Drag Shows!!

[Darat]

You're going to start anyway? Fine.

This whole thing got started with Stacyhs asserting that if RuPaul identified as a woman, he wouldn't be married to a gay man. I questioned this, because my understanding was consistent with the Genderbread thing upthread, that ID and orientation were separate gigs.

Hold up: are you following so far? I don't want to go on if you are lost or reconstructing arguments already.

...snip...

So this wasn't your post:

No , I very clearly did not. I asked you how sure you were about how he identifies. My impression is that he is some variety of gender fluid, which is what I think drag queens are "about". Reread the posts you are criticizing in that light and you may feel a little less adversarial.

You have provided zero evidence to show that he considers himself anything but a man.

 

[Thermal]

So this wasn't your post:

Wrong. It is.

You have provided zero evidence to show that he considers himself anything but a man.

Correct. And?

 

[wareyin]

You're going to start anyway? Fine.

This whole thing got started with Stacyhs asserting that if RuPaul identified as a woman, he wouldn't be married to a gay man. I questioned this, because my understanding was consistent with the Genderbread thing upthread, that ID and orientation were separate gigs.

Hold up: are you following so far? I don't want to go on if you are lost or reconstructing arguments already.

Darat has already called you on this, so I'm not going to bother.

Thanks for clarifying. So EC doesn't mind being called an "it". I have a feeling she did not mean what you think she meant. But since you are so strongly advocating for her by proxy (nice to see your support of her), perhaps she could weigh in her own self, if she's still following the thread? No, wait: maybe it could weigh in for itself? I'm sure you got its meaning spot on

You read her post, and that's what you got out of it? Doesn't mind being called "It"? No wonder you can't understand RuPaul saying basically the same thing. Both claim to not be hung up on pronouns, but Thermal is certain that for RuPaul this means RuPaul is gender fluid (that's not what gender fluid is, but given your difficulties with reading comprehension here, I don't think repeating what you got wrong with an explanation of how you got it wrong will help you) while EC isn't.

 

[Thermal]

Darat has already called you on this, so I'm not going to bother.

Darat hasn't made a clear point yet, and hasn't called anything out coherently. I am awaiting a response .The post in question was directed to you. Is expecting other posters to argue for you by proxy the new thing?

You read her post, and that's what you got out of it? Doesn't mind being called "It"?

Literally what she said, yes. I take it you are wrestling this morning with the concept of rhetorical devices?

No wonder you can't understand RuPaul saying basically the same thing. Both claim to not be hung up on pronouns

EC claims her identity big and bold and repeatedly and consistently. RuPaul, when asked about his identity, gets ambiguous. Let's see how you wrestle with those two very different ideas before you try to mush them together again.

, but Thermal is certain that for RuPaul this means RuPaul is gender fluid (that's not what gender fluid is, but given your difficulties with reading comprehension here, I don't think repeating what you got wrong with an explanation of how you got it wrong will help you) while EC isn't.

You're starting again. Please don't start.

Saying I am "certain", when I have repeatedly said I am not, is a lie. You base your critiques on this lie and others. Try on that "comprehending the post" thing that you comically pulled the SelfAwareWolves act on recently. Don't add anything on. Don't lie. It'll be like a whole new world for you.

 

[wareyin]

Darat hasn't made a clear point yet, and hasn't called anything out coherently. I am awaiting a response .The post in question was directed to you. Is expecting other posters to argue for you by proxy the new thing?

Darat pointing out that you had said what you claim you haven't wasn't at all incoherent. It also doesn't matter who you directed your false claims at, when they are shown to be false.

Literally what she said, yes. I take it you are wrestling this morning with the concept of rhetorical devices?

Just as with your fixation on the "call me she" phrase of RuPaul's, you have picked one phrase out of the entire quote to fixate on. This has given you an erroneous understanding of what was actually said.

EC claims her identity big and bold and repeatedly and consistently. RuPaul, when asked about his identity, gets ambiguous. Let's see how you wrestle with those two very different ideas before you try to mush them together again.

None of your examples have been RuPaul being asked about his identity. Try reading your own examples again, but this time without the odd "gender fluid" claim you're trying to force into it.

You're starting again. Please don't start.

Saying I am "certain", when I have repeatedly said I am not, is a lie. You base your critiques on this lie and others. Try on that "comprehending the post" thing that you comically pulled the SelfAwareWolves act on recently. Don't add anything on. Don't lie. It'll be like a whole new world for you.

Thermal, you are spending a whole lot of posts arguing that you're right and literally everyone else (including RuPaul) are wrong about what RuPaul meant. That's way too much effort spent in an obvious error for you to not be certain.

I honestly have no idea what SelfAwareWolves means, nor do I care enough to learn if you're being clever or if you've just (yet again) misunderstood something basic.

 

[TragicMonkey]

ANYWAY, this hargle-bargle seems to be dragging down the thread. Aspire to be your most glamourous selves and move on, ladies! *snap* *snap* *swish* *fall down*

 

[Darat]

Wrong. It is.



Correct. And?

Oh just reminding one about the burden of proof and all that.

 

[Thermal]

Darat pointing out that you had said what you claim you haven't wasn't at all incoherent. It also doesn't matter who you directed your false claims at, when they are shown to be false.

No, Darat highlighted what I keep saying and you and he keep ignoring: that was my impression of how drag queens and presumably RuPaul actually worked, so it seemed odd for Stacyhs to confidently assert what he identifies as, and more to the point, that a man who identifies as a woman wouldn't marry a gay man. RuPaul was more of a jumping off point for that heavily flawed assertion.

Do you understand that? Is any part of that unclear?

Just as with your fixation on the "call me she" phrase of RuPaul's, you have picked one phrase out of the entire quote to fixate on. This has given you an erroneous understanding of what was actually said.

I'll take that as a "yes, wareyin is wrestling with rhetorical devices this morning."

None of your examples have been RuPaul being asked about his identity. Try reading your own examples again, but this time without the odd "gender fluid" claim you're trying to force into it.

I said "some variety of gender fluid" once. That means, to a grown up, that I am not clear on exactly how that all works. Please stop with lying about what I said. It's really not helpful or constructive.

Thermal, you are spending a whole lot of posts arguing that you're right and literally everyone else (including RuPaul) are wrong about what RuPaul meant. That's way too much effort spent in an obvious error for you to not be certain.

I am not. I'm responding to discussion posts. As are we all.

I honestly have no idea what SelfAwareWolves means, nor do I care enough to learn if you're being clever or if you've just (yet again) misunderstood something basic.

In less time than it took for you to type that, you could have googled it.

 

[Thermal]

Oh just reminding one about the burden of proof and all that.

I don't claim to be offering proofs or indeed be claiming anything. I am expressing, in clear and simple words, that I am a little confused by all this, and showing why.

Good example that you overlooked :

1. Stacyhs claimed that if RuPaul identified as a woman, he would not be married to a gay man.

2. The Genderbread Person, and my understanding, indicates that is not so.

Is Stacy wrong? Is Genderbread Person wrong? Is it too complicated for words.yet simple enough to correct others endlessly? Why do birds sing so gay?

 

[Thermal]

ANYWAY, this hargle-bargle seems to be dragging down the thread. Aspire to be your most glamourous selves and move on, ladies! *snap* *snap* *swish* *fall down*

*Thermal gives Zorro snap in Z formation for emphasis*

 

[wareyin]

No, Darat highlighted what I keep saying and you and he keep ignoring: that was my impression of how drag queens and presumably RuPaul actually worked, so it seemed odd for Stacyhs to confidently assert what he identifies as, and more to the point, that a man who identifies as a woman wouldn't marry a gay man. RuPaul was more of a jumping off point for that heavily flawed assertion.

Do you understand that? Is any part of that unclear?

I see that you've now switched from Darat not being coherent to Darat agreeing with you. Interestingly enough, I don't think he does.

I'll take that as a "yes, wareyin is wrestling with rhetorical devices this morning."

Chalk it up to another reading comprehension error on your part.

I said "some variety of gender fluid" once. That means, to a grown up, that I am not clear on exactly how that all works. Please stop with lying about what I said. It's really not helpful or constructive.

As a "grownup", you're spending this much energy and keystrokes defending your own claim (without providing evidence) and yet now you think this means we should understand that you're not clear on "exactly how that all works"? I will throw you a bone and agree that it's obvious "to a grownup" that you're not clear on how "that all" works.

If you believe drag queens in general and/or RuPaul in particular is gender fluid, you're going to have to find some evidence to convince anyone else. So far, your only evidence has been a couple of quotemined phrases taken out of context that don't actually prove your point.

In less time than it took for you to type that, you could have googled it.

What part of "don't care" was not coherent enough for you?

 

[Darat]

I don't claim to be offering proofs or indeed be claiming anything. I am expressing, in clear and simple words, that I am a little confused by all this, and showing why.

...snip...

Yes you are, you are claiming RuPaul is genderfluid based on apparently one phrase from when he was performing.

 

[Thermal]

I see that you've now switched from Darat not being coherent to Darat agreeing with you. Interestingly enough, I don't think he does.

And there it is. In no way, shape, or form do I say Darat agrees with me, yet you are happy to post another lie big and bold. I asked you not to.

 

[wareyin]

And there it is. In no way, shape, or form do I say Darat agrees with me, yet you are happy to post another lie big and bold. I asked you not to.

Ok, switch out "highlighting your claim" for agreeing with you if that makes you feel better. It's sort of weird to do, as you claim you made no claim, but whatever floats your boat!

 

[Thermal]

Yes you are, you are claiming RuPaul is genderfluid based on apparently one phrase from when he was performing.

No I didn't, full stop. I said with clarity even a child could understand that that it was my impression and understanding of drag in general, not claiming anything whatsoever. The "call me" quote, and the others that followed, seem to support that, while still being neither claims not evidence.

As. I. Said. Repeatedly.

ETA: why do you keep saying "one phrase from when he was performing"? It's in his autobiography, man. Why are you trying to pass it off as some unthought passing comment?

 

[Darat]

No I didn't, full stop. I said with clarity even a child could understand that that it was my impression and understanding of drag in general, not claiming anything whatsoever. The "call me" quote, and the others that followed, seem to support that, while still being neither claims not evidence.

As. I. Said. Repeatedly.

ETA: why do you keep saying "one phrase from when he was performing"? It's in his autobiography, man. Why are you trying to pass it off as some unthought passing comment?

Yes you do - it is here again in whatever colour you have the text set to:

No , I very clearly did not. I asked you how sure you were about how he identifies. My impression is that he is some variety of gender fluid, which is what I think drag queens are "about". Reread the posts you are criticizing in that light and you may feel a little less adversarial.

You clearly said he was gender fluid! It is there “he is some variety of gender fluid” staring out the page at us! How can you deny that?

 

[Thermal]

Yes you do - it is here again in whatever colour you have the text set to:



You clearly said he was gender fluid! It is there “he is some variety of gender fluid” staring out the page at us! How can you deny that?

Can you read the four words preceding "he is" in that part you keep reposting and hiliting? What do you think they mean? How might they differ from another four words such as "My claim is that" or 'It is factual that"?

I mean come on, Darat. I am crystal clear saying that it's the impression I have, not that it is a fact. An impression welcomes correction or elaborations.

Again, I've thought that drag queens were a distinct identity expression more than just some guy in a dress. That is nowhere near "making a claim".

 

[wareyin]

Nothing says "I welcome correction or elaboration" more than arguing for many, many pages how correct I am and how much those correcting me are lying and/or childlike.

 

[Thermal]

Nothing says "I welcome correction or elaboration" more than arguing for many, many pages how correct I am and how much those correcting me are lying and/or childlike.

The initial discussion point is one thing. If a poster then lies as part of his/her/its response, that becomes a separate thing. The separate thing has been eclipsing the initial. It's not that complicated.

 

[wareyin]

The initial discussion point is one thing. If a poster then lies as part of his/her/its response, that becomes a separate thing. The separate thing has been eclipsing the initial. It's not that complicated.

Ah, but if you're claiming (but not claiming- claiming, like, I'm open to correction man, any adult can see that) that drag queens in general and RuPaul in particular are gender fluid and you get corrected, just because you don't like the correction doesn't make it a lie. And doubling down on your error to the point of misreading points (All EC was saying was it's cool to call her an "it", she wasn't, like, saying the same damn thing as RuPaul that pronouns don't matter...even if she said that exact thing) to claim others are lying certainly does eclipse the initial "my impression, that I will fight to the death to defend, but I'm not like convinced, man" claim.