a defense of drag show/drag queens..

[Gary Childress]

You'll be as sad and miserable as me one day! the old man shouted.

I want better for myself, and believe it or not I want better for you too brother.

I wanted better for myself too, because nothing was good enough for me when I could have taken what was around me at the time. Well, men dressing up like women doesn't sound like "better" to me. So obviously my finickiness hasn't helped me if this is what it's come to. I always wanted an attractive woman my age who was strong and assertive. That was difficult to find when I was younger and in my prime. I'd rather see some women take on that trait than have men dressing up as women. But OK. We'll see what happens. Maybe it takes a screwed-up man to teach a woman how to be assertive? I have no idea.

[iambiguous]

But most of us can recall instances in our past where, had that happened instead of this, our lives might have been very different. The only reason it has to be imagined is because this instead of that happened.

For me it always comes back to being born on March 23rd. Why? Because in being born on that day I was eligible for the draft. Had I been born on March 22nd or March 24th I might never have been drafted at all.

And being drafted changed everything. That resulted in my being sent to Vietnam and meeting soldiers there that completely upended my own value judgments. I went over there a devout Christian, a political conservative, a born in the belly of the white working class racist, a gross sexist and fiercely opposed to all "faggotry". I came back an atheist and an Marxist-Leninist.

What you link to (your writing on other sites) is incomprehensible to me. Your writing-style is terribly annoying at times. Other times you write clearly. I quickly scan it and then click away. FYI. If the movies are worthwhile I'm interested. But there must be a YouTube link, no?

What interests me in what I have quoted here is the path of your transformation. It is a germane topic and I wonder if you have read any of Kathleen Belew's books? Like Bring the War Home. Belew has been called before congressional groups and there is one interesting video of her encounter with Candace Owens. Though half of this forum is made up of barking lunatics I would suggest that there is a serious and thoughtful way for people to think about the issues of our day without succumbing to blockading and bickering.

I've read both Bring the War Home and her more recent book A Field Guide to White Supremacy.

Her argument in BTWH is that it was Vietnam and the experience there that politicized numerous different groups and empowered people of various ideological orientations. It can easily be seen that if Americans were enrolled in military operations against *communists* and *communism* in S. Asia, and if that use of violence was legitimized there, then those who came home from that war and that experience justified their own violence against those they described as radicals and communists at home, it is not hard at least to understand the *logic* of their thinking. Similarly, those who were politicized into the Left Revolutionary camp determined that violence and even the tactic of guerrilla warfare were both justified and needed to defeat the identified enemy (their own State and nation).

It is wise to consider the pattern, if you will, of the American Civil War as it continually plays out. For this reason the question of *patriotism* and *allegiance* are always at the core of the dramatic differences of opinion and view in respect to what is going on today in America. How 'patriots' define themselves, what their values and beliefs are, and also their sense of ownership of America and the fate and destiny of America -- all of this must, in my view, be taken into consideration when examining social and political conflicts today.

In your case (and the case of the larger part of a generation I think) you went from one belief-set to a belief-set known to offer to a person a radical interpretive framing, a near-absolute critical framing which, as I often say, operates like an *acid*. With this *acid* then, a generation used it to attack, melt, deconstruct, invalidate and undermine not simply the State that sent them to fight in a war with a dubious casus belli. And, as most agree, it was that war, at that time, that quite literally tore the nation apart.

Come on, what does this latest "wall of words" from you really have to do with my point above? How is the gist of it not applicable to you in terms of your own experiences? You think what you do now about homosexuality given the life that you've lived, but you then encounter a new experience, a new relationship, a new source of information and knowledge and you find yourself questioning what you now believe.

Instead, in my view, what the objectivists do [re the "psychology of objectivism" above] is to settle in on one or another ideological/deontological/theological font, convince themselves it is the most rational and virtuous manner in which to think about homosexuality and then hammer in any new experiences, relationships, information, etc., to fit their own "my way or the highway" mentality. Hell, I did that myself for years. First as a Christian, then as a Unitarian, then as a Marxists-Leninist, then as a Trotskyist, then as a Democratic Socialist, then as a Social Democrat, then as an existentialist, now as a nihilist. A year from now? Five years from now? Taking into account dasein and the Benjamin Button Syndrome? Who knows? Certainly not me. I can't know what "out of the blue" realities might await me down the road. And neither can you.

So, though you have been, in relation to me, involved in amazing projections and externalizations of deep paranoia, you are quite mistaken if you actually believe I am allied with Nazism or any of the particular evils that captivate your imagination in your barking performances here and apparently in other places as well.

Then back to this...

Okay, in regard to homosexuality, how is "mass formation" as encompassed [in the video above] different from your own assessment of it...as opposed to Satyr's even more extreme assessment of it...as opposed to the truly extreme Nazi assessment of it back in the 1930s and 1940s Germany.

That's why I would be curious to explore an exchange between yourself and Satyr at KT. What would the two of you agree on? What would piss him off if you didn't go far enough? How does Satyr differentiate himself from the Nazis in regard to things like race and homosexuality and Jews?

Plus, in terms of "serious philosophy" you are both more or less on the same "up in the intellectual clouds" page. Exchanging ideas. Whereas I am always more inclined to bring the definitions and the deductions out into the world of actual human interactions that come into conflict over value judgments.

The reason you (and others) get confused is because of the force and power of a mental syndrome I have labeled 'binary thinking'. I refer to a malady of thinking. To Belinda I have described it as 'emotional thinking' and used words like 'shrill' 'deranged' etc. I submit that it is this style of thinking that has broken out as an irruption in the social body. It is comparable to possession of the sort CG Jung talks about. And here's the thing: everyone is susceptible to it. And if one thinks that one is not or has not been infected by it (to one degree or another) that right there is the fatal mistake. We are all susceptible to psychic infection.

And you tell me:

Are the moral and political objectivist ilk among us more or less likely to embrace "binary thinking" than the "fractured and fragmented" ilk among us?

Then [from my frame of mind] straight back up into the intellectual clouds you go:

So you asked me (in your totally skewed way with your bizarre introduction of the figure Satyr!) to say something about Mass Formation -- this somewhat half-baked term that is circulating on the Internet and functions as an 'interpretive device' for those who wish to label their enemies as being captured by psychological ailment.

If you are asking me what I think about that I would direct you to two essays by CG Jung on the topic of the European conflagration: Wotan and After the Catastrophe.

Tucker Carleson interviewed Mattias Desmet (PhD Psychology, University of Ghent) who has written The Psychology of Totalitarianism on a recent show. It is worth watching. Except I would watch it from a place of a certain *distance*. I do not think that Tucker Carlson is in any sense outside of the possibility of being infected or contaminated (in the way I am referring to it here).

It is way way to easy to constantly refer to the supreme example of Ontological Malevolence (Hitler, the Nazi eruption, the European wars and a great deal more) without understanding the nature of psychic conflagrations.

Okay, in regard to homosexuality, fit your thinking into what you construe their thinking regarding it is or might be. And in regard to particular behaviors that generate the most controversy.

Also, this part:

Oh, and just out of curiosity, how would you make Jeane Kirkpatrick's distinction here between an authoritarian government and a totalitarian government in regard to homosexuality?

To wit:

"According to Kirkpatrick, authoritarian regimes merely try to control and/or punish their subjects' behaviors, while totalitarian regimes moved beyond that into attempting to control the thoughts of their subjects, using not only propaganda, but brainwashing, re-education, widespread domestic espionage, and mass political repression based on state ideology. Totalitarian regimes also often attempt to undermine or destroy community institutions deemed ideologically tainted (e.g., religious ones, or even the nuclear family), while authoritarian regimes by and large leave these alone. For this reason, she argues that the process of restoring democracy is easier in formerly authoritarian than in formerly totalitarian states, and that authoritarian states are more amenable to gradual reform in a democratic direction than are totalitarian states."

In fact, how are the "my way or the highway" objectivists not actually closer to the totalitarian model? There's how you think about homosexuality and there's how you either would or would not allow others to think differently about it in your own "best of all possible communities". And, most crucially, what behaviors would either be prescribed or proscribed in this community?

The irony with Kirkpatrick being that American foreign policy over and over again [from Haiti and Chile to Iran and the Philippines] has always revolved not around democracy and human rights but backing [or even installing] autocratic regimes that sustained the pecuniary interests of Wall Street around the globe.

Then [in my view] this preposterous assessment of me...

So, whereas in your case you were politicized in a situation of genuine and veritable trauma, and you necessarily reversed all your *beliefs* and your platform of understanding, and then took up a doctrinal set that allows for a total critical position and, finally, the violent overthrow of that which is described as the origin of evil and oppression, I think it is wise to stand back from 'falling into' such a false-solution.

However, when people are *captured* by an ideology they seem to lose all sense of measure. The analytical tool dominates all of their thinking and interpreting method and indeed it is said to function like a religion of True Believers. Religious fury, religious conviction, the easy solution offered by falling into a belief system that seems to solve all problems of analysis -- I say that we need to examine these tendencies to which we are all susceptible.

On the contrary, "here and now" "I" am "captured" by no ideology at all in regard to homosexuality. I note arguments made by those on many different sides embracing the many differing sets of assumption regarding both human sexuality and the human condition itself...and I am drawn and quartered, pulled and tugged ambivalently in conflicted directions. Instead, I have accumulated a particular collection of political prejudices which, rooted existentially in dasein, may or may not stand the test of time.

I merely suggest the same is applicable to you. It simply depends on how deeply engrained the "psychology of objectivism" is in your head "here and now".

[Flannel Jesus]

I wanted better for myself too, because nothing was good enough for me when I could have taken what was around me at the time. Well, men dressing up like women doesn't sound like "better" to me.

Not everything is for everybody. If you don't want to see men in dresses, it's pretty simple to avoid. I do it without even trying.

Find what is for you, and do that. Worry less about people doing harmless things that you don't care for.

[Gary Childress]

I wanted better for myself too, because nothing was good enough for me when I could have taken what was around me at the time. Well, men dressing up like women doesn't sound like "better" to me.

Not everything is for everybody. If you don't want to see men in dresses, it's pretty simple to avoid. I do it without even trying.

Find what is for you, and do that. Worry less about people doing harmless things that you don't care for.

Yes. It's simple to avoid now because it's considered "deviant" behavior. The more you normalize it, the more that will change. Now we have doctors practically turning boys into women and women into boys, albeit except for the most fundamental biological functions which are more or less unalterable for now. And inviting hardcore cross-dressers (not just comic actors or something) into the classroom to read to children didn't seem to be a thing until the "transgender" movement became a thing. If you really want to freak out the elderly, the best way to do it is to turn their once-familiar world into something like the Twilight Zone. The faster the world turns into the Twilight Zone, the earlier the age and the more people will freak out. Unfettered change is insanity!!! Insanity isn't "progress".

[Flannel Jesus]

Maybe America is a very different place from where I live, but... does any of this actually affect you? When's the last time you actually saw a transgender or cross dressing person and even noticed? Your concern here can't be because this is actually affecting your life in meaningful ways, can it?

[phyllo]

Maybe America is a very different place from where I live, but... does any of this actually affect you? When's the last time you actually saw a transgender or cross dressing person and even noticed? Your concern here can't be because this is actually affecting your life in meaningful ways, can it?

It doesn't have affect him directly for him to have an opinion and to take a stand.

It's often better to act before a situation goes too far.

[Peter Kropotkin]

one of the problems facing those who oppose "cross dressing"
is the fact that they are quite happy to "legislate" cross dressing
based on their own values...whether it is part of someone's
else's value is not important... the only values that count,
are the ones doing the 'legislating" this devaluation of
values, based on very specific personal values is known
by another name, nihilism...

One might say, I don't approve of cross-dressing and thus
it is immoral and should be illegal.. and another who opposes that
very narrow viewpoint, those values are dismissed and/or discounted....

only my values are the values worth having... your values don't count...
and that is the message left unsaid by those who try to legislate
morals/cross dressing/ drag shows..... the excuse is to "protect
the children'' is a smokescreen for those who oppose such things,
as cross-dressing or drag shows...the real point is to force everyone
else to live by your values and your values alone...and to dismiss,
devalue other values is by its very definition, nihilism...

if we accept the basic premise of the declaration of independence,

"that all men are create equal"

then that means that values are also equal.. I cannot prove
that my values have more worth or importance than your values...
by the same holds true for your values, you cannot prove that
your values have more truth or importance than my values...

to say, "all gays must be executed" is to claim one has
more important or truer values than another person....

"all men are created equal" and thus saying that all values
are created equal...but Kropotkin, even under your own
system of order and disorder, we cannot allow cross-dressing
or gays or trans people because they cause "disorder" and "chaos"
but that assumption, and it is an assumption... is based on the
idea that somehow, it is never actually stated how, but somehow
cross-dressing and gays/trans people are engaged in some sort
of disorder within a society/state/culture....
not only is that an assumption, but in fact, I would argue that
that the call to end cross-dressing and gays/trans people,
is a greater source of disorder and chaos within the system,
than cross-dressing or trans people....
for what you are doing is preventing people from being who they
are.. people will cross-dress or be "gay" or ''trans" regardless of
the actual laws or rules of that state/society/civilization....
and it will take or does take a great deal of energy to
end or stop something that cannot be stopped...
energy being expended on something that can't be stopped...
energy better spent on something of value.. like ending poverty
or building a better world....

order, disorder, chaos, chance, randomness is all about energy,
either to spend it or to save it...or to encourage order in
our system is to accept the fact that people will be people....
and it takes less energy to accept this than it does
to fight other people values to cross-dress or be gay/trans...
accepting other peoples' values is a step to order, to fight
other people's values is to move toward disorder/chaos...

conflict is a step toward disorder/chaos... peaceful resolution
is a step toward order.... peaceful resolution of conflicts,
of accepting cross-dressing, of accepting gays and trans people
is a way toward order.... acceptance of values is an path
to order...

Kropotkin

[phyllo]

If I vote to make it illegal to yell Fire! in a crowded theater, it doesn't mean that I don't consider freedom of speech and expression to be valuable.

It means that some considerations are more important than others. And I evaluated that public safety is more important than freedom of expression in this situation.

[iambiguous]

Just out of curiosity, suppose you spot a fire in the theater, but you don't yell "Fire!"?

And suppose, at the time, you're in drag?

[Alexis Jacobi]

I merely suggest the same is applicable to you. It simply depends on how deeply engrained the "psychology of objectivism" is in your head "here and now".

OK you daft nutjob! You had your chance. I'm done with you from here on out . . .

[Flannel Jesus]

Maybe America is a very different place from where I live, but... does any of this actually affect you? When's the last time you actually saw a transgender or cross dressing person and even noticed? Your concern here can't be because this is actually affecting your life in meaningful ways, can it?

It doesn't have affect him directly for him to have an opinion and to take a stand.

It's often better to act before a situation goes too far.

He's talking about it like it affects him personally, like he sees these people all over the place.

Consider this quote:

> I wanted better for myself too, because nothing was good enough for me when I could have taken what was around me at the time. Well, men dressing up like women doesn't sound like "better" to me.

Why do people dressing in confusing clothing have anything to do with him having a better life? Especially if he doesn't ever see them.

[iambiguous]

ME:

But most of us can recall instances in our past where, had that happened instead of this, our lives might have been very different. The only reason it has to be imagined is because this instead of that happened.

For me it always comes back to being born on March 23rd. Why? Because in being born on that day I was eligible for the draft. Had I been born on March 22nd or March 24th I might never have been drafted at all.

And being drafted changed everything. That resulted in my being sent to Vietnam and meeting soldiers there that completely upended my own value judgments. I went over there a devout Christian, a political conservative, a born in the belly of the white working class racist, a gross sexist and fiercely opposed to all "faggotry". I came back an atheist and an Marxist-Leninist.

What you link to (your writing on other sites) is incomprehensible to me. Your writing-style is terribly annoying at times. Other times you write clearly. I quickly scan it and then click away. FYI. If the movies are worthwhile I'm interested. But there must be a YouTube link, no?

What interests me in what I have quoted here is the path of your transformation. It is a germane topic and I wonder if you have read any of Kathleen Belew's books? Like Bring the War Home. Belew has been called before congressional groups and there is one interesting video of her encounter with Candace Owens. Though half of this forum is made up of barking lunatics I would suggest that there is a serious and thoughtful way for people to think about the issues of our day without succumbing to blockading and bickering.

I've read both Bring the War Home and her more recent book A Field Guide to White Supremacy.

Her argument in BTWH is that it was Vietnam and the experience there that politicized numerous different groups and empowered people of various ideological orientations. It can easily be seen that if Americans were enrolled in military operations against *communists* and *communism* in S. Asia, and if that use of violence was legitimized there, then those who came home from that war and that experience justified their own violence against those they described as radicals and communists at home, it is not hard at least to understand the *logic* of their thinking. Similarly, those who were politicized into the Left Revolutionary camp determined that violence and even the tactic of guerrilla warfare were both justified and needed to defeat the identified enemy (their own State and nation).

It is wise to consider the pattern, if you will, of the American Civil War as it continually plays out. For this reason the question of *patriotism* and *allegiance* are always at the core of the dramatic differences of opinion and view in respect to what is going on today in America. How 'patriots' define themselves, what their values and beliefs are, and also their sense of ownership of America and the fate and destiny of America -- all of this must, in my view, be taken into consideration when examining social and political conflicts today.

In your case (and the case of the larger part of a generation I think) you went from one belief-set to a belief-set known to offer to a person a radical interpretive framing, a near-absolute critical framing which, as I often say, operates like an *acid*. With this *acid* then, a generation used it to attack, melt, deconstruct, invalidate and undermine not simply the State that sent them to fight in a war with a dubious casus belli. And, as most agree, it was that war, at that time, that quite literally tore the nation apart.

Come on, what does this latest "wall of words" from you really have to do with my point above? How is the gist of it not applicable to you in terms of your own experiences? You think what you do now about homosexuality given the life that you've lived, but you then encounter a new experience, a new relationship, a new source of information and knowledge and you find yourself questioning what you now believe.

Instead, in my view, what the objectivists do [re the "psychology of objectivism" above] is to settle in on one or another ideological/deontological/theological font, convince themselves it is the most rational and virtuous manner in which to think about homosexuality and then hammer in any new experiences, relationships, information, etc., to fit their own "my way or the highway" mentality. Hell, I did that myself for years. First as a Christian, then as a Unitarian, then as a Marxists-Leninist, then as a Trotskyist, then as a Democratic Socialist, then as a Social Democrat, then as an existentialist, now as a nihilist. A year from now? Five years from now? Taking into account dasein and the Benjamin Button Syndrome? Who knows? Certainly not me. I can't know what "out of the blue" realities might await me down the road. And neither can you.

So, though you have been, in relation to me, involved in amazing projections and externalizations of deep paranoia, you are quite mistaken if you actually believe I am allied with Nazism or any of the particular evils that captivate your imagination in your barking performances here and apparently in other places as well.

Then back to this...

Okay, in regard to homosexuality, how is "mass formation" as encompassed [in the video above] different from your own assessment of it...as opposed to Satyr's even more extreme assessment of it...as opposed to the truly extreme Nazi assessment of it back in the 1930s and 1940s Germany.

That's why I would be curious to explore an exchange between yourself and Satyr at KT. What would the two of you agree on? What would piss him off if you didn't go far enough? How does Satyr differentiate himself from the Nazis in regard to things like race and homosexuality and Jews?

Plus, in terms of "serious philosophy" you are both more or less on the same "up in the intellectual clouds" page. Exchanging ideas. Whereas I am always more inclined to bring the definitions and the deductions out into the world of actual human interactions that come into conflict over value judgments.

The reason you (and others) get confused is because of the force and power of a mental syndrome I have labeled 'binary thinking'. I refer to a malady of thinking. To Belinda I have described it as 'emotional thinking' and used words like 'shrill' 'deranged' etc. I submit that it is this style of thinking that has broken out as an irruption in the social body. It is comparable to possession of the sort CG Jung talks about. And here's the thing: everyone is susceptible to it. And if one thinks that one is not or has not been infected by it (to one degree or another) that right there is the fatal mistake. We are all susceptible to psychic infection.

And you tell me:

Are the moral and political objectivist ilk among us more or less likely to embrace "binary thinking" than the "fractured and fragmented" ilk among us?

Then [from my frame of mind] straight back up into the intellectual clouds you go:

So you asked me (in your totally skewed way with your bizarre introduction of the figure Satyr!) to say something about Mass Formation -- this somewhat half-baked term that is circulating on the Internet and functions as an 'interpretive device' for those who wish to label their enemies as being captured by psychological ailment.

If you are asking me what I think about that I would direct you to two essays by CG Jung on the topic of the European conflagration: Wotan and After the Catastrophe.

Tucker Carleson interviewed Mattias Desmet (PhD Psychology, University of Ghent) who has written The Psychology of Totalitarianism on a recent show. It is worth watching. Except I would watch it from a place of a certain *distance*. I do not think that Tucker Carlson is in any sense outside of the possibility of being infected or contaminated (in the way I am referring to it here).

It is way way to easy to constantly refer to the supreme example of Ontological Malevolence (Hitler, the Nazi eruption, the European wars and a great deal more) without understanding the nature of psychic conflagrations.

Okay, in regard to homosexuality, fit your thinking into what you construe their thinking regarding it is or might be. And in regard to particular behaviors that generate the most controversy.

Also, this part:

Oh, and just out of curiosity, how would you make Jeane Kirkpatrick's distinction here between an authoritarian government and a totalitarian government in regard to homosexuality?

To wit:

"According to Kirkpatrick, authoritarian regimes merely try to control and/or punish their subjects' behaviors, while totalitarian regimes moved beyond that into attempting to control the thoughts of their subjects, using not only propaganda, but brainwashing, re-education, widespread domestic espionage, and mass political repression based on state ideology. Totalitarian regimes also often attempt to undermine or destroy community institutions deemed ideologically tainted (e.g., religious ones, or even the nuclear family), while authoritarian regimes by and large leave these alone. For this reason, she argues that the process of restoring democracy is easier in formerly authoritarian than in formerly totalitarian states, and that authoritarian states are more amenable to gradual reform in a democratic direction than are totalitarian states."

In fact, how are the "my way or the highway" objectivists not actually closer to the totalitarian model? There's how you think about homosexuality and there's how you either would or would not allow others to think differently about it in your own "best of all possible communities". And, most crucially, what behaviors would either be prescribed or proscribed in this community?

The irony with Kirkpatrick being that American foreign policy over and over again [from Haiti and Chile to Iran and the Philippines] has always revolved not around democracy and human rights but backing [or even installing] autocratic regimes that sustained the pecuniary interests of Wall Street around the globe.

Then [in my view] this preposterous assessment of me...

So, whereas in your case you were politicized in a situation of genuine and veritable trauma, and you necessarily reversed all your *beliefs* and your platform of understanding, and then took up a doctrinal set that allows for a total critical position and, finally, the violent overthrow of that which is described as the origin of evil and oppression, I think it is wise to stand back from 'falling into' such a false-solution.

However, when people are *captured* by an ideology they seem to lose all sense of measure. The analytical tool dominates all of their thinking and interpreting method and indeed it is said to function like a religion of True Believers. Religious fury, religious conviction, the easy solution offered by falling into a belief system that seems to solve all problems of analysis -- I say that we need to examine these tendencies to which we are all susceptible.

On the contrary, "here and now" "I" am "captured" by no ideology at all in regard to homosexuality. I note arguments made by those on many different sides embracing the many differing sets of assumption regarding both human sexuality and the human condition itself...and I am drawn and quartered, pulled and tugged ambivalently in conflicted directions. Instead, I have accumulated a particular collection of political prejudices which, rooted existentially in dasein, may or may not stand the test of time.

I merely suggest the same is applicable to you. It simply depends on how deeply engrained the "psychology of objectivism" is in your head "here and now".

HIM:

I merely suggest the same is applicable to you. It simply depends on how deeply engrained the "psychology of objectivism" is in your head "here and now".

OK you daft nutjob! You had your chance. I'm done with you from here on out . . .

Oh, you're done with me alright. In other words, you are one more "my way or the highway" objectivist who doesn't have a clue as to how to handle the points I raise.

Well, if I do say so myself, of course.


Oh, by the way, Satyr has explained to his clique/claque over at KT why he is not a Nazi.

This part might interest you:

I do not advocate ethnic extermination, but ethnic separation.
Every ethnicity can do as it wills, worship whatever it wants, determine its own fate with its own values, judgements and choices.
I do not advocate imposing my values on other ethnicities, nor do I tolerate them imposing theirs upon mine.

Just like you, right?

On the other hand, when the "retards" challenge his views and make as big a fool of him there as I make of you here, he bans them.

So, it kind of makes you wonder if he had access to actual political power in his own "best of all possible communities", what he might do to those black and brown and red and yellow folks and those women and those gays and those Jews who insisted on creating a community that was entirely more tolerant and inclusive in regard to race and gender and sexuality and religion.

[phyllo]

Maybe America is a very different place from where I live, but... does any of this actually affect you? When's the last time you actually saw a transgender or cross dressing person and even noticed? Your concern here can't be because this is actually affecting your life in meaningful ways, can it?

It doesn't have affect him directly for him to have an opinion and to take a stand.

It's often better to act before a situation goes too far.

He's talking about it like it affects him personally, like he sees these people all over the place.

Consider this quote:

> I wanted better for myself too, because nothing was good enough for me when I could have taken what was around me at the time. Well, men dressing up like women doesn't sound like "better" to me.

Why do people dressing in confusing clothing have anything to do with him having a better life? Especially if he doesn't ever see them.

Let's try to focus on some issues and leave the personal stuff out of it.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Iambiguous, bless your heart, I just can’t deal with your style. So there is no exchange possible. Note: Satyr’s assessments of you are as close to precise and extremely well thought-out. If you posted them to indicate how misunderstood you are it rather worked against you.

[iambiguous]

Iambiguous, bless your heart, I just can’t deal with your style. So there is no exchange possible. Note: Satyr’s assessments of you are as close to precise and extremely well thought-out. If you posted them to indicate how misunderstood you are it rather worked against you.

Absolutely shameless.

Well, among other things.