Um, ivory is from elephants. Rhino horn isn't ivory.

The problem is more and more relatively innocuous or ambiguous speech is being defined (or rather interpreted) as hate speech. Also in some cases, the exact same speech may be "hate speech" in one context, but not another. In order to posecute this, you have to assume you know the intent of the speaker, and punish not the actual act, but the presumed thought behind it. In which case, we are talking about prosecuting thought crimes. Direct treats of violence are already illegal and anything likely to cause imediate panic (i.e. yelling fire in a crowded theatre). These restrictions are not based around thought or message, but because these examples represent an imediate threat to security.

What's wrong with "it's okay to be different"? That's not a bad message. And while I disagree that gender is a social designation (it is biological), I firmly agree that there is no such thing as boy things or girl things. People (children as well as adults) should be free to explore their interests and fashion choices, regardless of gender. I'm not sure what the dragtivity book entails, so I can't come to a conclusion.

They aren't learning about gender and sexuality. They are being read a children's book by someone who is dressed funny (since drag Queens tend to dress over the top). As long as the outfit isn't overtly sexual (i.e. lengerie or bondage gear) I don't see the issue, especially as it would be parents bringing their children to the story hour.