school. Stephanie Davies-Arai, a British >>>> author and the founder of Transgender Trend, points out that one of the >>>> earliest offenders, the Penguin Land series, loads all responsibility
for massive, life-altering decisions on to the shoulders of very young >>>> children. In these books, parents are no more than witless, literally
irresponsible rCyaffirmersrCO. That message alone should have set alarms >>>> ringing; instead the likes of Bloomsbury joined the party with
Introducing Teddy, wherein the titular bear becomes a girl bear by
moving his bow tie to the top of his head.
ItrCOs as if the childrenrCOs publishing industry has never heard of child >>>> protection. That extends to its ecosystem, not least libraries. Sibyl
Ruth, an author who lost work over her view on sex and gender, describes >>>> how the industry fails girls in particular at every level, from the
Chartered Institute of Library and Information ProfessionalsrCO devotion >>>> to trans to the wilful mis-shelving of teenage books in the junior
sections. Far too many rCyqueerrCO books pitched to children glorify
self-harm, celebrate medical intervention, and describe and recommend
adult kinks and sexual practices. The Young Adult sector is wildly
homophobic, too: girls win the love of gay men by cutting off their
breasts and changing their pronouns. The very successful Heartstopper
series is the sugary idolisation of gay romance for teenage girls; talk >>>> about appropriation.
In the industry there is effectively censorship of biological reality, >>>> as well as womenrCOs and gay rights. Should an author be reckless enough >>>> to submit a book on these themes to a major publisher, it will be
strangled at the commissioning stage and the writer blacklisted. ItrCOs >>>> ironic that the NLT recommends rCyfreedom to chooserCO as one way of
reversing reading decline rCo when there is no choice for readers.
This is where commercial self-harm kicks in. ItrCOs not just editorsrCO airy
disregard for fact-checking and legal jeopardy; itrCOs that this stuff >>>> isnrCOt wanted (bar the aforementioned Heartstopper, which is very popular >>>> with straight girls). The television and film industries are finding
this out the hard way. If people wanted a Queer Theory sermon, Starfleet >>>> Academy and latter-day Doctor Who wouldnrCOt have been catastrophic failures.
Ultimately, the publishing industry is destroying its own talent base, >>>> and IrCOm not talking about the brutal cancellations of authors from
jealousy and spite. A lesbian, disabled author who has contributed to
Through the Looking Glass had to remain anonymous because she doesnrCOt >>>> believe in trans dogma.
A fog of fear and timidity is strangling childrenrCOs literature; even the >>>> writers who remain are too afraid to think independently, to veer from >>>> the path demanded by their less talented peers, to risk a challenging
theme or a complex character. PublishingrCOs current output is grey and >>>> didactic. Unreadable, in fact.
ThatrCOs why children donrCOt read, and thatrCOs why the industry might as >>>> well douse itself in petrol and strike a match.
Gillian Philip
I doubt that this is why kids don't read. Kids don't read because their
parents don't read or read to them. It' s easier to give them your phone or >>> some device to play games on. Childrens books have (many of them) always been
politicized and propagandized to reflect and promote the values of the moment.
It's just that, sadly, this is Woke value time. But, not to worry, most kids
aren't reading books anyway.
Yes, I suppose the decline began with TV or even Radio.
More likely TV, I think. Radio still had room for imagination. Book are always
available. From what I can see, once they get a smart phone, reading is forgotten. But in my experience, if they're given books and are read to from an early age, they come back to it later. I remember when I kind of went from books to commics but as my mom said "at least she's reading something". A lot of kids who read lots when they were younger are into Japanense graphic 'novels' (Manga) right now.
Tara wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 10:35:47rC>AM EDT, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30/06/2026 14:59, Tara wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 9:15:00rC>AM EDT, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Self-immolation is a horrible way to go, but no one seems to have told >>>>> that to the childrenrCOs publishing industry. Driven by religious and >>>>> ideological fervour, childrenrCOs literature has rushed to adopt
rCyinclusivityrCO and progressivism at the cost of diversity of thought. The
result is a stream of turgid books obsessed with rCytransrCO.
On 17 June the group SEEN in Publishing (SiP) launched its latest report >>>>> in the House of Lords, hosted by Baroness Jenkin of Kennington. ItrCOs a >>>>> document that publishers should heed, though they have a history of
sticking their fingers in their ears. That obtuseness is all part of >>>>> their desperation to burnish their devotion to rCyprogressivenessrCO at all
costs rCo even, in the case of transgenderism, at the cost of childrenrCOs
wellbeing.
The report, Through the Looking Glass, as its title suggests, is an
exploration of a world where reality is inverted and truth distorted. It >>>>> hears from authors and childrenrCOs advocates, and is backed up by
contributions from medical authorities. Its conclusions are damning, its >>>>> seven recommendations sane and urgent. ItrCOs a pity, then, that sanity is
unfashionable in the world of childrenrCOs literature. ItrCOs far from clear
that the report will be accepted by those who should take it very
seriously indeed.
That obtuseness is all part of their desperation to burnish their
devotion to rCyprogressivenessrCO at all costs rCo even, in the case of >>>>> transgenderism, at the cost of childrenrCOs wellbeing.
In 2025, only a third of children between the ages of eight and 18 were >>>>> reading for pleasure rCo a fall of 36 per cent since 2005 rCo according to
the National Literacy Trust (NLT). This is so disastrous that a tiny >>>>> uptick of 2 per cent in 2026 was celebrated by industry news sheet the >>>>> Bookseller as divine salvation rather than a potential margin of error. >>>>> The NLTrCOs list of possible solutions rCo TV tie-ins, digital formats rCo
reads like a prescription from 2005, studiously avoiding the central >>>>> problem: that the publishing industry is churning out books for children >>>>> with an agenda rCo and the books are terrible.
Spare a thought and a momentrCOs pity for the reportrCOs contributors (I was
one of them), who had to read the unscientific, inaccurate and downright >>>>> dangerous bilge that major publishers have been publishing since at
least 2015. Bilge might be halfway excusable if the books were readable, >>>>> but theyrCOre turgid, predictable, preachy; itrCOs inclusivity by spreadsheet.
Propaganda starts even before school. Stephanie Davies-Arai, a British >>>>> author and the founder of Transgender Trend, points out that one of the >>>>> earliest offenders, the Penguin Land series, loads all responsibility >>>>> for massive, life-altering decisions on to the shoulders of very young >>>>> children. In these books, parents are no more than witless, literally >>>>> irresponsible rCyaffirmersrCO. That message alone should have set alarms >>>>> ringing; instead the likes of Bloomsbury joined the party with
Introducing Teddy, wherein the titular bear becomes a girl bear by
moving his bow tie to the top of his head.
ItrCOs as if the childrenrCOs publishing industry has never heard of child
protection. That extends to its ecosystem, not least libraries. Sibyl >>>>> Ruth, an author who lost work over her view on sex and gender, describes >>>>> how the industry fails girls in particular at every level, from the
Chartered Institute of Library and Information ProfessionalsrCO devotion >>>>> to trans to the wilful mis-shelving of teenage books in the junior
sections. Far too many rCyqueerrCO books pitched to children glorify >>>>> self-harm, celebrate medical intervention, and describe and recommend >>>>> adult kinks and sexual practices. The Young Adult sector is wildly
homophobic, too: girls win the love of gay men by cutting off their
breasts and changing their pronouns. The very successful Heartstopper >>>>> series is the sugary idolisation of gay romance for teenage girls; talk >>>>> about appropriation.
In the industry there is effectively censorship of biological reality, >>>>> as well as womenrCOs and gay rights. Should an author be reckless enough >>>>> to submit a book on these themes to a major publisher, it will be
strangled at the commissioning stage and the writer blacklisted. ItrCOs >>>>> ironic that the NLT recommends rCyfreedom to chooserCO as one way of >>>>> reversing reading decline rCo when there is no choice for readers.
This is where commercial self-harm kicks in. ItrCOs not just editorsrCO airy
disregard for fact-checking and legal jeopardy; itrCOs that this stuff >>>>> isnrCOt wanted (bar the aforementioned Heartstopper, which is very popular
with straight girls). The television and film industries are finding >>>>> this out the hard way. If people wanted a Queer Theory sermon, Starfleet >>>>> Academy and latter-day Doctor Who wouldnrCOt have been catastrophic failures.
Ultimately, the publishing industry is destroying its own talent base, >>>>> and IrCOm not talking about the brutal cancellations of authors from >>>>> jealousy and spite. A lesbian, disabled author who has contributed to >>>>> Through the Looking Glass had to remain anonymous because she doesnrCOt >>>>> believe in trans dogma.
A fog of fear and timidity is strangling childrenrCOs literature; even the
writers who remain are too afraid to think independently, to veer from >>>>> the path demanded by their less talented peers, to risk a challenging >>>>> theme or a complex character. PublishingrCOs current output is grey and >>>>> didactic. Unreadable, in fact.
ThatrCOs why children donrCOt read, and thatrCOs why the industry might as
well douse itself in petrol and strike a match.
Gillian Philip
I doubt that this is why kids don't read. Kids don't read because their >>>> parents don't read or read to them. It' s easier to give them your phone or
some device to play games on. Childrens books have (many of them) always been
politicized and propagandized to reflect and promote the values of the moment.
It's just that, sadly, this is Woke value time. But, not to worry, most kids
aren't reading books anyway.
Yes, I suppose the decline began with TV or even Radio.
More likely TV, I think. Radio still had room for imagination. Book are always
available. From what I can see, once they get a smart phone, reading is
forgotten. But in my experience, if they're given books and are read to from >> an early age, they come back to it later. I remember when I kind of went from
books to commics but as my mom said "at least she's reading something". A lot
of kids who read lots when they were younger are into Japanense graphic
'novels' (Manga) right now.
if they read them in japenese, then it makes sense.
Self-immolation is a horrible way to go, but no one seems to have toldRecommendation:
that to the childrenrCOs publishing industry. Driven by religious and ideological fervour, childrenrCOs literature has rushed to adopt rCyinclusivityrCO and progressivism at the cost of diversity of thought. The result is a stream of turgid books obsessed with rCytransrCO.
On 17 June the group SEEN in Publishing (SiP) launched its latest report
in the House of Lords, hosted by Baroness Jenkin of Kennington. ItrCOs a document that publishers should heed, though they have a history of
sticking their fingers in their ears. That obtuseness is all part of
their desperation to burnish their devotion to rCyprogressivenessrCO at all costs rCo even, in the case of transgenderism, at the cost of childrenrCOs wellbeing.
jojo <f00@0f0.00f> wrote:
Tara wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 10:35:47rC>AM EDT, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
On 30/06/2026 14:59, Tara wrote:
On Jun 30, 2026 at 9:15:00rC>AM EDT, "Julian" <julianlzb87@gmail.com> wrote:
Self-immolation is a horrible way to go, but no one seems to have told >>>>>> that to the childrenrCOs publishing industry. Driven by religious and >>>>>> ideological fervour, childrenrCOs literature has rushed to adopt
rCyinclusivityrCO and progressivism at the cost of diversity of thought. The
result is a stream of turgid books obsessed with rCytransrCO.
On 17 June the group SEEN in Publishing (SiP) launched its latest report >>>>>> in the House of Lords, hosted by Baroness Jenkin of Kennington. ItrCOs a >>>>>> document that publishers should heed, though they have a history of >>>>>> sticking their fingers in their ears. That obtuseness is all part of >>>>>> their desperation to burnish their devotion to rCyprogressivenessrCO at all
costs rCo even, in the case of transgenderism, at the cost of childrenrCOs
wellbeing.
The report, Through the Looking Glass, as its title suggests, is an >>>>>> exploration of a world where reality is inverted and truth distorted. It >>>>>> hears from authors and childrenrCOs advocates, and is backed up by >>>>>> contributions from medical authorities. Its conclusions are damning, its >>>>>> seven recommendations sane and urgent. ItrCOs a pity, then, that sanity is
unfashionable in the world of childrenrCOs literature. ItrCOs far from clear
that the report will be accepted by those who should take it very
seriously indeed.
That obtuseness is all part of their desperation to burnish their
devotion to rCyprogressivenessrCO at all costs rCo even, in the case of >>>>>> transgenderism, at the cost of childrenrCOs wellbeing.
In 2025, only a third of children between the ages of eight and 18 were >>>>>> reading for pleasure rCo a fall of 36 per cent since 2005 rCo according to
the National Literacy Trust (NLT). This is so disastrous that a tiny >>>>>> uptick of 2 per cent in 2026 was celebrated by industry news sheet the >>>>>> Bookseller as divine salvation rather than a potential margin of error. >>>>>> The NLTrCOs list of possible solutions rCo TV tie-ins, digital formats rCo
reads like a prescription from 2005, studiously avoiding the central >>>>>> problem: that the publishing industry is churning out books for children >>>>>> with an agenda rCo and the books are terrible.
Spare a thought and a momentrCOs pity for the reportrCOs contributors (I was
one of them), who had to read the unscientific, inaccurate and downright >>>>>> dangerous bilge that major publishers have been publishing since at >>>>>> least 2015. Bilge might be halfway excusable if the books were readable, >>>>>> but theyrCOre turgid, predictable, preachy; itrCOs inclusivity by spreadsheet.
Propaganda starts even before school. Stephanie Davies-Arai, a British >>>>>> author and the founder of Transgender Trend, points out that one of the >>>>>> earliest offenders, the Penguin Land series, loads all responsibility >>>>>> for massive, life-altering decisions on to the shoulders of very young >>>>>> children. In these books, parents are no more than witless, literally >>>>>> irresponsible rCyaffirmersrCO. That message alone should have set alarms >>>>>> ringing; instead the likes of Bloomsbury joined the party with
Introducing Teddy, wherein the titular bear becomes a girl bear by >>>>>> moving his bow tie to the top of his head.
ItrCOs as if the childrenrCOs publishing industry has never heard of child
protection. That extends to its ecosystem, not least libraries. Sibyl >>>>>> Ruth, an author who lost work over her view on sex and gender, describes >>>>>> how the industry fails girls in particular at every level, from the >>>>>> Chartered Institute of Library and Information ProfessionalsrCO devotion >>>>>> to trans to the wilful mis-shelving of teenage books in the junior >>>>>> sections. Far too many rCyqueerrCO books pitched to children glorify >>>>>> self-harm, celebrate medical intervention, and describe and recommend >>>>>> adult kinks and sexual practices. The Young Adult sector is wildly >>>>>> homophobic, too: girls win the love of gay men by cutting off their >>>>>> breasts and changing their pronouns. The very successful Heartstopper >>>>>> series is the sugary idolisation of gay romance for teenage girls; talk >>>>>> about appropriation.
In the industry there is effectively censorship of biological reality, >>>>>> as well as womenrCOs and gay rights. Should an author be reckless enough >>>>>> to submit a book on these themes to a major publisher, it will be
strangled at the commissioning stage and the writer blacklisted. ItrCOs >>>>>> ironic that the NLT recommends rCyfreedom to chooserCO as one way of >>>>>> reversing reading decline rCo when there is no choice for readers. >>>>>>
This is where commercial self-harm kicks in. ItrCOs not just editorsrCO airy
disregard for fact-checking and legal jeopardy; itrCOs that this stuff >>>>>> isnrCOt wanted (bar the aforementioned Heartstopper, which is very popular
with straight girls). The television and film industries are finding >>>>>> this out the hard way. If people wanted a Queer Theory sermon, Starfleet >>>>>> Academy and latter-day Doctor Who wouldnrCOt have been catastrophic failures.
Ultimately, the publishing industry is destroying its own talent base, >>>>>> and IrCOm not talking about the brutal cancellations of authors from >>>>>> jealousy and spite. A lesbian, disabled author who has contributed to >>>>>> Through the Looking Glass had to remain anonymous because she doesnrCOt >>>>>> believe in trans dogma.
A fog of fear and timidity is strangling childrenrCOs literature; even the
writers who remain are too afraid to think independently, to veer from >>>>>> the path demanded by their less talented peers, to risk a challenging >>>>>> theme or a complex character. PublishingrCOs current output is grey and >>>>>> didactic. Unreadable, in fact.
ThatrCOs why children donrCOt read, and thatrCOs why the industry might as
well douse itself in petrol and strike a match.
Gillian Philip
I doubt that this is why kids don't read. Kids don't read because their >>>>> parents don't read or read to them. It' s easier to give them your phone or
some device to play games on. Childrens books have (many of them) always been
politicized and propagandized to reflect and promote the values of the moment.
It's just that, sadly, this is Woke value time. But, not to worry, most kids
aren't reading books anyway.
Yes, I suppose the decline began with TV or even Radio.
More likely TV, I think. Radio still had room for imagination. Book are always
available. From what I can see, once they get a smart phone, reading is
forgotten. But in my experience, if they're given books and are read to from
an early age, they come back to it later. I remember when I kind of went from
books to commics but as my mom said "at least she's reading something". A lot
of kids who read lots when they were younger are into Japanense graphic
'novels' (Manga) right now.
if they read them in japenese, then it makes sense.
Not really - at least theyrCOre reading rCLsomethingrCY. Anyway, the stories are
good and the graphics are even better.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 70 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 37:37:45 |
| Calls: | 948 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,325 |
| Messages: | 280,462 |