Drag Shows!!

[Stacyhs]

I repeat:

Originally Posted by lionking View Post
The mission of DQSH is to instruct young children about gender issues (the program’s words). Since when is “Drag Queen” a gender?

Just what do you think they are trying to instruct them about regarding gender?

 

[The Atheist]

My daughter would have been saved a lot of pain, a lot of hospitalization, and a lot of misery if she'd been given more examples. She was still in 3rd grade at school when she tried to kill herself. At what age do you think she should have been allowed to find out there were other people like her?

While that's tragic, and LGBT are high in the suicide stats, I think it's drawing a long bow to say it would have changed anything.

Gay people have been out a long time now.

 

[Upchurch]

While that's tragic, and LGBT are high in the suicide stats, I think it's drawing a long bow to say it would have changed anything.

Gay people have been out a long time now.

It's more the "T" part than the "G" part. And, yes, it is a drop in the bucket, but these things take baby-steps until it reaches a critical-mass and actual social change happens.

 

[plague311]

Take it up with Wikipedia. That definition is quite similar to Emily Cat’s description of drag as well.

I don't have to take it up with anyone. You know why? Because anyone can add anything to Wikipedia they want. That's why it's, at best, a bit of a reference. Unless, of course, after that statement you saw a link to a source that proved that's true? It sounds like an opinion. You do know what opinions are, right? Also, I don't care about Emily Cat's description of drag. She's not an authority. She's just another person with an opinion. It means no more or less than anyone else's. It's also at odds with Stacyhs opinion. Why is EC's more important to you? Confirmation bias? That'd be my guess.

While that's tragic, and LGBT are high in the suicide stats, I think it's drawing a long bow to say it would have changed anything.

Gay people have been out a long time now.

While you may be correct, "out" and "accepted" are completely different things. I don't think it's drawing a long bow at all considering, as you said, LGBT are higher in suicide rates. I would guess, and deadrose should absolutely correct me if I'm wrong, but the attempt was probably because she felt alone, and different. Had she seen and interacted with more people like her, heard their stories, heard their struggles, saw how they handled it, and realized that the way she feels isn't different at all, then there's no reason at all to think it wouldn't have prevented that attempt. I'd say the line is clear, actually.

 

[Thermal]

I repeat:

Well, according to them, they are trying to create positive queer role models. Ok. Does that work? I mean, if you present a person with atypical presentation as an exaggerated, flamboyant entertainer, might the kids walk away thinking of them as clowns? I'm not confident that this works the way the thread is assuming.

 

[Thermal]

I don't have to take it up with anyone. You know why? Because anyone can add anything to Wikipedia they want. That's why it's, at best, a bit of a reference.

That works both ways, though. There is an army of nerds policing the entries to make sure they stay accurate. Like, if you ammend a Wiki entry with some crazy ****, it is corrected usually within seconds. Thats why Wiki is regarded as more reliable than most encyclopedia entries. The days of successfully vandalizing entries for kicks are long behind us.

Try it. Pump some crazy **** in the definitions and see how long it stays up, and if Wiki bans you from contributing on vandalism grounds.

ETA: Wiki also sources and cites and links to authoritative sites. Think about the J6 attack. Have the Trumpsters rewrote the events?

 

[wareyin]

Well, according to them, they are trying to create positive queer role models. Ok. Does that work? I mean, if you present a person with atypical presentation as an exaggerated, flamboyant entertainer, might the kids walk away thinking of them as clowns? I'm not confident that this works the way the thread is assuming.

Are you unable to see a flamboyant entertainer as anything but a clown?

Are you unable to comprehend that kids being at an event, seeing a drag performer being treated like a fellow human being by all the other adults, will then grow up to think that's how adults do it? As opposed to the Emily's Cats in the room who run around screaming about how they're all pedophiles who must be shunned teaching kids that people in drag are all scary pedophiles?

That works both ways, though. There is an army of nerds policing the entries to make sure they stay accurate. Like, if you ammend a Wiki entry with some crazy ****, it is corrected usually within seconds. Thats why Wiki is regarded as more reliable than most encyclopedia entries. The days of successfully vandalizing entries for kicks are long behind us.

Try it. Pump some crazy **** in the definitions and see how long it stays up, and if Wiki bans you from contributing on vandalism grounds.

ETA: Wiki also sources and cites and links to authoritative sites. Think about the J6 attack. Have the Trumpsters rewrote the events?

Ok. Now cite the source of the disputed opinion you're pretending is in the wiki entry on drag.

 

[Thermal]

Are you unable to see a flamboyant entertainer as anything but a clown?

Are you unable to comprehend that kids being at an event, seeing a drag performer being treated like a fellow human being by all the other adults, will then grow up to think that's how adults do it? As opposed to the Emily's Cats in the room who run around screaming about how they're all pedophiles who must be shunned teaching kids that people in drag are all scary pedophiles?

I am an adult. Work the rest out on your own time.

Ok. Now cite the source of the disputed opinion you're pretending is in the wiki entry on drag.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_queen

Done. Leading paragraph was my cite. You got a point, or are you just preparing to vandalize the entry like a child, and see how long it takes to repair it?

ETA: come on, wareyin, hurry up and be the last 4channer left in the world who intentionally vandalizes Wiki. BTW, you are lying to say that I "pretended" that specifically the summary was cited. If you want a seat at the grown ups table, you have to bag the lying.

 

[plague311]

That works both ways, though. There is an army of nerds policing the entries to make sure they stay accurate. Like, if you ammend a Wiki entry with some crazy ****, it is corrected usually within seconds. Thats why Wiki is regarded as more reliable than most encyclopedia entries. The days of successfully vandalizing entries for kicks are long behind us.

Yes, it is possible, but as I said this is an opinion thing. It's not a fact.

Try it. Pump some crazy **** in the definitions and see how long it stays up, and if Wiki bans you from contributing on vandalism grounds.

I don't need to, I agree with you.

ETA: Wiki also sources and cites and links to authoritative sites. Think about the J6 attack. Have the Trumpsters rewrote the events?

Yup, that's why I specifically said:

Unless, of course, after that statement you saw a link to a source that proved that's true?

I'm not arguing with you at all. I'm in agreement, but that doesn't make the quoted part anymore of a fact than an opinion.

 

[wareyin]

I am an adult. Work the rest out on your own time.

What does that even mean? You're apparently confused how a person in drag can be a role model to kids, and I'm trying to figure out how much you understand about how kids learn from the adults around them.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_queen

Done. Leading paragraph was my cite. You got a point, or are you just preparing to vandalize the entry like a child, and see how long it takes to repair it?

Sigh. You said the opinion in the wikipedia article could be trusted because wikipedia provides sources for its claims. So I asked you to cite the source for that opinion. Instead, you link the wiki page and dance and prance about vandalization. It's a shame that the introspective Thermal I saw in the FMF threads seems to have gone on hiatus.

ETA: come on, wareyin, hurry up and be the last 4channer left in the world who intentionally vandalizes Wiki. BTW, you are lying to say that I "pretended" that specifically the summary was cited. If you want a seat at the grown ups table, you have to bag the lying.

Why the **** would I want or need to vandalize an article because you want to trust an unsourced opinion? You're claiming we can trust that opinion on that wiki page because "Wiki also sources and cites and links to authoritative sites", so either that's a non sequitur or you're trying to get people to think that this opinion was sourced or authoritative. Which is it?

 

[Stacyhs]

I repeat:

Originally Posted by lionking View Post
The mission of DQSH is to instruct young children about gender issues (the program’s words). Since when is “Drag Queen” a gender?

Just what do you think they are trying to instruct them about regarding gender?

Well, according to them, they are trying to create positive queer role models. Ok. Does that work? I mean, if you present a person with atypical presentation as an exaggerated, flamboyant entertainer, might the kids walk away thinking of them as clowns? I'm not confident that this works the way the thread is assuming.

I didn't ask 'according to them'. I asked what lionking thought they are trying to instruct them about regarding gender? Still haven't received an answer.


By the way, the part you quoted from Wiki gives no source.

Petty nitpicks: the Drag Queen Story Hour officially changed its name to the Drag Story Hour for whatever reason. Per ye olde Wiki, "A drag queen is a person, usually male, who uses drag clothing and makeup to imitate and often exaggerate female gender signifiers and gender roles for entertainment purposes. Historically, drag queens have usually been gay men, and part of gay culture." So I think the thread is conflating men in drag with drag queens. The latter have a specific sexual orientation pretty hard wired into the description, and that they are exaggerating for entertainment is formally part of the gig. This is not about gender expression; it is putting up an entertainer who by definition is exaggerating female signifiers.

 

[Thermal]

What does that even mean? You're apparently confused how a person in drag can be a role model to kids, and I'm trying to figure out how much you understand about how kids learn from the adults around them.

No, I am questioning whether the thread's assumptions are valid. Having a psychologist for a wife and having raised three kids leads me to believe y'all are making unwarranted assumptions. Kids, as I said, may compartmentalize colorful entertainers as clowns. That might be the "role" that these supposed "role models" are actually "modeling".

Sigh. You said the opinion in the wikipedia article could be trusted because wikipedia provides sources for its claims. So I asked you to cite the source for that opinion. Instead, you link the wiki page and dance and prance about vandalization. It's a shame that the introspective Thermal I saw in the FMF threads seems to have gone on hiatus.

All applicable Thermals have low tolerance for word games. See below.

Why the **** would I want or need to vandalize an article because you want to trust an unsourced opinion? You're claiming we can trust that opinion on that wiki page because "Wiki also sources and cites and links to authoritative sites", so either that's a non sequitur or you're trying to get people to think that this opinion was sourced or authoritative. Which is it?

First, it's not an opinion. It's an encyclopedic summary. If you want to play word games and call it an opinion, then we are challenging virtually every definition on the planet, including dictionaries, which even if they were sourced, is likely citing another opinion.

Second, I said Wiki is generally credible because it also cited sources, not because it does so in every sentence or summary paragraph. A summary is not generally cited, because it is a brief ******* summary.

Third, I am 110% done with playing word games.

 

[Stacyhs]

Yea!!!!!

 

[arthwollipot]

The mission of DQSH is to instruct young children about gender issues (the program’s words).

I'm not sure that "instruct" is the right word here. "Illustrate" would be more accurate. The point of the program is to show kids that people with non-standard gender expression exist, that they're just like other people, and it's okay to interact with them. That's not "instruction" but it is exposing them to certain aspects of the real world that some would rather remain hidden.

Why hide the fact from children that there are people with non-standard gender expression? What purpose does that serve? Personally, I believe that it is better for kids to grow up with the idea that this is normal and not at all unusual, rather than for them to discover it later in life, which could be a source of confusion, distress and hostility.

 

[Upchurch]

The mission of DQSH is to instruct young children about gender issues (the program’s words).

Source?

I did not see that anywhere on their website. At least, not those words in that context. They talked about “We created a resource page to help adults and kids explore drag, gender, and identity together.”, for example, which could, in no way be honestly paraphrased the way you have and made to sound like a direct reference “the program’s words”.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Meanwhile, I moved to Michigan and they are having a drag event as part of their winter festival right on he city hall plaza

https://worldofwintergr.com/events/winters-a-drag-1

Which is surprising because Western Michigan is pretty religious....and not a lot of it is in the cool unitarian way.

 

[Upchurch]

Meanwhile, I moved to Michigan and they are having a drag event as part of their winter festival right on he city hall plaza

https://worldofwintergr.com/events/winters-a-drag-1

Which is surprising because Western Michigan is pretty religious....and not a lot of it is in the cool unitarian way.

Has Kevin Bacon been to that area recently?

 

[wareyin]

No, I am questioning whether the thread's assumptions are valid. Having a psychologist for a wife and having raised three kids leads me to believe y'all are making unwarranted assumptions. Kids, as I said, may compartmentalize colorful entertainers as clowns. That might be the "role" that these supposed "role models" are actually "modeling".

Does your extensive experience of having a spouse lead you to think kids will look for ways to mock minorities? Or could it be that, as a father who mocks minorities on the regular (on this board at least), you have kids who also lean towards mockery as a way to deal with minorities? Shouldn't that tell you that kids learn how to treat others by watching their parents, and kids whose parents are trying to teach tolerance and acceptance by example will have the same success you did teaching your kids to mock and belittle?

All applicable Thermals have low tolerance for word games. See below.



First, it's not an opinion. It's an encyclopedic summary. If you want to play word games and call it an opinion, then we are challenging virtually every definition on the planet, including dictionaries, which even if they were sourced, is likely citing another opinion.

Nonsense. It's an opinion on why people perform drag, without a credible explanation or source for that "why". It's obviously an opinion that you, Emily's Cat, and lionking agree with, but your personal biases do not make that opinion any more authoritative or an "encyclopedic summary".

Second, I said Wiki is generally credible because it also cited sources, not because it does so in every sentence or summary paragraph. A summary is not generally cited, because it is a brief ******* summary.

Third, I am 110% done with playing word games.

Thermal tries (and fails) to redefine that one sentence in the middle of the paragraph as a "summary" to get around the fact that it's an unsourced opinion, then declares that he's done with word games so he doesn't have to support the unsupportable position he's taken.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Has Kevin Bacon been to that area recently?

I realize now you were making a Footloose reference but for a few moments I thought you were making a Tremors reference and I was having quite a hard time figuring out what, precisely, you thought was happening in Michigan. I'm not sure whether being in drag would be an advantage or disadvantage in a Tremors situation: would high heels attract the monsters by concentrating the weight into a smaller area when stepping, or would it be less attractive to them because they'd think the target was smaller? As always when a debate rages it all works its way around to physics, physics and monster attacks, and Kevin Bacon's magnificent tawny mane of 1980s hair. Normally I don't like long hair on men but on him, it worked.

 

[Upchurch]

I realize now you were making a Footloose reference but for a few moments I thought you were making a Tremors reference and I was having quite a hard time figuring out what, precisely, you thought was happening in Michigan. [snip]

I am at a loss trying to decide which reference is more entertaining. Honestly, I think I'd rather watch your movie than Footloose 2: Kinky Boots.