Lmao "You don't have to play with dolls if you're a girl, but you can't play with dolls if you're a boy. This is a rational argument"
If DeSantis wins
- Thread starter CastletonSnob
- Start date
Absent
And twice is the only way to live.
- Jan 25, 2023
- 1,594
- 1,557
- 118
- Country
- Switzerland
- Gender
- The boring one
Tstormfront's argument is always a variation on "I just want to protect you from me destroying you". Poor kids will be mocked to oblivion if they deviate from fundamentalist christian norms - but mocked by who ? By the same people who claim to protect them against that.
Same argument used in homophobia. Same arguments by assholes in general who use some abstract outside assholery to justify being assholes. Assholes are no one else but yourselves, comma, assholes.
Why is teaching a sex-typical behaviour more acceptable than teaching a sex-atypical behaviour? You're still teaching kids that sex is inherently associated with certain behaviours, and that deviance is wrong.
Right, but a man wearing a dress isn't making any such statement to kids. The only statement is "men can wear dresses". Beyond that: nothing is implied about society or prevalence.
What you're encouraging is that kids be kept unaware gender nonconforming behaviours exist at all, to limit the things they might want to do to only things stereotypically associated with their sex. Which is indoctrination.
They're not. That remains a paranoid fever dream born out of simple discomfort with gender nonconforming behaviour.
It's not inherently associated, it is socially associated. Society interprets behaviors to mean different things. There's nothing inherently gay about the infamous lispy affectation, but if you hear someone speaking that way you'll draw conclusions. It's neither "if you're gay you have to talk that way" no "if you're not gay you can't talk that way", but it's definitely "if you talk that way people will think you're gay", and while that's not a law of nature, it is important to understand if you're attracted to women and not men.
What I'm describing is no different than the concept of "passing", that society views certain things as masculine or feminine, and will likely treat you different based on those things. Blurring those lines only in the mind of a child diminishes their ability to navigate that social space.
I'll say it again: a drag queen is not simply a man in a dress. It is a whole persona built around a ton of mostly sexual cultural symbolism. I do not think you are like a child, I don't think you actually don't understand that, I think you're being obtuse on purpose.
I apologize for only calling you media illiterate earlier. I have no idea how you managed to read that into what I said.
It's not about mocking. If you do something expecting people to react one way and they react another, it's an unpleasant experience, even if they are entirely supportive of you. If you act like a drag queen expecting your friends to think its a funny thing, and instead they think you're a gay man hitting on them, it's gonna get uncomfortable without anyone particularly at fault. Communication isn't simple or easy, and it gets harder if you have no idea what other people are thinking.
Feel free to ask Florida about that.Because y'all are trying to make it a crime, dipshit
Florida Passes Anti-Drag Ban So Extreme It Could Ban All Pride Parades
The bill is so vaguely worded that Pride organizers are already worried about celebrations this year.newrepublic.com
So let's apply your example here to the practical considerations you're talking about below.
Do you think it's reasonable to object to people with lisps reading books to kids? All the same arguments apply. It has a social association with a group of people. And you believe that showing atypical socially-associated things to kids "blurs lines" and is thus bad.
(On a side note, showing that something exists is not "blurring lines"; thats a meaningless phrase in this context. It's merely showing that it exists and is acceptable. Whereas hiding it away is teaching that it doesn't exist, isn't acceptable. A kid isnt suddenly unable to tell that a massive flowing panto dress isn't everyday wear just because they see a performer in it-- by that rationale they shouldn't be allowed to see clowns either).
When I said "man in a dress" there, I was invoking gender-transgressive behaviour generally, not saying that's all drag is. You'll notice that I have already explicitly said it's not just crossdressing.
But no, the additional symbolism is obviously not "mostly sexual". It is OTT, flamboyant pageantry, just like pantomime. Aesthetically the two are extremely similar-- the organiser of the Drag library readings here in the UK has even described it as panto in a library.
Last edited:
Absent
And twice is the only way to live.
- Jan 25, 2023
- 1,594
- 1,557
- 118
- Country
- Switzerland
- Gender
- The boring one
Communication adjustment is a perfectly mundane everyday thing, between people of all sorts of cultural background (and subcultural backgrounds within one "culture"). There is no big deal about that apart from the big deal you decide to make of it because you (and I mean you) "have no idea what other people are thinking" (especially as you prevent and personally reject all information about it), and you (I mean you) assume that OH NO GAY MEN ARE HITTING ON YOU. Which is neither assumed nor treated as an issue when a woman acts "womanly", but whatever.
You create the problems that you mean to denounce. And deliberately so, because you want it to be a problem. And what you're terrified of, is the idea that it might some day completely cease to be deemed a problem. Acceptation wouldn't "solve" things for you, wouldn't be good news. It would be a "defeat" that you're hellbent on preventing, the most hypocritical way possible.
The difference here is that the adults in the room are telling kids to laugh at the clowns. Are you normalizing the idea of a man in a dress, or are you telling kids to laugh at them? You can't do both.
I'm not against the possibility that what you have there is decidedly different than here. If you're doing Monty Python, and we're doing Marshmallow from Bob's Burgers, those are different things.
On the contrary, you create the problems that I denounce, and deliberately so, because you want to be the problem. You understand why people don't want drag queen performances for children, there is not positive outcome of having them, there is no inherent demand from kids to see drag queens, you only support them to upset those you see as valid targets.
You're encouraging the kids to be entertained by the performance in both cases.
Everybody understands what performance is, and that nobody in their right mind views an explicitly OTT performance and comes away thinking, 'that was everyday behaviour'.
From what I've seen of these library sessions, in both the UK and US, the getups are absolutely miles away from Marshmallow. The getups on both sides of the pond are much closer to what you see in panto. Not revealing. Not titillating. You know this, really.
What absolute self-absorption, to believe these things are done just to piss off social conservatives.
Buddy, the people doing this-- and the libraries, and the parents-- just want to put on a damn show, with colourful fun happy costumes for kids to be entertained by. They don't want any reaction from prudish fools other than to be left the fuck alone.
Christ, imagine arguing that pantomimes-- which literally feature drag-- only exist to make conservatives upset. The sheer myopia is incredible.
Absent
And twice is the only way to live.
- Jan 25, 2023
- 1,594
- 1,557
- 118
- Country
- Switzerland
- Gender
- The boring one
Cause the planet is all about you, about how you decide all people must live, about how people do the opposite just to spite you.
You believe that if you didn't exist, people would cease doing/being all that offends you? Lots to say about that.
No clownshoes, the positive outcome is teaching people that being queer and queer culture is good and fine from a young age so that when people start coming to terms with their own sexuality it doesn't lead to self loathing and to teach cis het people that they should tolerate queer people. The only reason you lot enter into the equation is we're teaching people not to allow hateful biggots convince them that being queer is something shameful that should be kept secret.
Have you been on the internet? Controversy is 100% what they're going for, at least in the US. That is the goal.
Of course not. I'm sure you hate billions of people and can aim your anger all over the place. It's not about me personally, or anyone specific for that matter. It's about having any target for your self-righteous anger.
The problem with this theory is that the self-loathing is more prevalent the further your "tolerance" goes, probably from all the lying you'd foist on people.
Oh, come on. You honestly think that's generated by the libraries, performers, and parents themselves?
That's driven by A) moral panickers protesting it; and B) vocal critics of those moral panickers, who often end up just giving the story fuel.
Stop imagining this all revolves around you, or the petty moral panic gripe train. It's just performers wanting to do a dress up story time-- and when protesters arent screaming abuse and threatening the performers and parents, that story time is all they do. The parents and kids enjoy it; the performers enjoy doing something for the community. Storytellers in libraries have dressed up for decades as a way to volunteer and do good. They want to be left the fuck alone and allowed to put on an innocent goddamn show.
Imagine being so myopic, so self-involved, that you can't conceive that a pageantry performer might want to tell stories to kids. No, it must be a secret plot to troll conservatives. Give me a fucking break.
"They couldn't possibly want to be different from me, so they're just trying to make me upset."
Imagine being so blind to the intentions of others as to not even consider that people performing transgressive art intend to be transgressive.
It's not transgressive you frootloop, it's literally a century old and only got controversial in the last year
Meanwhile, blatant powergrabs in the open. Less concerning than a dude in a tasteful dress reading a kid's book, sure, but thought it should be mentioned
Well, can't start treating them like people, they'll get all uppity.
They are denying her permission to speak on a point of procedure. What happened is that she said previously if they pressed forward with this bill, "I hope the next time there’s an invocation when you bow your heads in prayer, you see the blood on your hands." The (Republican) Speaker and (Republican) House Rules committee decided that this was offensive to her peers in the House, and so she would be denied the opportunity to speak until she apologised to them.
It would be interesting to compare her statement to any others that may have warranted similar action. Offhand, that sort of comment would be considered completely fair game in the UK parliament. However, if Montana is particularly strict as standard and this is consistent with previous rulings, one might argue it is fair. However, if inconsistent, that demand for an apology is just partisan bullying. And given the standards of the Republican Party over the last few years, partisan bullying is depressingly credible.
Transgressive to whom? This seems to work under an assumption that conservatives such as yourself are the rightful gatekeepers of what is societally appropriate. I remain distinctly unconvinced that this is true.
Secondly, your point seems to be that the only reason someone can want to wear drag is to be transgressive. You do not have any particular insight into what motivates people who wear drag, and making these sorts of unverified claims tells everyone little more than what your prejudices are. Therefore, I think you need to provide some sort of substantive evidence.