a defense of drag show/drag queens..

[Peter Kropotkin]

Iwannaplato:
I would ask why PK immediatley moved the debate to psychology. He could focus on rights and consequences, for example. He could argue there is no harm. There are a variety of ways to frame the debate. But immediately in his first post on the topic he mindreads those he disagrees with. An implicit ad hom. But also it is as if we he cannot demonstrate that drag queens doing library reading and state funds going to this is a good or neutral thing on ethical grounds or practical grounds. He needs to immediately reduce those he disagrees with. So, you are in a position to defend or deflect this second topic. A topic that is not the topic in the OP title. Its not a defense of drag queen readings, it's a hypothesis about the psychology of other people.

K: I am old and as I have grown older, I have increased my
belief in psychology as being a driving force in our beliefs...
and allow me to explain that.....

we are born and at that moment, begins our indoctrination into
the values, beliefs, moral/ethics of any given society....
America is the greatest nation on earth, whites are superior to
blacks, there is a god, war is better than peace (a particular
American value) and we have values and beliefs coming from
our particular social-economic status, job, any number of factors
that drive our belief system.... and of those factors, I hold that
one of the primary, if not the primary factor driving beliefs lays within
the psychology of people...and that psychology is driven also
driven by education and the media...

So, we are attempting to make an "objective" argument for something,
say, drag shows... but that "objectivity" argument is really
psychological factors.. there is no such thing as an ''objective'' argument,
there are only arguments from a psychological standpoint...
I was raised Catholic, an example, and so I hold certain beliefs
fundamental to Catholics... if you don't belief in god or Jesus, I don't
see how one could be a Catholic.... and so an "objective" argument
from people will be about what values, indoctrinations, beliefs,
education they were raised with...
and those values/beliefs/education and indoctrinations, are what
drive an "objective" argument, not logic or clear reasoning,
those too are impacted by our beliefs and values and indoctrinations
we were raised with...

to say it another way, in our thinking, we hold thoughts
and beliefs based on our education and indoctrinations,
not on actual reasoning...so, let us follow this through...

the argument is "drag queens should be shot as deviants"

and any argument for or against, will be an argument
based on our education and indoctrinations, not
on any sort of actual reasoning...for the bottom line
in most arguments begin with the base understanding
of the subject in question, which is our education
and indoctrinations of our youth...society says this is true,
and we hold that to be true and all our arguments come
from this notion that we were raised with and indoctrinated with....
not from ''actual objective'' reasoning... because frankly,
there is no such thing as "objective reasoning", there is only
our indoctrinations from our parents, the state, the media,
the church, our society..... that forms the basis of all
our "objective" reasoning...

and so any such claim to make an argument from ''Objective"
idea's or values is simply not true...
the best we can do is minimize our childhood indoctrinations
and education, we can't ever shut it down and be purely
"objective"..... all viewpoints, arguments, values begin
with a slant, and that slant begins with our childhood
indoctrinations...

Kropotkin

[phyllo]

Not everything that you are taught by parents, schools and institutions is bullshit.

Some knowledge, most?, the majority? can reflect reality.

Some people, most?, the majority? can examine what they have been taught and reach a better understanding.

That's learning and improvement.

A lot of philosophies put an emphasis on examining your ideas, your thinking, your reasoning.

[iambiguous]

In other words, is it possible to actually become less and less equivocal, ambivalent, uncertain, etc., about drag queens and arrive at the wisest reaction to them?

Can people change their mind for the better? Can they become more correct, or at least less wrong?

Well, if they can't, there's no reason for this forum to exist, and arguably no reason for language to exist at all.

Okay, so don't ignore me.

But what's your point have to do with mine?

My point is that...

1] both sides are able to make reasonable arguments for and against drag queens and homosexuality. Merely by proposing a different set of assumptions regarding human sexuality itself.
2] that some here seem [to me] to argue as though their own assessments and sets of assumptions do in fact reflect the most rational and virtuous frame of mind. Sure, others can change their minds for the better and be less wrong here. But only by agreeing with them instead. Whereas those like me are considerably more drawn and quartered. Also that, in any given community, tolerance and inclusion revolving around moderation, negotiation and compromise seems the best approach to it politically.
3] that our own individual perspectives here are rooted existentially in dasein far more than in anything that philosophers and ethicists can provide us in the way of a deontological assessment.

Then the part where we acknowledge that the Benjamin Button Syndrome projected into the future is such that we can never be certain what new experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge we encounter might in fact change our minds.

There are any number of variables in our interactions with others that may well be beyond our complete understanding of and control over.

In a No God world. Another assumption.

[Flannel Jesus]

In what way is any of that progressing the conversation? Where would you like to progress the conversation to? In many words, all it sounds like you've said is "we're all biased, but the best solution will be a compromise of some sort." Is that where you want the conversation to progress to? You'd like us to discuss where the compromise should be?

[iambiguous]

In what way is any of that progressing the conversation? Where would you like to progress the conversation to? In many words, all it sounds like you've said is "we're all biased, but the best solution will be a compromise of some sort." Is that where you want the conversation to progress to? You'd like us to discuss where the compromise should be?

Well, that was a complete waste of time.

[Flannel Jesus]

Most people who post have a point to what they're saying. "I believe this, I think you should believe this, here are some reasons you should believe this."

Or "I think this type of thing would be good if there were more of it, and that type of thing we'd be better off with less of, and I'm hoping to convince you."

But the posts you make... they don't have any apparent direction, frequently. And when I ask you what direction you're trying to go in, you fall back into your canned responses, your comfort zone.

Where are you trying to go? What's the direction you're trying to steer people towards with your post? It's a fair question. Challenge yourself to take it seriously.

[iambiguous]

Most people who post have a point to what they're saying. "I believe this, I think you should believe this, here are some reasons you should believe this."

Or "I think this type of thing would be good if there were more of it, and that type of thing we'd be better off with less of, and I'm hoping to convince you."

But the posts you make... they don't have any apparent direction, frequently. And when I ask you what direction you're trying to go in, you fall back into your canned responses, your comfort zone.

Where are you trying to go? What's the direction you're trying to steer people towards with your post? It's a fair question. Challenge yourself to take it seriously.

In regard to drag queens and homosexuality I believe this:

1] both sides are able to make reasonable arguments for and against [them]. Merely by proposing a different set of assumptions regarding human sexuality itself.

2] that some here seem [to me] to argue as though their own assessments and sets of assumptions do in fact reflect the most rational and virtuous frame of mind. Sure, others can change their minds for the better and be less wrong here. But only by agreeing with them instead. Whereas those like me are considerably more drawn and quartered. Also, that, in any given community, tolerance and inclusion revolving around moderation, negotiation and compromise seems the best approach to it politically.

3] that our own individual perspectives here are rooted existentially in dasein far more than in anything that philosophers and ethicists can provide us in the way of a deontological assessment.

But I understand that, given how different your own experiences, relationships and access to information and knowledge might have been, you may well believe something different. So, Mr. Philosopher/Mr. Ethicist, given that, might there still be a way to construct the most rational manner in which to think about them...to behave around them? Here in a philosophy forum?

Also, after you provide us with an ethical theory you subscribe to, bring that out into the world where drag queens and homosexuals actually do exist. And interact with those who are not. What particular laws would you support in the community that would support their lifestyle and grant them equals right with heterosexuals...or would discourage their lifestyle and actually punish such behaviors.

[Flannel Jesus]

In regard to drag queens and homosexuality I believe this:

1] both sides are able to make reasonable arguments for and against [them]. Merely by proposing a different set of assumptions regarding human sexuality itself.

2] that some here seem [to me] to argue as though their own assessments and sets of assumptions do in fact reflect the most rational and virtuous frame of mind. Sure, others can change their minds for the better and be less wrong here. But only by agreeing with them instead. Whereas those like me are considerably more drawn and quartered. Also, that, in any given community, tolerance and inclusion revolving around moderation, negotiation and compromise seems the best approach to it politically.

3] that our own individual perspectives here are rooted existentially in dasein far more than in anything that philosophers and ethicists can provide us in the way of a deontological assessment.

Forgive my gross incompetence I beg, but I don't see a single belief about homosexuality and drag queens in all of that.

I see you're making the same old general comments you always make about dasein, which looks like you're just saying people are prone to biases , which is broadly true - of course people are prone to biases, but without pointing to any particular thing you think it's biased you might as well be saying water is wet, and I see you're making a general comment about compromise, but last time I thought these were the focus of your comments you said "that was a complete waste of time".

So if the point isn't to bring up bias, and it isn't to work towards compromise, what is it? You haven't actually said anything about homosexuality or drag queens in that entire quote.

[Peter Kropotkin]

Not everything that you are taught by parents, schools and institutions is bullshit.

Some knowledge, most?, the majority? can reflect reality.

Some people, most?, the majority? can examine what they have been taught and reach a better understanding.

That's learning and improvement.

A lot of philosophies put an emphasis on examining your ideas, your thinking, your reasoning.

K: I wasn't making a commentary about the "value" of the
indoctrinations... I was pointing out that what people think
and believe to be true, comes from our childhood indoctrination
and education....we simple accept those indoctrinations
and call them our own... without any actual evaluation
or as Nietzsche called it, "reevaluations of values"
the values and beliefs we hold as adults come mostly from
our childhood indoctrinations.. my own example,
I was raised in the American Middle West, born in 1959,
thus I was raised with the prevalent post-war, WW2, values
and beliefs/indoctrinations....my parents, as being upper class,
held certain political beliefs, I would call them moderate democrats...
of that era...we moved to California in 1973... I was radicalized by
the election of Ronald Raygun in 1980... I had seen the damage
he did to California during his years as governor...and I could
see the damage he was/did as President.. and so, I became
an anarchist...during the Clinton years, I slowly drifted back
more toward being a "liberal democrat" with emphasis on
the word 'Liberal" in the idiotic terminology of our day,
I am part of the "radical left" .....and I have no problem with that....
but within my own story came my own "reevaluation of values"...

much of what I was "educated with'' ''indoctrinated with"
I don't believe in... the idea that "America is number one''
and that nationalism is the highest form of belief...that there
is a god... my parents were never about the allege superiority
of whites over blacks or people of color...I didn't have to overcome
that because my family never indoctrinated me with that particular
belief.......

but to your point that ''Philosophy'' is about overcoming one's
beliefs and indoctrinations, I hold that in fact, few, very, very
few actually practiced that... for most people and by most,
I mean over 99% of all people simply believe what their
family, their society, their state and their church told them
to believe... they have carried their childhood indoctrinations
into adulthood and then claim those beliefs as their own...
not actually examining them or a "reevaluation of values" as
Nietzsche would have them do....to see if their childhood indoctrinations
are actually something worth having or values we need as adults....

you have a theory about how people should reevaluate their
values and then you have the reality, that 99% of all people
simply hold to their childhood beliefs, values and indoctrinations....

if there is one goal I have, that is to get people to reevaluate their beliefs...
to see if their values and beliefs and indoctrinations, are actually
their beliefs, values and indoctrinations.. not just handed down to them
by the state/culture/media/family/society......

what do you hold to be true? and why those beliefs and not other beliefs?
what is the basis for the values, beliefs you currently hold?
and if one is honest with oneself, you will see that your beliefs
and values are simply carried over from the indoctrinations you
received as a child....

Kropotkin

[phyllo]

The word "indoctrination" has a negative connotation.

By using it, you are stating a value judgement on the education that people have received.

[Alexis Jacobi]

As noted above, being a drag queen, much like anything else involving value judgments given the complex nature of human interactions, involves pros and cons.

Those on both sides are able to point to things that are in fact true given their own set of assumptions regarding human sexuality and gender roles. And all the other side can really do is to interject with their own alternative set of assumptions.

Which set is the most rational? And, more to the point here, are philosophers/ethicists able to wade through all of the conflicting assessments down through the ages in order to pin down the optimal or even the only rational frame of mind?

Being a Drag Queen, dressing up as one, is of course a rather fringe activity generally speaking.

The mass introduction of transvestism and other forms of deviancy (deviancy from an established, indeed a universal norm) when it is part of a social movement in which powerful interests get behind and *support* is what is problematic.

So, this is not simply an issue of men who have, throughout history and for different reasons, dressed as women, and it is really something else and something more. Connected to it (as I already presented through the investigative work of Bilek) are corporate interests in the form of corporate bolstering as well as the *industry* that is developing around sex-change, puberty blockers, etc.

Finally, there is the issue of sexual dysphoria which requires some sociological analysis. It could be seen as a pathological social phenomenon. It could be examined as a pathology with links to other, psychological issues. Harder to make sense of, no doubt, and yet this examination cannot be avoided.

But here the question arises: Who will do the examination? And according to what set of criteria?

assumptions regarding human sexuality and gender roles

This statement reflects a very specific outlook and is completely tied up with Marxian praxis. To make the assertion that gender and sexuality are 'assumptions' is one of the key terms that gives it away. Then 'gender roles'. Where did these ideas come from? They are, without any doubt, connected to Marxist praxis and here the acidic idea is used in social activism. On one hand the destablilzation of the family because it is the core 'patriarchal unit'. Not only is woman oppressed by this 'artificial' (assumptive) family unit but children too are oppressed by it and in it.

What more effective tool then than to recommend revolutionary social activism within the family? Convert woman into a Marxist operative. Politicize the relationship-dynamic. Problematize it. Turn the children against paternal and parental authority. And then to *queer* gender and, by extension, imply (as has been implied if you read the seminal texts) that the formerly defined 'normalcy' is, in fact, pathological abnormality that must be addressed through reeducation -- as for example using Maoist methods: shame and blame; 'struggle sessions', parading the backward recalcitrants through the public sphere on a shame walk and not to mention social cancellation.

Any encounter and negotiation with these doctrines, this activism and this praxis, always involves surrendering to it, never the other way around. First, some acceptance and tolerance is granted (first negotiation). Then more is asked for and demanded through activism and PR -- and more concessions are made. Any negotiation in the opposite direction is associated with Nazi control techniques and, of course, internment camps and gas chambers.

It is not hard to see that each negotiation is an incremental loss for what is and can be defined as 'normal'. And the important thing is to recognize that the category of 'normal' is problematized through Marist rhetoric and praxis.

To reverse all of this means seeing how the rhetoric is structured and operates. It also involves recovering ground formerly sacrified.

[Alexis Jacobi]

...but to your point that ''Philosophy'' is about overcoming one's
beliefs and indoctrinations, I hold that in fact, few, very, very
few actually practiced that...

Huh? In no sense is that what 'philosophy' is about nor supposed to be. One can use analytical tools to examine 'beliefs' and 'indoctrination', that is true, but it can also be entirely constructive and through it 'right belief' and the proper basis for a belief can also be worked out.

[Peter Kropotkin]

The word "indoctrination" has a negative connotation.

By using it, you are stating a value judgement on the education that people have received.

K: and the word "indoctrinations" should have a negative connotation....
but let us bring this back to the thread at hand... a defense of
drag shows and drag queens....

my argument would be that people react to this idea by way
of childhood indoctrinations... the state/society/the church/
the media have all said that being trans/gay/drag queen
is inherently wrong.... the why is quite a bit unclear, but
clearly the indoctrinations are against drag shows/and drag queens....

but how many people actually hold to their beliefs/opinions by
way of an ''reevaluation of values" as to what they actually believe,
not to what was their education/indoctrination was....
people are against drag shows because that is what they
were educated/indoctrinated with... nothing more...

I would argue that the majority of people here who are against
drag shows/drag queens were educated with/indoctrinated with
that belief... they are simply beliefs they have carried on from
childhood to adulthood without any evaluation of that belief to whether
it is right/true/or even fair.....a reevaluation of values would suggest
that there is in fact, no harm in drag queens, no harm in drag shows,
that there is no actual moral/ or ethical dilemma with drag shows/queens..
the alleged ''sexualization" of children is already prevalent in the media,
via ads, childhood beauty shows, stuff like hooters.....which I hold
has nothing to do with drag shows/queens....

ok, try this... look at a drag queen, perhaps one posted on this thread....
now try to make the connection to a sexual connotation between the drag
queen and being gay... or trans or simply liking to dress like a women....

what would a child see, if seeing a drag queen at a book reading?
just another adult dressing up... it has no sexual connotation to
a child...it has a sexual connotation to you because of your experience,
but to a child, a drag show would just be more adults singing..
and how is that bad, from that perspective? adults dressing up,
we see that all the time, on TV, movies, ads, commercials..
or don't you watch masterpiece theater? or see ads with adults
dressed up as dinosaurs? you might say, that is grooming a child...
and so is a children beauty contest, and a hooters commercial,
and sad to say, Masterpiece theater...

you can say, with certainty, that anything can be considered to
be grooming of children... you are grooming children into religion
by reading the bible or with bible classes, you are grooming
children into violence with the amount of violence on TV
and with the easy availability of guns in today's America...
you are grooming children into right wing fanaticism by
the right wings hatred of, well frankly, the right wing hates
virtually everything....and that too is grooming... to teach a child
to hate is grooming a child to hate.....

anything can be considered to be grooming... teaching a child
can be considered to be grooming... education is grooming a child....

Kropotkin

[Peter Kropotkin]

As noted above, being a drag queen, much like anything else involving value judgments given the complex nature of human interactions, involves pros and cons.

Those on both sides are able to point to things that are in fact true given their own set of assumptions regarding human sexuality and gender roles. And all the other side can really do is to interject with their own alternative set of assumptions.

Which set is the most rational? And, more to the point here, are philosophers/ethicists able to wade through all of the conflicting assessments down through the ages in order to pin down the optimal or even the only rational frame of mind?

Being a Drag Queen, dressing up as one, is of course a rather fringe activity generally speaking.

The mass introduction of transvestism and other forms of deviancy (deviancy from an established, indeed a universal norm) when it is part of a social movement in which powerful interests get behind and *support* is what is problematic.

So, this is not simply an issue of men who have, throughout history and for different reasons, dressed as women, and it is really something else and something more. Connected to it (as I already presented through the investigative work of Bilek) are corporate interests in the form of corporate bolstering as well as the *industry* that is developing around sex-change, puberty blockers, etc.

Finally, there is the issue of sexual dysphoria which requires some sociological analysis. It could be seen as a pathological social phenomenon. It could be examined as a pathology with links to other, psychological issues. Harder to make sense of, no doubt, and yet this examination cannot be avoided.

But here the question arises: Who will do the examination? And according to what set of criteria?

assumptions regarding human sexuality and gender roles

This statement reflects a very specific outlook and is completely tied up with Marxian praxis. To make the assertion that gender and sexuality are 'assumptions' is one of the key terms that gives it away. Then 'gender roles'. Where did these ideas come from? They are, without any doubt, connected to Marxist praxis and here the acidic idea is used in social activism. On one hand the destablilzation of the family because it is the core 'patriarchal unit'. Not only is woman oppressed by this 'artificial' (assumptive) family unit but children too are oppressed by it and in it.

What more effective tool then than to recommend revolutionary social activism within the family? Convert woman into a Marxist operative. Politicize the relationship-dynamic. Problematize it. Turn the children against paternal and parental authority. And then to *queer* gender and, by extension, imply (as has been implied if you read the seminal texts) that the formerly defined 'normalcy' is, in fact, pathological abnormality that must be addressed through reeducation -- as for example using Maoist methods: shame and blame; 'struggle sessions', parading the backward recalcitrants through the public sphere on a shame walk and not to mention social cancellation.

Any encounter and negotiation with these doctrines, this activism and this praxis, always involves surrendering to it, never the other way around. First, some acceptance and tolerance is granted (first negotiation). Then more is asked for and demanded through activism and PR -- and more concessions are made. Any negotiation in the opposite direction is associated with Nazi control techniques and, of course, internment camps and gas chambers.

It is not hard to see that each negotiation is an incremental loss for what is and can be defined as 'normal'. And the important thing is to recognize that the category of 'normal' is problematized through Marist rhetoric and praxis.

To reverse all of this means seeing how the rhetoric is structured and operates. It also involves recovering ground formerly sacrified.

K: ummm, Marxist "praxis" and who exactly is this Marxist who believes this,
please state your reference matter, so I can investigate this...
in which Marxist book is this Marxist rhetoric/praxis in, so I can
read about it? I have read a great deal of Marxist literature,
perhaps I have that book? so, name your sources for this claim...

Kropotkin

[Iwannaplato]

K: I am old and as I have grown older, I have increased my
belief in psychology as being a driving force in our beliefs...
and allow me to explain that.....

I believe psychology very important in these things. On the other hand ad hominim arguments tend to be a problem. They certainly don't lead to people listening to you more if they are on the side you are psychonalyzing, for example. It's also, often, a fallacious argument.

we are born and at that moment, begins our indoctrination into
the values, beliefs, moral/ethics of any given society....
America is the greatest nation on earth, whites are superior to
blacks, there is a god, war is better than peace (a particular
American value) and we have values and beliefs coming from
our particular social-economic status, job, any number of factors
that drive our belief system

We are also brought up to demonize people we disagree with. Is that a part of your american indoctrination you have been able to question?

So, we are attempting to make an "objective" argument for something,
say, drag shows... but that "objectivity" argument is really
psychological factors

. You can manage to be subjective without psychoanalyzing the people you disagree with. At least, one can, if not you.

there is no such thing as an ''objective'' argument,
there are only arguments from a psychological standpoint...
I was raised Catholic, an example, and so I hold certain beliefs
fundamental to Catholics... if you don't belief in god or Jesus, I don't
see how one could be a Catholic.... and so an "objective" argument
from people will be about what values, indoctrinations, beliefs,
education they were raised with...
and those values/beliefs/education and indoctrinations, are what
drive an "objective" argument, not logic or clear reasoning,
those too are impacted by our beliefs and values and indoctrinations
we were raised with...

It sounds like you are saying you can't imagine a way to communicate with people you disagree with without using ad homs, insults and psycholanalyzing them. I am quite sure you can.

to say it another way, in our thinking, we hold thoughts
and beliefs based on our education and indoctrinations,
not on actual reasoning...so, let us follow this through...

the argument is "drag queens should be shot as deviants"

and any argument for or against, will be an argument
based on our education and indoctrinations, not
on any sort of actual reasoning...for the bottom line
in most arguments begin with the base understanding
of the subject in question, which is our education
and indoctrinations of our youth...society says this is true,
and we hold that to be true and all our arguments come
from this notion that we were raised with and indoctrinated with....
not from ''actual objective'' reasoning... because frankly,
there is no such thing as "objective reasoning", there is only
our indoctrinations from our parents, the state, the media,
the church, our society..... that forms the basis of all
our "objective" reasoning...

None of which supports in any way at all psychoanalyzing and without empathy too the people you disagree with who are going to read your posts, unless your goal is make it less likely for them to listen to the reasons you think and feel differently.

and so any such claim to make an argument from ''Objective"
idea's or values is simply not true...

Total strawman argument here. I never said you should be objective. Obviously values are involved. Nothing you have written here justifies your rude behavior. Not in practical or ethical terms. Unless you simply want to let the people you disagree with know you think you are superior to them.

the best we can do is minimize our childhood indoctrinations
and education, we can't ever shut it down and be purely
"objective"..... all viewpoints, arguments, values begin
with a slant, and that slant begins with our childhood
indoctrinations...

And again, it seems like part of your childhood indoctrination was to emphasize difference between people, demonize enemies, psychoanalzye them, speak in generalities and mindread.

Can you break out of this typical american indoctrination pattern?