By September 30, 2026, Alabama public libraries must move any books containing transgender characters to the adult section according to a code change approved by the Legislative Services Agency last month. This follows up the directive by the agency from 2024 which instructed all libraries to move content “inappropriate for children” to the adult section.
The responses to such a mandate are about what you would expect. Many people agree that such material does not belong in the children’s literature section of a public library. Yet a number of people oppose this, crying out about censorship and book-banning. Should the government limit the public’s access to certain literature? From the perspective of a free society with the open exchange of ideas, the answer is no. But does this directive do that?
For those upset about banning books, this measure is not banning books. This decree only moves those books containing transgenderism or transgender characters out of the children’s section and into the adult section under the idea that such material is not appropriate for children. Though some might say books with a transgender character are not inappropriate for children, those books certainly broach the subject, which many believe should be something left to adult conversations. By simply relocating these books, libraries honor those parents who want to classify that topic as “adult,” while those who want their children exposed to that subject matter can feel free to take their children to the adult section and check out as many of those books as they desire. The books won’t be removed from the library, just the children’s section of it. Therefore, the comparison of this to societies who have banned books is not an accurate comparison. It isn’t even censorship; it is changing the target audience of those books, which brings up another very important question.
This directive does not compare to societies that have banned books, rather it more rightly compares to societies that have propagandized the youth. Some people commented that it does not matter that children can find these books in the children’s section. After all, children’s books contain all kinds of fantasy and make-believe scenarios and characters (an interesting comparison then to books containing transgender ideas). However, if it really does not have an impact on children, then why push to have them in the children’s section at all? Why make such an uproar when these books are simply moved to another section of the library?
The reason seems clear. These books, and for that matter the public-library-hosted drag queen story hours, do have an impact on how children see these adult issues – keeping in mind these are adult issues. The influence is intentional, as revealed by the LGBTQ+ community’s insistence on exposing children to these things. If it did not really affect children, then there should not be such pushback over the removal of such content from children’s lives. What if the main character of these children’s books were someone who wanted to harm a transgender child? Those books would be quickly removed, acknowledging that the books children read can and do influence their thoughts. Therefore, the better comparison is not to book banning, but to book propaganda among the youth.
Granted, those opposing this change at the library argue that the purpose of these books is to teach children to love and accept others, ironically acknowledging the influence of such material on children. While teaching children to love others is an admirable goal, there should always be a distinction between loving other people and loving other people’s ideas. All people – whether heterosexual, homosexual, cis-gender, or transgender – deserve love and respect. But the various ideas of all those different people do not deserve equal love and respect. For example, if there were a children’s book with a main character who wanted to drown puppies on Saturdays, I doubt the same people would demand those books remain in the children’s section arguing that those books serve a purpose to teach children to love and accept those children who want to drown puppies on Saturdays. In reality though, the child wanting to drown puppies should be loved, but his idea should not be. His idea of a fun weekend should not be held up as admirable, nor should it be treated as worthy of love and respect.
For an example a little closer to this topic, imagine a book that had a main character who identified as a popsicle. Accordingly, he asked to live in a freezer so he wouldn’t melt. This child should be loved, but the best way to love him would be to counsel the child away from thinking he is a popsicle so that he does not harm himself by living in a freezer. Ironically, children could probably understand the popsicle as pretend and the drowning puppies as wrong, but the influence of transgenderism on a child is far more deceptive, sinister, and damaging. We can teach children to love others without offering them this damaging adult idea, which is what the libraries want to accomplish by moving this content to the adult section of the library.
Furthermore, the topic of transgenderism and sexual preferences are inappropriate topics for the children’s section, largely because parents should choose when and if to address those topics with their children. When a child finds a book from the children’s section of the library, parents do not anticipate those books to bring up these kinds of subjects. Parents trust that the public library offers age-appropriate material for their children. Should parents read and proof everything their child encounters? Ideally, yes, but there should be some safeguard in this space at the library to not expose children to inappropriate things.
Some have argued that these books contain no worse material than what a child can find on his phone. This sounds like some people think the children’s literature section at the library should be equivalent to the adult content found online. Instead of justifying the access to that horrible literature in the library, maybe we should rethink their access to things like that on their phones. What if we took that approach to school lunches? We can serve children junk food at schools because they could find worse in a garbage dump. Our standard for good and safe children’s literature should not be the basest of what is found online. The children’s section at the public library should be a safer place for children than the unfiltered internet.
