As Catholics, we often find ourselves facing challenging cultural topics that we need to discuss with librarians, school officials, or even other parents. It can be frustrating. We want to protect our children’s innocence and uphold our values, but often feel like our concerns are dismissed as intolerant or out-of-touch. How can we speak the truth in a way that is actually heard?

It's not about raising our voices, but about sharpening our thinking. The following provides a case study and blueprint for making a persuasive, principled case that is built on logic, respect, and consistency—virtues that are at the heart of our Catholic intellectual tradition. Instead of reacting emotionally, we can learn to respond with well-reasoned arguments that are difficult to dismiss.

This approach is about "speaking the truth in love" (Ephesians 4:15). It’s about showing genuine respect for the other person while remaining firm in our principles. Below, you will find a case study in this kind of effective communication. First, we will break down the key principles of persuasion—like framing the debate around a shared value and charitably representing the other side's view. Then, you'll see these principles put into action with a detailed example of how to address a sensitive issue: the placement of a book about drag queens in the children's section of a public library.

Our goal is not simply to win arguments, but to build a culture that honors truth and protects the good of our children. The tools presented here will help you do just that—to be a clear, confident, and charitable voice for your family and your faith in the public square.

---

Case Study Example

A Principle-Based Case for Relocation from the Children’s Section

The Book in Question: "The Hips on the Drag Queen Go Swish, Swish, Swish"

Public libraries face the complex challenge of curating collections that are both broad and age-appropriate. This requires establishing and consistently applying clear standards, especially within the Early Readers section (typically ages 4-8). The presence of "The Hips on the Drag Queen Go Swish, Swish, Swish" in this section presents a conflict between the laudable goal of promoting self-expression and the foundational duty to shield young children from themes and performance styles rooted in adult entertainment.

This analysis argues for the book's relocation based on a single, consistently applied principle: Materials in the children's section should not introduce or celebrate performance arts intrinsically linked to adult nightlife and contexts. This argument is based on the nature of the content itself, not a judgment on the art form or the community it represents.

The Core Principle: The "Adult Context" Standard

Libraries curate their children's sections based on established principles of child development. A core, often unstated, standard is the exclusion of content that references or normalizes venues, professions, or art forms created by and for adults, particularly those involving nightlife, satire of sexuality, or performative allure.

• Rationale: Young children (ages 4-8) are still developing the cognitive ability to distinguish between fantasy and reality, and lack the context to understand complex social or artistic performances. Introducing adult-centric themes can confuse their understanding of social boundaries and appropriate behavior.
• Existing Precedent: This standard is already universally applied. We do not have children's books that celebrate the arts of burlesque, the stand-up comedy of George Carlin, or the characters from the Rocky Horror Picture Show, despite their artistic merit and messages of rebellion or self-acceptance. This is not because these forms are "bad," but because they are undeniably adult.

Conclusion: The central question in this discussion is not whether drag is a valid art form, but whether it is an art form that is appropriate to introduce to a 4-year-old. If it is rooted in an adult context, it falls outside the established curatorial standards for this age group.

Analysis of the Book: Connecting Content to Context

The book's content, while presented in a playful rhyme, directly imports the signature elements of professional drag performance—an art form historically and predominantly situated in adult venues like bars and nightclubs.

• The Verse: "The hips on the drag queen go swish, swish, swish..."
• The Problem: The "hip-swish" is not a generic movement. It is a stylized, exaggerated gesture central to an art form that, in its most common expressions, parodies and heightens feminine sensuality for an audience. Coupled with "shoulders shimmying" and "hair flips," the book isolates the specific, body-centric movements that define drag as a performance of exaggerated gender.
• The Source Material: The book celebrates an art form whose humor, commentary, and aesthetic are deeply interwoven with adult themes—including sexual innuendo, social satire, and the subversion of gender norms. While the book strips away the explicit elements, it retains and celebrates the core performative shell. It asks children to celebrate the gestures without understanding the adult culture from which they originate.

Conclusion: The book's content is not merely "dress-up." It is a simplified primer on the specific, stylized movements of an adult performance art. This directly links it to an "adult context," creating the curatorial conflict.

A Test of Principle: The Consistency Check

To evaluate the fairness of this standard, we can apply it to a parallel hypothetical.

• The Analogy: Imagine a children's book titled "The Tassels on the Dancer Go Twirl, Twirl, Twirl," presented as a joyful story about the art of burlesque. The book could be illustrated beautifully, avoiding all nudity, and frame the performance as empowering self-expression. It might focus on the dancer's dazzling costumes, confident stage presence, and skillful movements.
• The Inevitable Outcome: This book would be universally rejected for the children's section. No library would consider it. The reason would be immediate and obvious: burlesque is a performance art for adults, originating in adult venues. The message of "empowerment" would not override the inappropriateness of the source context for a young audience.
• Logical Consistency: While drag and burlesque are different art forms, they both originate in and are primarily performed in adult entertainment spaces. If we would reject a children's book celebrating the sanitized motions of one, we must apply the same principle to the other. To accept the drag book while rejecting the hypothetical burlesque book would be to create a special exception, abandoning neutral, consistent curatorial standards.

Conclusion: The principle of excluding content drawn from adult performance contexts is either a valid standard or it is not. If it is valid, it must be applied consistently.

Addressing the Strongest Counterarguments

To ensure this position is robust, it's essential to engage respectfully with the best arguments for the book's inclusion.

1. The Argument for Inclusion as Self-Expression and Joy:

"The book's intent is not sexual; it is a vibrant, joyful celebration of being your authentic self. It uses rhyme and dress-up to teach confidence in a way children can understand."

A Principled Response: This speaks to the book's positive intentions. However, a library's curatorial duty focuses on content and context, not just intent. While the message of self-expression is invaluable, the medium chosen here is what creates the issue. There are countless other children's books that teach the same lesson through mediums that are not derived from adult nightlife. The core dilemma remains: is it appropriate to use an adult performance art as the vehicle for a children's message?

2. The Argument that Drag is an Art Form, Not Inherently Sexual:

"Drag is a diverse and legitimate art form. Characterizing it as solely 'adult entertainment' is a reductive misrepresentation. This book depicts a G-rated, daytime version of that art."

A Principled Response: Drag is indeed a complex art form with a long history. However, for curatorial purposes, we must consider the dominant, mainstream context of an art form, not just its most sanitized exceptions. Drag's cultural center of gravity is in adult spaces, where it is understood through a lens of satire, parody, and commentary on gender and sexuality. Presenting a "G-rated version" of adult context is a strategy that works for movie adaptations, but presenting content from adult night life is not a sound basis for early childhood curation. We must ask what is being normalized, even in a simplified form.

3. The Argument Against "Censorship":

"Removing this book from the children's section is an act of censorship that harms representation and tells LGBTQ+ children and families that they don't belong."

A Principled Response: This concern is the most serious and must be treated with care. However, curation is not censorship. Censorship is the removal of material from the library entirely to suppress ideas. Curation is the professional practice of selecting and organizing materials for the appropriate audience. This argument is not for banning the book from the library—it could be an addition to an adult collection on art, gender, or culture. The argument is specifically about its placement in the 4-to-8-year-old section. Upholding age-appropriateness standards is a foundational responsibility, not an act of prejudice.

Conclusion: A Matter of Professional Responsibility

The decision to relocate this book from the early readers' section is not a rejection of its message of self-expression or the community it represents. It is an affirmation of a library's fundamental commitment to consistent, neutral, and defensible curatorial standards.

1. Principle: The library maintains a standard of excluding materials for young children that are derived from adult performance contexts.
2. Application: The book's content is a direct celebration of drag, an art form centered in adult venues and culture.
3. Consistency: This standard, if applied consistently, would prevent similar books based on other adult art forms (like burlesque or certain stand-up comedy) from being placed in the children's section.

To keep this book in the 4-8 age section would be to abandon this principle and create an exception that is not logically sustainable. Therefore, the most responsible course of action is to relocate the book to a section of the library intended for a more mature audience capable of understanding its artistic and cultural context.

---

A Persuasive Argument

A Case Study in Principled Communication

In today's polarized environment, most arguments are designed to rally a base, not to persuade the unaligned. They often rely on emotionally charged language, mischaracterizations of the opposing view, and appeals to ideological identity. As a result, they fail to convince anyone who isn't already in agreement and only serve to deepen existing divides.

The revised "Case for Relocation" is engineered to do the opposite. It operates on the premise that genuine persuasion requires intellectual honesty, logical consistency, and a deep respect for the intelligence of the person you are trying to convince. It is a case study in how to construct an argument that is difficult to disagree with on logical grounds, forcing the reader to contend with principles rather than personalities.

Below is a breakdown of the core techniques used and why they are effective.

Principles of Effective Persuasion

Principle 1: Frame the Debate Around a Neutral Principle

The argument’s power comes from shifting the focus from a specific, controversial item (a drag queen book) to a broad, neutral, and almost universally accepted principle: "Materials in the children's section should not introduce or celebrate performance arts intrinsically linked to adult nightlife and contexts."

Why it works: This reframing accomplishes several goals at once:

• It detoxifies the issue. The debate is no longer about "drag queens" but about "age-appropriate curation standards." This lowers emotional defenses.
• It establishes common ground. Almost everyone—parents, librarians, and community members of all political stripes—agrees that there is a distinction between adult and children's content.
• It forces the opponent onto your territory. To disagree, they must now argue against the neutral principle itself, which is a much harder position to defend. They have to argue that adult contexts are appropriate for young children, rather than simply defending the book.

Principle 2: Steel-Man the Opposition

A "straw man" argument misrepresents the other side's position to make it easier to attack. A "steel man" argument does the opposite: it presents the opposing viewpoint in its strongest, most charitable, and most persuasive form before refuting it.

Example from the text: Instead of dismissing the book's "purpose" as nefarious, the argument acknowledges its best-intended goal: "The book's intent may not be sexual."

Why it works:

• It builds credibility and trust. It signals to the reader that you are fair-minded, have listened to their side, and are not arguing in bad faith.
• It inoculates you against criticism. By addressing the strongest counterarguments head-on, you leave your opponent with fewer avenues for rebuttal. They cannot accuse you of misunderstanding their position.
• It strengthens your own argument. If you can defeat the best version of your opponent's case, your own position becomes far more robust.

Principle 3: Use Analogies to Test for Consistency

Logic’s most powerful tool in public discourse is the demand for consistency. The "burlesque book" analogy is the centerpiece of this strategy.

Example from the text: The hypothetical book, "The Tassels on the Dancer Go Twirl, Twirl, Twirl," serves as a perfect parallel. It is a non-extreme, plausible example that isolates the core principle.

Why it works:

• It reveals hidden biases. It forces the reader to ask, "If I would reject the burlesque book, why do I accept the drag book?" If the answer is based on affinity for one group and not the other, it exposes an inconsistency rooted in ideology, not principle.
• It simplifies a complex issue. The analogy strips away the cultural baggage of the specific debate and presents a clear, binary choice based on a single variable (the source of the performance art).
• It is difficult to refute. The opponent is left with only a few unappealing options: agree with you, defend the burlesque book for children (which is untenable, though some might), or try to argue that the two art forms are fundamentally different in a way that is relevant to a 4-year-old (which is very difficult).

Principle 4: Avoid the Genetic Fallacy

The genetic fallacy is the error of judging something based on its origin or source rather than its own merits. The argument carefully avoids this.

How it's applied: The case is not "drag is only bad because conservatives say so.” Or, “It’s clearly fine because experts agree.” Instead, it is, "The observable characteristics of this performance art—stylized hip movements, shimmies, and exaggerated femininity—are derived from a context of adult entertainment and parody."

Why it works: This makes the argument objective and content-focused. It prevents the opposition from dismissing the case as mere prejudice. The focus remains on a descriptive analysis of the book's content, not a moral judgment on the art form's creators or history.

Principle 5: Employ Professional Language and Tone

The argument deliberately uses the language of a professional curator or child development expert, not a culture warrior.

Examples: "curatorial standards," "developmental boundaries," "age-appropriateness," "principled response."

The contrast: Weak, ideological arguments would use loaded terms like "sexualization," "grooming," "indoctrination," or "prurient."

Why it works: Neutral language lowers the emotional temperature and frames the speaker as a reasonable, authoritative expert. It encourages the reader to evaluate the argument on its logical merits rather than reacting with a pre-programmed emotional or tribal defense.

Principle 6: Reframe the "Ask" from Punitive to Procedural

The conclusion is a masterstroke of reframing. It avoids the aggressive, censorship-adjacent language of "banning" or "removal."

The reframe: The argument calls for "relocation" to a more appropriate section of the library, framing the decision as a "matter of professional responsibility" and standard "curation."

Why it works: This solution is presented not as a victory or a punishment, but as a reasonable, procedural fix that upholds the library's own standards. It offers a path forward that is difficult to oppose without sounding unreasonable. It still achieves the desired outcome but in a way that feels like a compromise and a return to institutional principles.