a defense of drag show/drag queens..

[Flannel Jesus]

Look, AJ was wondering above about me not responding to his latest "wall of words" post to me. So, I did. And what do I get from him?

This:

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

But your reply was entirely full of your canned habitual things you say all the time that Satyr catalogued. That post itself that you're talking about is exemplary of how formulaic your responses are. You're stuck saying the same things in the same ways over and over again, across various forums and to various people and in various contexts. You have a little box you allow yourself to think in, which is why it's so easy for satyr to succinctly catalogue your writings.

Okay, okay, my Four Stooges.

Now, as with AJ, by all means, put me on ignore.

You gotta get over these canned responses. They put you in your comfort zone so you don't have to think past anything. I know you're capable of it. Embrace the discomfort.

[phyllo]

That's it? No link or anything? Okay mate.

In other news, here's a drag queen with a kid :

jne2o22u46sa1.jpg

You don't know about this :

Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH), Drag Queen Storytime, Drag Story Time, and Drag Story Hour are children's events first started in 2015 by author and activist Michelle Tea in San Francisco with the goals of promoting reading and diversity.[1][2][3] The events, usually geared for children aged 3–11, are hosted by drag queens who read children’s books, and engage in other learning activities in public libraries.[4][5][6] Some see the concept as unconventional since libraries are usually more reserved and the queens usually host nightlife events rather than leading sing-alongs.[7]

Jonathan Hamilt, who co-founded the New York chapter as a nonprofit, said that as of June 2019, DSH has 35 U.S. and five international chapters.[7] The program strives to "capture the imagination and play of gender fluidity of childhood and gives kids glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models".[8]

The practice has been labelled as "grooming" by social conservatives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_Queen_Story_Hour

[Flannel Jesus]

Those aren't at schools, as far as I can see, and they aren't about sexual fetishes. He made a strong point that these people are dressing as women because of a sexual fetish or something like that - I thought he was referring to something more specific than "people in drag in general", since there's no way to know afaik that someone in drag is doing it as a sexual fetish unless they tell you.

So if it's not in schools, and it's not explicitly a sexual fetish, then it doesn't match the criteria he laid out

[Flannel Jesus]

So people are talking about real cross-dressers (people who routinely engage in the activity for sexual reasons) being allowed into the schools.

The quote in question above

[Flannel Jesus]

I think I need to make this clarifying post because I can foresee a response where someone claims my distinction here between library and school is pedantic.

It's not pedantic. There is a huge difference between a parent choosing to take their child to a book reading at a library, and a child who by law must be at school being forced to interact with something.

It's the difference between parents taking their kids to church with them, vs public schools having religious lessons telling the kids religious facts. One we all accept - whether we're religious or not, the idea of a parent taking their kids to a church to be taught something that I personally don't believe in is just... the world. Parents take their kids to do stuff, and even if I don't like that a kid is being brainwashed into Catholicism, I also accept that as part of a pluralistic society with freedom of speech that I ought to allow it anyway, because the alternative is the government deciding what religions are true and allowed to be taught, and I don't think I want the government deciding that.

But I do want those catholics out of public schools.

So the difference between a voluntary reading event at a library and a mandatory event at a public school is HUGE.

[phyllo]

Why do we have to be mindless zombies who approve of everything?

Why do we have to be labeled as fearful if we don't want something to be happening?

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.

Of course people on all sides of various issues do this kind of thing and generally they hate it when the other team aims this at them. But today it seems accepted as fair game.

First off, PK is proud of reducing issues down to a dichotomy. This :

I have been accused of being "binary" in my views...
and what exactly does that mean?

Binary: relating to, composed of, or involving two things...
noun: something having two parts... ''a binary star"

now we have a choice when creating.. we can hold to a view
about the many.. which is apparently what my critics want,
or we can concentrate on two possibilities...

the problem as I see it is this, when talking about multiple choices,
is that we become unfocused on what choices are the most likely...
in other words, given a dozen choices, which one is more likely?
it becomes a pick and choose game... and I can't as a thinker,
lay out all the possibilities for all those choices...
I have to weed out several choices to keep my post to
a readable level.. when offered a many choices,
how do we weed out all those choices into something
manageable?

and as an author, we are always weeding out choices,
for logistics purposes... when asked, is man good or evil?
the correct answer is both/neither... but logistical,
how would I make that point in a post, without
making the post several pages long? so one makes choices,

good vs evil.. is that binary? yep, but it keeps the argument
simpler and more manageable...is that annoying, yep,
but as the author, that is a choice I make to keep the argument
on track...

do third possibilities exists? yes, always, but that slows the argument down
and makes creating an argument much harder...as an writer,
who has written on philosophy websites like this for decades
and has written a book that was published online, I make
the choices that best fit what I am trying to say... and usually
binary choices, A or B, make the most sense in writing out
a thread or post like this...so I shall continue to be "binary"
when I write... and if that bothers you, oh well... not
my problem.... my problem is creating a thread or post,
that is readable and clear and coherent... and by my making
my choices "binary" I do just that....

Kropotkin

What can one say about such bizarre "reasoning"? One just has to laugh.

As for other posters, I think it's easier and less time consuming to go after the supposed psychology of the opponent than to research the issues and to present a reasonable argument. So it's common, especially in casual places like internet forums and the internet social sites in general.

I think that it's awful but I don't think it's going away any time soon.

The best one can do, is to try to move the discussion back to the issues whenever it drifts away. An uphill battle for sure.

[phyllo]

I think I need to make this clarifying post because I can foresee a response where someone claims my distinction here between library and school is pedantic.

It's not pedantic. There is a huge difference between a parent choosing to take their child to a book reading at a library, and a child who by law must be at school being forced to interact with something.

It's the difference between parents taking their kids to church with them, vs public schools having religious lessons telling the kids religious facts. One we all accept - whether we're religious or not, the idea of a parent taking their kids to a church to be taught something that I personally don't believe in is just... the world. Parents take their kids to do stuff, and even if I don't like that a kid is being brainwashed into Catholicism, I also accept that as part of a pluralistic society with freedom of speech that I ought to allow it anyway, because the alternative is the government deciding what religions are true and allowed to be taught, and I don't think I want the government deciding that.

But I do want those catholics out of public schools.

So the difference between a voluntary reading event at a library and a mandatory event at a public school is HUGE.

Did you read this in the link:

As of February 2020, there are 50+ official chapters of DSH, spread internationally, as well as other drag artists holding reading events at libraries, schools, bookstores, and museums.

There have been events in schools.

Back to libraries : Since libraries are usually publicly funded, people believe that they ought to have a say in what kind of programs are being run and how their tax money is spent. As IWP has pointed out, people would complain if Catholic priests were presenting Catholic Story Hour in a library.

[Flannel Jesus]

I don't think drag story time should be in public schools, I missed that that was happening, which is why I asked for a source, so thank you for the source. I agree that it's at least a valid consideration if it should be in public libraries, for reasons you stated.

[Flannel Jesus]

I still maintain that drag isn't a massive deviancy, it has a place in popular culture, literally for millennia. It isn't sexual inherently and the categorization of it as such would need to be justified. It's not inherently misogynistic either, plenty of women watch drag without feeling like they're being hated, and I've never seen any explicitly mysoginistic messaging from the drag community as a whole - not that there aren't individual drag queens who hate women, of course.

I think having a legal categorisation of women's clothes and men's clothes seems inherently silly. I've made posts saying that the idea that gender is entirely a social construct is silly, but it must be noted that the clothing aspect of gender IS a social construct. There is no natural fact about humans that says women wear skirts and men don't, this is a cultural artifact. Solidifying that into law seems as absurd as designating what music someone likes based on their skin colour. "People with penises can't wear skirts" on the surface looks to me like "white people can't listen to rap".

[Alexis Jacobi]

FJ wrote: It's not pedantic. There is a huge difference between a parent choosing to take their child to a book reading at a library, and a child who by law must be at school being forced to interact with something.

The larger issue, and the controversial one, is the acceleration of ‘drift’ in permissiveness from one set of mores of ‘proper sexual conduct’ to another one which does not seem to have boundaries.

Inevitably, one specific event (like a drag queen at a children’s reading event) becomes a lightening rod for a wide range of social concerns.

Thus The Culture Wars.

And as I have attempted to point out, sexuality can be made into a tool and an armament when it is used by those inclined to a Marxian activism and praxis.

But what I have just said here — an accusation really — is and will be denied by those who see things differently. Then, it resolves back once again to issues of ideology, religious and cultural identity, social mores, the sense of what is right, proper and appropriate (for children, but what we teach to children is really a condensation of the values we want to instill in the world).

[Flannel Jesus]

Yeah but you think gay people should go back to the closet, so... I mean, your barometer for what you consider acceptable is completely out of whack compared to most other people in this conversation. The range of behaviours you consider allowable is just clearly too tight.

[Iwannaplato]

First off, PK is proud of reducing issues down to a dichotomy. This :

I have been accused of being "binary" in my views...

I was the one who accused him of being binary. I probably should have used 'dichotemy.' But yeah, he loves two things, opposed in all ways, no overlap, one good, one bad.

What can one say about such bizarre "reasoning"? One just has to laugh.

Yes.

As for other posters, I think it's easier and less time consuming to go after the supposed psychology of the opponent than to research the issues and to present a reasonable argument. So it's common, especially in casual places like internet forums and the internet social sites in general.

I think that it's awful but I don't think it's going away any time soon.

The best one can do, is to try to move the discussion back to the issues whenever it drifts away. An uphill battle for sure.

I'm guilty of this also. I intend this to only be a response when it is aimed at me or 'the enemy'. And I likely focus too much on the behavior of posters.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Yeah but you think gay people should go back to the closet, so... I mean, your barometer for what you consider acceptable is completely out of whack compared to most other people in this conversation. The range of behaviours you consider allowable is just clearly too tight.

My comment was largely ironic (I qualified this numerous times), and I said as well that in our Liberal societies people have the right to do as they generally please. To ‘go back into the closet’ — but a far larger and virtually non-restrictive one (as is the present one) — is also ironic: it is not much of a closet. It is spacious.

And what I also said is that I perceive that gay right activism is often inappropriate and disrespectful of established social norms. And when combined with hard-charging social activism (c.f. James Lindsay) this activism is problematic. Thus a less ‘flaming’ and more demure attitude is one I recommend. My recommendation has no power behind it though. Except that of a tighter argument.

I can illustrate what I perceive as over-the-top and too aggressively militant with a cultural text. It is something that can be examined and thought about.

[iambiguous]

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.

https://sar1729.wixsite.com/mysite-2/po ... ke-a-queen

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?

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?

Or, instead, as I propose, is it far more likely that your own thoughts and feelings here are embedded both in your indoctrination as children and in your own unique set of personal experiences as an adult that made you far more inclined, prone, susceptible to one set of moral and political prejudices rather than another.

Once God and religion are presumed not to be a factor here.

[Flannel Jesus]

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.