IN the ongoing controversy over LGBTQ children’s books, both opponents and proponents have offered arguments that are disingenuous, if not outright dishonest.

Those opposed to the bookstore carrying such books want to undermine the right to private property and freedom to conduct business. If the bookstore’s decision to carry such books is wrong, the market will punish them when it’s time for parents to buy school supplies and textbooks.

Calling on Government to impose a ban is interfering with freedom of choicesomething these same religious spokesmen objected to when the Government passed a law banning child marriage.

One pundit has even called for gays to be segregated, clearly unbothered that this was the policy of the Nazi government to Jews and the apartheid South African government to non-whites.

On the other side, gay activists and their supporters have been adamant the books in question do not promote a homosexual agenda, to the extent of denying the rainbow is a symbol and metaphor for gayness.

This gas-lighting only reveals that they, too, actually agree a children’s book that has sexual themes is inappropriate.

The controversy has expanded to the issue of sex education in schools, with the Education Ministry denying there are any plans to change the HFLE (Health and Family Life Education) curriculum, but the critics responding that this is a lie (never mind that any such policy would lose the PNM significant votes).

At the same time, the activists calling for changes in the HFLE want to push their own brand of misinformation, with at least one UWI academic from that camp arguing on the record that a man can become a woman just by saying he feels female.

Neither side has offered a principled position, but the core issue here is parents’ genuine (if overwrought) concern about their children. By failing to acknowledge this and pretending the controversy is driven solely by homophobia, gay spokespeople are undermining their own group.

Kevin Baldeosingh Freeport