Drag Shows!!

[LondonJohn]

“Drag queens are always showing these things called ‘books’ to my children and are clearly grooming them to read.”

 

[JoeMorgue]

Again we've fully looped back to "People with non-traditional sexualities simply existing is them being overly sexual."

A straight male teacher referring to his wife in class isn't sexual, a gay man referring to his husband in class in the exact same context and to the exact same degree is "being sexual in front of the children." Barbie wearing a wedding dress isn't sexual, Barbie wearing a pride shirt is. Same old hateful nonsense.

Are the Drag Queens having sex in front of the children? No? Then shut your bigoted mouth.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I've known several that have said something like "putting on my frock".

//Total hijack//

The military still uses older terms terms that are not generally thought of as feminine to refer to a lot of uniform items; blouse, stocking, I know I'm forgetting some.

 

[LondonJohn]

Again we've fully looped back to "People with non-traditional sexualities simply existing is them being overly sexual."

A straight male teacher referring to his wife in class isn't sexual, a gay man referring to his husband in class in the exact same context and to the exact same degree is "being sexual in front of the children." Barbie wearing a wedding dress isn't sexual, Barbie wearing a pride shirt is. Same old hateful nonsense.

Are the Drag Queens having sex in front of the children? No? Then shut your bigoted mouth.

One of the problems is that, most of the time, people with bigoted views on drag show readings for kids genuinely (and angrily) believe that their views are in no way bigoted.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Again we've fully looped back to "People with non-traditional sexualities simply existing is them being overly sexual."

"Drag Queen" isn't a sexuality.

 

[JoeMorgue]

"Drag Queen" isn't a sexuality.

Tell that to the conservative bigots then.

Nice job only quoting one line of my post and not the rest of the post where the context of what I am saying is clear. We all fell for it.

 

[Robin]

Here's the thing. When Texas Republicans, Fox News, the far right in the UK, Australia and other countries simultaneously jump onto a bandwagon about which they have shown exactly zero interest, it makes it a little difficult to sell the pup that this is all due to some principled concern about women's oppression.

Especially since nearly all women don't appear to share this concern.

 

[Emily's Cat]

Here's the thing. When Texas Republicans, Fox News, the far right in the UK, Australia and other countries simultaneously jump onto a bandwagon about which they have shown exactly zero interest, it makes it a little difficult to sell the pup that this is all due to some principled concern about women's oppression.

Especially since nearly all women don't appear to share this concern.

The right wing don't give two flying ***** about female oppression. They care about forced conformation to regressive sex-based norms, in particular they care about the continued oppression of females without any homosexuals or cross dressers getting in the way of their patriarchy.

On the other hand... the not-insignificant number of feminist women who complain about it do care about female oppression.

See, feminists and the right wing aren't the same thing, no matter how hard people might try to tarnish us by vague association with some johnny-come-latelies who are hitching their donkey to our horse carriage.

 

[Upchurch]

On the other hand... the not-insignificant number of feminist women who complain about it do care about female oppression.

There is that phrase again, “not-insignificant number”. Last time, IIRC, you used it to describe the number of pedophile drag queens performing story hours for kids, but wasn’t able to support that claim with any real numbers, let alone significant numbers.

Can you clarify the claim this time?

 

[catsmate]

Anyone for breakfast?

 

[Thermal]

Wasn't this thread supposed to be about the unique intersection of drag and children?

 

[Robin]

On the other hand... the not-insignificant number of feminist women who complain about it do care about female oppression.

You claim that a not insignificant number of feminists complain about drag. That hasn't been my experience.

See, feminists and the right wing aren't the same thing, no matter how hard people might try to tarnish us by vague association with some johnny-come-latelies who are hitching their donkey to our horse carriage.

I obviously didn't try to tarnish feminists with that association because I don't agree that feminists in general complain about drag. That is your claim.

I have said, the only feminists who I have known to complain about drag are the same kind who claim that rape is the way all men seek to control all women.

That sort of "feminist" doesn't need any associations to be tarnished. Thankfully I don't have any association with that crowd any more.

But are you seriously going to bury your head in the sand and ignore that the current moral panic about drag queens is being driven by the far right?

It is not being driven by feminists.

Right now it is you who are hitching your donkey to their horse.

 

[Robin]

Wasn't this thread supposed to be about the unique intersection of drag and children?

I thought it was about the moral panic that is currently being cynically confected by the loony tunes right about drag queens and children.

 

[Upchurch]

You claim that a not insignificant number of feminists complain about drag.

Numerical significance is a testable claim. Somehow, EC loves to make the claim and never supports it.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

What's worn under the kilt?

Well, it’s only worn if you use it too much.

 

[catsmate]

I thought it was about the moral panic that is currently being cynically confected by the loony tunes right about drag queens and children.

And the title is 'Drag Shows!!'.

 

[dann]

There is that phrase again, “not-insignificant number”. Last time, IIRC, you used it to describe the number of pedophile drag queens performing story hours for kids, but wasn’t able to support that claim with any real numbers, let alone significant numbers.

Can you clarify the claim this time?

In this context, I think it means ≥ 1.

 

[Upchurch]

The error you're making is in assuming that supporting the eradication of sex-based gender roles in some way implies that one must also support the performative caricature of regressive female sex-based stereotypes by males. I really don't think it implies that in any way whatsoever. In fact, I believe that supporting the eradication of sex-based gender roles should also result in the eradication of male performances based on those regressive stereotypes.

As yet another thread split has reminded me, this is off-topic. There is an entirely different thread for that discussion.

 

[Robin]

This is a misunderstanding on your part.

Some people who acknowledge that sex is binary and biological ALSO think that sex-based gender roles should be rigidly enforced. Those people are largely religious conservatives.

I don't believe that anyone posting in this or related threads falls into that category.

There are also people who acknowledge that sex is binary and biological, and who think that sex-based gender roles are stupid and we'd all be better off without them. I fall into that category.

The error you're making is in assuming that supporting the eradication of sex-based gender roles in some way implies that one must also support the performative caricature of regressive female sex-based stereotypes by males. I really don't think it implies that in any way whatsoever. In fact, I believe that supporting the eradication of sex-based gender roles should also result in the eradication of male performances based on those regressive stereotypes.

So you are saying that we should get rid of the stereotypes but in the meantime we should respect the stereotypes and never make fun of them??

 

[arthwollipot]

Well, it’s only worn if you use it too much.

I'll give that. The punchline I learned is "Nothing! It's all in perfect working order!"