Drag Shows!!

[Stacyhs]

It's not any more reprehensible. What IS more reprehensible is that many people seem to be taking the drag queen's side, with little to no care for the person who they harmed.

Quote one poster here who has taken Sharon Needles' or Alaska T's side (the drag queen) or who has taken "little to no care for the person who they harmed". And remember, this incident is an unproven allegation only. Neither Needles nor Alaska T have been charged.

 

[Thermal]

If it isn't sexual, it isn't 'stripping'; it's just dancing.

Performed virtually exclusively in strip clubs.

"Daaaaaad, I told you, I'm a professional performerr, not a stripper"

 

[Stacyhs]

I'll mark you down as being a supporter of "Stripper Story Time" for young kids then. At least you're honest, I guess.

What part of " If you remove the sexual aspects of stripping and pole dancing, it's just dancing," did you not understand?

Pole dancing classes are commonplace because, as already stated, they're a great workout. They are not stripping classes or gateway to grooming children classes.

 

[tyr_13]

Vacuousness and shoulder shrugging are not intelligent answers to "why TF are you doing this?"

You were given more than that. Your ignoring it, as I said you would, isn't an intelligent answer.

You seem to have misunderstood the question posed. I'm asking you to show support for your claim.

You made the claim. Or, you would have if you could coherently organize your objection. The claim you're dancing around is that there is something wrong with drag story hours.

Like, is there some peer reviewed research that shows that a hired man in a dress reading a story in a library has a demonstrable positive effect? Or is it more "you just have a feeling?" Cuz that would be pretty funny.

Is there any reason to suspect being in drag would be a significant factor to change the benefits that any other story hour has? You're demanding more evidence for this specifically for no valid reason than your feelings. Again, you made the claim.

"Reasoning" has yet to be presented. Repeating empty, generic platitudes and shrugging shoulders is poodle-level critical thinking.

Also the main group cited changed its name from Drag Queen Story Hour to Drag Story Hour. Presumably, there was an issue with "queens", or they thought that any old man in a dress would do? This isn't an issue of Drag/Queen inclusivity or acceptance. It's just a weird round peg to be beating into a square hole. Especially because children that young would not likely have any idea what is going on. So...what? It's for the adults to congratulate themselves over?

The reasoning was fine. Your denial is meaningless. It's just denial, and to call rejection of that denial 'poodle-level critical thinking' is just empty.

If you think it's for the adults to congratulate themselves over, support that claim. It isn't the burden of others to support or disprove your suspicions. Critical thinking requires you to support your own claims, poodle-level or not.

 

[tyr_13]

Performed virtually exclusively in strip clubs.

"Daaaaaad, I told you, I'm a professional performerr, not a stripper"

Non-sexual dance is performed virtually exclusively in strip clubs? Did you miss the 'non-sexual' part?

 

[Stacyhs]

Performed virtually exclusively in strip clubs.

"Daaaaaad, I told you, I'm a professional performerr, not a stripper"

Maybe that's because not too many homes have poles in them? Where else do you think there would be poles installed?
I suggest you look up 'pole dancing classes near me' and see just how many regular dance studios and fitness gyms have them. My niece is dancer and has been on tour domestically and internationally as part of a group. She enjoys pole classes because it takes a lot of work and strengthens her muscles. And no, she is not a stripper.

 

[Stacyhs]

Non-sexual dance is performed virtually exclusively in strip clubs? Did you miss the 'non-sexual' part?

Some people have a very difficult time separating 'sex' from a lot of things. It's a wonder they aren't demanding eating hot dogs to be banned for people under 18.

 

[Upchurch]

This is absolutely NOT a revision of US history.

I mean, it's not like you have the best track record telling the difference between actual US history and propaganda.

 

[Robin]

NAMBLA and various pedophile apologists infested the gay rights efforts in teh late 70s. They were finally REMOVED in the 90s.

Public acceptance of homosexuality turned around pretty quickly once the pedophiles were removed from the efforts.

So we've reached the stage of outright homophobic lies then have we?

I was part of the gay rights movement in hr UK from the early eighties and many of my friends were members of the Gay Liberation Front. We had many contacts with the US movement.

Sure the pedos tried to infiltrate, we wouldn't let them.

I note that one lesbian who signed a manifesto.supporting NAMBLA was the professional dickhead Camille Paglia.

You will note that Paglia is poison in the gay activist community and right wingers absolutely love her to death.

Strange that we get criticised by right wingers for."cancelling" both of their favourite pedo lovers and yet they still try on the pedophile smear.

 

[Robin]

It's not any more reprehensible. What IS more reprehensible is that many people seem to be taking the drag queen's side

Who, for example?

 

[tyr_13]

If there's other discourse out there about a specific demographic reading to children I don't know about it.

I'm not saying only Drag Queens are reading to children, I'm saying Drag Queens are the only specific group I'm aware of that we're arguing about needing to read to children.

My point is this whole debate doesn't feel organic to me. "You know what the world needs? More Drag Queens reading to children" is not a thought that anyone ever woke and just organically had.
That doesn't make that side, or any side, wrong. But it's a data point it's not reasonable to expect all of us to tiptoe around and pretend we don't notice.

Missed this earlier.

It isn't organic and that's not the debate being had. If the current debate in the US was whether or not to set aside public funds not just for reading hours but specifically drag reading hours because of their unique benefit, yeah, it would be incumbent on the people making that argument to support it.

But it isn't. The argument being hand is if drag reading hours are a danger to children to the point that they (and drag in general) should be restricted to people over the age of eighteen. Those are the arguments and laws being talked about. The reason it's drag specifically is because that's what's being attacked. The clown and super hero and princess and Star Wars reading hours aren't at risk of being banned or even labeled dangerous so of course there isn't a national discourse on them. The people arguing it's sexual and dangerous and somehow wrong for kids to be exposed to have the burden to support that claim.

If it's personal curiosity as to why drag reading hours remain a thing, they're popular. Why? Go back and read the thread, again specifically the responses to Thermal where he claims he wasn't given straight answers but was. Repeatedly. In more detail than is needed. You or me or Thermal not personally 'feeling it' isn't a data point for or against it at all. I don't 'get' why parents take kids to eat at Hooters. That says nothing about if it should be eighteen plus only. In fact I wouldn't want that to happen for it or less sexually charged versions of maid cafe.

 

[Thermal]

Missed this earlier.

It isn't organic and that's not the debate being had. If the current debate in the US was whether or not to set aside public funds not just for reading hours but specifically drag reading hours because of their unique benefit, yeah, it would be incumbent on the people making that argument to support it.

But it isn't. The argument being hand is if drag reading hours are a danger to children to the point that they (and drag in general) should be restricted to people over the age of eighteen. Those are the arguments and laws being talked about. The reason it's drag specifically is because that's what's being attacked. The clown and super hero and princess and Star Wars reading hours aren't at risk of being banned or even labeled dangerous so of course there isn't a national discourse on them. The people arguing it's sexual and dangerous and somehow wrong for kids to be exposed to have the burden to support that claim.

If it's personal curiosity as to why drag reading hours remain a thing, they're popular. Why? Go back and read the thread, again specifically the responses to Thermal where he claims he wasn't given straight answers but was. Repeatedly. In more detail than is needed. You or me or Thermal not personally 'feeling it' isn't a data point for or against it at all. I don't 'get' why parents take kids to eat at Hooters. That says nothing about if it should be eighteen plus only. In fact I wouldn't want that to happen for it or less sexually charged versions of maid cafe.

I think I see the problem, now. You are having a debate with voices in your head, instead of with the other posters.

What I am saying, and have been saying all along, is "but why tho? I don't get this". It's that simple. I am not arguing that it hurts children, of benefits them. It just makes no sense.

If a course in beginners ski instruction was offered, the instructor's sexual orientation is irrelevant. I just want to know how well they teach skiing. Same with story hour. I don't care if the storyteller is a man dressed as a woman. It's irrelevant to whether they are an engaging raconteur. So the obsession with combining these utterly unrelated traits seems really off the wall. What makes a ton of sense is that being a drag queen story reader is super important because it seems hip and trendy to the adults. The 3 and 5 year old audience likely doesn't have a ******* clue that the storyteller is a man who is really into dressing like a woman. I mean, seriously: do you think the 4 year olds walk away saying "ya know, my prejudices against drag queens were not justified. They sure can read a great story! Maybe I'll stop beating up the drag queens in the bar parking lot at night"?

This has little to do with children, and a lot to do with adult virtue signaling, to my eye. Unless you have some data on benefits of this particular niche approach? Oh, that's right. I've already asked you twice and you keep shuffling your feet and changing the subject.

What you have here are your feelings about what you think it is doing, and nothing more, while you chastise others for having ambivalent feelings about the whole idea.

 

[Robin]

I assume the answer to "Why tho?" is because its fun for the kids.

I am also guessing it's not compulsory so parents who don't think it's a fun idea for kids could, here's a thought, not take their children there. Worth a try.

 

[Robin]

I don't think I would have taken my kids to Stripper Story Time if there was such a thing

I would have been perfectly happy to take my kids to a Drag Queen Story Time, which is a completely different matter.

Taking my kids to Stripper Story Time would be a bit like taking my kids to see one of those football matches where the cheerleaders do a twerking routine at half time. They don't even bother to remove the sexual content. Just about any football match in America these days I gather.

Presumably I missed the Texan bill to outlaw that.

 

[tyr_13]

I think I see the problem, now. You are having a debate with voices in your head, instead of with the other posters.

LMAO! You're the one who literally said you weren't responding to discussions, but I'm the one having a debate with the voices in my head?

Naw, you're ignoring your arguments being silly to start with and destroyed by both facts and reasoning, then wondering why no one is addressing your arguments. Are you making arguments now? Addressing the discussion now?

What I am saying, and have been saying all along, is "but why tho? I don't get this". It's that simple. I am not arguing that it hurts children, of benefits them. It just makes no sense.

It makes a lot of sense, as has been explained to you, and you continue to ignore. Guess we'll just keep repeating things and you'll just keep claiming nothing is addressed.

If a course in beginners ski instruction was offered, the instructor's sexual orientation is irrelevant.

Drag isn't a sexual orientation. What are you on about?

I just want to know how well they teach skiing. Same with story hour. I don't care if the storyteller is a man dressed as a woman. It's irrelevant to whether they are an engaging raconteur. So the obsession with combining these utterly unrelated traits seems really off the wall. What makes a ton of sense is that being a drag queen story reader is super important because it seems hip and trendy to the adults. The 3 and 5 year old audience likely doesn't have a ******* clue that the storyteller is a man who is really into dressing like a woman. I mean, seriously: do you think the 4 year olds walk away saying "ya know, my prejudices against drag queens were not justified. They sure can read a great story! Maybe I'll stop beating up the drag queens in the bar parking lot at night"?

As was already pointed out to you several times, drag performers in these story hours don't just put on any given dress to appear like everyday women. They're specifically wearing creative, colorful outfits and putting on larger than life characters.

You insist there is something nefarious about that with zero support. Your unsupported suspicions aren't data.

EDIT: And what a truly debased straw man. The only problems around things like drag are not people beating them up. This is a pattern with you where you minimize all but the most obvious and egregious violations as problems at all, be it racism, sexism, or other bigotries. Do you think a kid who went to see a drag performer read to them for years is going to grow up and fall for nonsense like Emily is spouting about them being dangerous anti-woman homosexual groomers? Or is that not enough of a problem to count, and it's only physical violence that could ever 'count'?

This has little to do with children, and a lot to do with adult virtue signaling, to my eye. Unless you have some data on benefits of this particular niche approach? Oh, that's right. I've already asked you twice and you keep shuffling your feet and changing the subject.

Your demand is silly nonsense. Do you object to story hours in general? What data do you have on them that leads you to believe drag ones are not as effective as other ones? Why don't you want data on story hours? Why is it only drag you demand it for?

What you have here are your feelings about what you think it is doing, and nothing more, while you chastise others for having ambivalent feelings about the whole idea.

You're not having ambivalent feelings. Your statements and arguments are flailing rationalizations for your feelings on drag. That you keep pretending your objections have not been addressed prove this because being 'ambivalent' about something isn't met with this much denial.

Get some intellectual honesty and try again.

 

[Thermal]

I assume the answer to "Why tho?" is because its fun for the kids.

Probably. Kids like stories. Not what we are talking about though. We are talking about using tax dollars to fund a gratuitous program, that could likely be done free by a volunteer, who is not constrained by a demand that he be a man dressed as a woman. Remember, DSH proudly boasts that they won't appear free, even for charities. Tax dollas need to be justified with a little more than "look how edgy we are!"

I am also guessing it's not compulsory so parents who don't think it's a fun idea could, here's a thought, not take their children there. Worth a try.

Here's another thought: insure that tax dollars aren't spent stroking adult egos in the name of children.

Also, have you forgotten that the Houston Library and an elementary school are already being sued by parents whose children were taken there without notifying the parents?

 

[Robin]

Probably. Kids like stories. Not what we are talking about though.

Weren't you the one asking the question "Why tho?".

So why didn't you want an answer to the question?

We are talking about using tax dollars to fund a gratuitous program, that could likely be done free by a volunteer, who is not constrained by a demand that he be a man dressed as a woman. Remember, DSH proudly boasts that they won't appear free, even for charities. Tax dollas need to be justified with a little more than "look how edgy we are!"

Has it ever occurred to you that your unsupported opinions about other people's motives might not be correct?

Here's another thought: insure that tax dollars aren't spent stroking adult egos in the name of children.

Presumably you are talking.about the Texas legislators spending tax dollars introducing bills to micromanage people's lives while pretending they give a damn about children.

Also, have you forgotten that the Houston Library and an elementary school are already being sued by parents whose children were taken there without notifying the parents?

That seems to be a completely separate issue. One of the school failing to notify parents about a school excursion.

In Australia, if any schools organised an excursion without notifying parents they would be out of a job and possibly arrested without the parents even having to sue. Isn't that the case in the US?

(Incidentally I can't find any reference in news stories to children being taken there without notifying parents. In fact one plaintiff home schools his children. He's a little careless if he organised an excursion for his kids to a drag queen story hour without informing himself. Is he suing himself?)

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

You know that thing you typed your post into, your computer? It's connected to a bunch of things in your home. Other computers, printers, maybe a switch, a router, right? That's called a network. Still with me? Great. Then, your network is connected to lots and lots of other networks. We call all those interconnected networks the internet. Interconnected networks, see? Now, over the internet you can access a vast collection of web pages connected via hyperlinks and URLs called the World Wide Web. That means you and everyone else here have access to everything I do.

"I refuse to look! If I don't see it, it didn't happen!" Pathetic.

You make the claim, you provide the supporting evidence. This is standard stuff.

But we all know the actual reason why you're not willing to back up your claims. Because posters here willing to do your homework for you have searched the internet and have found your claims to be meritless and totally unevidenced.

 

[Darat]

I'll mark you down as being a supporter of "Stripper Story Time" for young kids then. At least you're honest, I guess.

Likewise we could put you down as being against children being exposed to dancers...

 

[Gulliver Foyle]

Oh, okay then. Let's have it your way.

No children were explicity and directly harmed while explicitly attending a DQSH event. We exclude any and all drag events that are aimed at or marketed to include children, if they are not explicitly named as DQSH or DQST events. We also exclude the pedophilic behaviors of any drag performers if those pedophilic behaviors occurred outside of specifically time-limited DQSH/DQST events. We will also exclude any drag events aimed at children that are positioned as "family friendly" provided that either 1) they include disclaimers that "family friendly" doesn't actually mean "family friendly" and may not be suitable for all ages or 2) whoever complained about the inappropriate content or behavior can be cast as ***Right Wing*** by someone on the internet, and thus summarily dismissed.

We'll just gloss right over the repeated overlap between DQSH and child porn and CSA. That's all just coincidence. We'll close our eyes and just pretend that efforts to introduce content that 'bends traditional norms of sexuality' to very young children, from a collection of individuals with a high proportion of 'MAP' behaviors is all just a figment of our imagination.

If you look really really hard, and squint a bit, you might be able to convince yourself that there really are five lights.

Thanks for pointing out that your previous objections to these events are completely baseless.