During a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on Tuesday, Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) read from two sexually explicit books titled Gender Queer and All Boys Aren't Blue. The passages, which discuss anal and oral sex, were shocking to hear as they were read aloud by a 71-year-old congressman. But Kennedy made his point.

The books in question rank No. 1 and No. 2 respectively on the American Library Association's list of "Top 13 Most Challenged Books of 2022." Social media users recoiled at Kennedy, but many concluded: If it's inappropriate for a senator to read to an audience, it shouldn't be available to children in school libraries.

Leftists seem to think children and adolescents are mature enough to make decisions about gender and sexuality. We see this mentality in discussions surrounding puberty blockers and gender transitions for minors. As long as it feels like something a child should be doing, adults are not only told to get out of the way but to support it openly. The same mindset is applied to gratuitous sexual material in literature meant for children and teenagers. Keeping these books away from children in a public school library setting is decried as puritanism. But if parents don't protect their children, no one else will.

When parents are upset about public school curricula or the books in libraries, far too many leftists treat those parents as the real problem. This is because criticism of anything in the LGBT sphere is translated as bigotry. The hysteria should not deter parents and guardians from making the case for protection. Furthermore, safeguarding children goes far beyond LGBT-themed content. Whether sexual material in books, shows, or movies is heterosexual or lands anywhere on the LGBT spectrum is beside the point. Children are not emotionally, mentally, or physically mature enough for exposure to that kind of material, gay or straight. This is not controversial.

The title of the Senate hearing on Tuesday was "Book Bans: Examining How Censorship Limits Liberty and Literature." In America, we prize freedom, and in homes across the country, parents have the right to guide their children as they see fit. There is nothing stopping any parent from allowing certain books, shows, movies, or discussions in the privacy of their homes. That I may disagree with it is inconsequential. They are free to do as they please, even if I do the opposite as I raise my sons. But in a public school or library setting, books that contain mature content should not be available to minors.

There is more than enough time later on for young adults to explore areas of all kinds, including gender and sexuality. However, exposing children at a young, immature age to content that can cause confusion or, worse, harm their perceptions of sexuality and relationship ethics is destructive. Given the ease with which society pushes this in their faces already, shouldn't there be a safe place for them to be children or teenagers? This is hardly extremism. The real fanatics are the ones who believe pushing adult pathologies onto young minds is in any way healthy.

I don't (and won't) allow my young boys to read All Boys Aren't Blue in the same way I won't allow them to watch episodes of The Sopranos. They are too young and not capable of consuming sexual or violent content. What more parents need to do is parent, not be their child's best friend. At the very least, a public school or library should shield children in the same way. And if not, parents and like-minded politicians should speak up.

Kimberly Ross ( @SouthernKeeks ) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog and a columnist at Arc Digital.