Drag Story time

[East Coast Sue]

5 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

Trans women aren’t speaking here. Cis/het white women are asserting their truth as TRUTH (tm). 

How do you know? Sounds like you get to make the rules and tell us our background/identity. Interesting.
 

Also, sounds like a bunch of shouting down anyone that isn’t affirming your viewpoint.

[maize]

I am horrified that some people want to shut international voices out of the conversation. 

We here in the US do NOT live in an isolated bubble in which the rest of the world does not affect us nor we them.

Furthermore, attempting to shut down discussion of any kind in the interest of only promoting a favored point of view is a severe affront to any community. Including this one.

Open discussion of ideas is fundamental to free society--something I hope we all still see merit in. Controlling speech is a profoundly illiberal and authoritarian effort.

Edited June 19, 2023 by maize

[Melissa Louise]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

Does this include you?  Also, why bring race into it?  And also, how do you know everyone you disagree with here is a cis/het white woman?

You definitely did not pick inclusion when you told the non-US posters to shut up.

I tried to steelman the argument that cis/het ww (or assumed cis/het ww! people really shouldn't assume because they are sometimes a wee bit wrong) shouldn't speak, but I got tired.

We could invite a drag queen to come and do an AMA for the women of WTM, I guess. 

 

Edited June 19, 2023 by Melissa Louise

[Terabith]

I feel like the conversation has moved in a direction that isn’t very helpful for me personally, and maybe not for most people in the US, but that’s absolutely fine.  The US is not the world, and it’s a homeschooling forum…academic discussion is valid in its own right.  It’s interesting, just bears little relevance to on the street realities of life here.  
 

But I also have no real dog in this fight.  

[Melissa Louise]

20 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I feel like the conversation has moved in a direction that isn’t very helpful for me personally, and maybe not for most people in the US, but that’s absolutely fine.  The US is not the world, and it’s a homeschooling forum…academic discussion is valid in its own right.  It’s interesting, just bears little relevance to on the street realities of life here.  
 

But I also have no real dog in this fight.  

To be fair, the thread wasn't a personal one, with someone seeking help for their own circumstances. It was a pretty general question, what's the story with drag.

I'm surprised people didn't realise that DQST is a thing in the UK, Canada, Australia as well, or that we have been having our own stand-offs at libraries, with threats, cancellations etc.

I am really curious about how drag queens became the phenomenon they have, and I don't really think the thread satisfied that curiosity.

Anyway, hope your kid is recovering ok.

 

 

 

[Wheres Toto]

I don't see a problem with input from people in other countries, except I do think it's causing some of the disconnect and controversy in the discussion.   Our experiences around this topic are just not coming from the same places. 

I said it before that I felt like some of the academic discussion was reducing people to constructs to be analyzed, instead of looking at what they are actually experiencing.    Sure, an academic discussion of the history of a movement and the origins and such can be interesting, but here in the US we are dealing with current, happening right now to people we know and love, attempts to basically wipe them out and/or pretend they don't exist. 

I know I was also accused of using genocidal language unnecessarily, but when doctors can refuse to treat people who are queer and/or trans for ANY health issues, not just those pertaining to their trans-ness, what else would you call it?   When people can be denied prescriptions, medical care, jobs, legal protection just based on their gender presentation, what would you call it?  People will die if this continues.  

[Terabith]

9 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

To be fair, the thread wasn't a personal one, with someone seeking help for their own circumstances. It was a pretty general question, what's the story with drag.

I'm surprised people didn't realise that DQST is a thing in the UK, Canada, Australia as well, or that we have been having our own stand-offs at libraries, with threats, cancellations etc.

I am really curious about how drag queens became the phenomenon they have, and I don't really think the thread satisfied that curiosity.

Anyway, hope your kid is recovering ok.

 

 

 

Right, it wasn’t a personal one, so I don’t really see the issues?  I can empathize with @Sneezyone, because the situation in the US is alarming and dangerous, but my point was that I don’t think academic discussion is problematic.  I dunno.  Maybe I’m not being clear. 
 

They’re doing pretty well, I think.  I’m just still distracted. 

[Melissa Louise]

It's terrible of course, if a gender diverse person cannot seek a GP for non-trans health care, but one reason why it doesn't shock me is that some doctors and Catholic and other hospitals have been denying women reproductive health care for many years, and there's barely a peep about that. Back in the 90's I had a doctor refuse to refer me for a termination due to his beliefs. Sadly, it just kind of feels normal that doctors discriminate based on belief. 

If I truly felt a loved one was at risk of targeted extinction, I'd be moving heaven and earth to get them out of state and, if I had the resources, the country. I wouldn't be messing about with DQST. In such circumstances, drag queens aren't going to help much. 

 

 

[ktgrok]

7 hours ago, KSera said:

I think a more nuanced stance of showing it's fine to not be interested in drag while still defending its right to exist is more effective IMO than treating drag story hour itself as very important.

This. Honestly, how this isn't the default is crazy to me. 

I think the push back Melissa is getting about talking about theory while things are going to hell in a hand basket is because at this point in our country we have progressed beyond the academic and need to focus on the legal aspects. Because legal barriers are being put up all over the dang place and that needs to be the focus, period. 

[Terabith]

Just now, ktgrok said:

This. Honestly, how this isn't the default is crazy to me. 

I think the push back Melissa is getting about talking about theory while things are going to hell in a hand basket is because at this point in our country we have progressed beyond the academic and need to focus on the legal aspects. Because legal barriers are being put up all over the dang place and that needs to be the focus, period. 

But @Melissa Louise and @lewelma don’t live here, so it seems eminently reasonable to me that they’re having a different discussion.  And one of the things I love about this forum is it’s a place where academics are embraced.  Even if the US is a place where that’s a luxury that doesn’t make sense here, I don’t want to discourage that.  We’re just all people coming from different geographic and cultural places, and that’s fine. It just means we have different priorities.  

[Melissa Louise]

6 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

This. Honestly, how this isn't the default is crazy to me. 

I think the push back Melissa is getting about talking about theory while things are going to hell in a hand basket is because at this point in our country we have progressed beyond the academic and need to focus on the legal aspects. Because legal barriers are being put up all over the dang place and that needs to be the focus, period. 

Focusing on legal aspects makes sense, though, unlike focusing on whether thoughts around drag make someone an irredeemable bigot.

DQST is just such a weirdly odd insertion into what is  being called a genocide. 

 

 

Edited June 19, 2023 by Melissa Louise

[Terabith]

I find that I increasingly have sympathy for people who didn’t know when to leave Germany in WW2.  It’s not a perfect analogy, but I find ourselves doing a lot of, “Okay, our particular state is veering in a problematic direction but we’re not here yet.  Do we give up college degrees, and jobs, and health care and extended family to leave the state?  Is leaving the state sufficient?  What country would take us?  Can we wait until our kids finish college so they have options to get employment and legally emigrate to a safer place?  Do we have to send them without us?  How do we know when we have to leave?”

 I think about this a lot. And my calculus would be very different if we lived in Florida or Texas or Tennessee. 

[Melissa Louise]

4 minutes ago, Terabith said:

But @Melissa Louise and @lewelma don’t live here, so it seems eminently reasonable to me that they’re having a different discussion.  And one of the things I love about this forum is it’s a place where academics are embraced.  Even if the US is a place where that’s a luxury that doesn’t make sense here, I don’t want to discourage that.  We’re just all people coming from different geographic and cultural places, and that’s fine. It just means we have different priorities.  

I think it's fine if an OP wants to put 'Americans only' in her subject line.  Didn't people used to do that when this board was very Christian? But there really needs to be a heads-up - we colonials aren't mind readers.

I'm not entirely sure that I'd stretch colonial discussion to being 'luxury', though I understand a woman's rights perspective isn't seen as particularly urgent over there. As you know, my own kids have also had skin in the game in various ways. We're not sitting taking tea 24/7.

One thing that really bothers me about DQST here is that it flattens discussion into for and against, good and bad. I just wish the libraries would ease off for a bit, and that the protestors would go home. I'm not much of a fan of a lot of the gender critical action we've seen over here lately; a lot of it has been infiltrated by non-feminists, and people with an actual right wing agenda. It's actually quite a mess over here, not so much in my state, but in neighbouring states.

Anyway, more info than you probably want.

 

 

[Melissa Louise]

3 minutes ago, Terabith said:

I find that I increasingly have sympathy for people who didn’t know when to leave Germany in WW2.  It’s not a perfect analogy, but I find ourselves doing a lot of, “Okay, our particular state is veering in a problematic direction but we’re not here yet.  Do we give up college degrees, and jobs, and health care and extended family to leave the state?  Is leaving the state sufficient?  What country would take us?  Can we wait until our kids finish college so they have options to get employment and legally emigrate to a safer place?  Do we have to send them without us?  How do we know when we have to leave?”

 I think about this a lot. And my calculus would be very different if we lived in Florida or Texas or Tennessee. 

If you genuinely believe your child/ren are at imminent, or short term risk of death, you take risks and you go early, because staying is also a decision. 

I don't like the use of genocide to describe this, because genocide describes a very specific and particular crime, and it shouldn't be muddied, imo, by threats which do not involve  nationality or ethnicity.

 

[Sneezyone]

6 hours ago, Meriwether said:

Am I understanding correctly that your "get over it" comment would be to the women and girls showering when an adult male (sex) walked into the bathroom?

What? The exemplar was a woman in a pointy bra.

[Ting Tang]

4 hours ago, SKL said:

To cause a stir, of course.

At the very least.

It bothers me anyone here would defend a man who feels it is okay to enter a private space designated for little girls to use the restroom and to shower.  And then insinuate you are a bigot for thinking it's wrong.  I am glad the situation got de-escalated, but I'm sure that won't be the last time that person tries pulling such a stunt.  I really wonder why a man would insist on using that facility.  

 

Edited June 19, 2023 by Ting Tang

[SanDiegoMom]

8 hours ago, Sneezyone said:

No, that’s not what I mean, I mean do you REALLY believe picking sides in a hot, current debate about the healthcare options, speech prohibitions, and inclusion of all people is a non-binary issue. I don’t. 

If you think it's a binary issue, then you obviously haven't been reading  all of the research.  The problem is that this political climate makes it so easy to take short cuts and assume one side represents the "good" side in all arguments. 

Healthcare options.  Red states are banning gender affirming care for minors! They must be bad! Oh but wait, so is England, Sweden, Norway, and Finland, all very progressive countries. They have the same policy that Florida has.  

Should we be unthinkingly inclusive of males in sports, even as they push women and girls out? Should we be inclusive of men in women's prisons? (Such as Dana Rivers,  a transwoman and activist who murdered two lesbians and their son and now is put in a women's prison in CA?) 

Because Democrats line up on all these issues.  I am sympathetic to some issues (adults should be able to make their own health care decisions regarding transition imo) and less so to others. (No male bodied men should ever be allowed in female prisons, period). 

[Meriwether]

11 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

What? The exemplar was a woman in a pointy bra.

No

[Heartstrings]

30 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

don't like the use of genocide to describe this, because genocide describes a very specific and particular crime, and it shouldn't be muddied, imo, by threats which do not involve  nationality or ethnicity.

Genicides start somewhere though.  It’s like a recession where you can’t call it a recession until it’s been going on for 2 quarters, but the fact that those 2 quarters were a recession is only seen in retrospect.  Once it’s clear that something is a genocide the seeds for it were planted years earlier, it’s only in retrospect that we can look back and say, yep, that rhetoric and those attempted laws were where this all started.  Genocide starts long before the 100,000th death.  

Edited June 19, 2023 by Heartstrings

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, SanDiegoMom said:

If you think it's a binary issue, then you obviously haven't been reading  all of the research.  The problem is that this political climate makes it so easy to take short cuts and assume one side represents the "good" side in all arguments. 

Healthcare options.  Red states are banning gender affirming care for minors! They must be bad! Oh but wait, so is England, Sweden, Norway, and Finland, all very progressive countries. They have the same policy that Florida has.  

Should we be unthinkingly inclusive of males in sports, even as they push women and girls out? Should we be inclusive of men in women's prisons? (Such as Dana Rivers,  a transwoman and activist who murdered two lesbians and their son and now is put in a women's prison in CA?) 

Because Democrats line up on all these issues.  I am sympathetic to some issues (adults should be able to make their own health care decisions regarding transition imo) and less so to others. (No male bodied men should ever be allowed in female prisons, period). 

It really is that simple for me. I don’t want non-physicians dictating care for anyone, ever.

[Melissa Louise]

1 minute ago, Heartstrings said:

Genicides start somewhere though.  It’s like a recession where you can’t call it a recession until it’s been going on for 2 quarters, but the fact that those 2 quarters were a recession is only seen in retrospect.  Once it’s clear that something is a genocide the seeds for it were planted years earlier, it’s only in retrospect that we can look back and say, yep, that rhetoric and those attempted jaws were where this all started.  Genocide starts long before the 100,000th death.  

That's not really in response to what I said, which is that genocide refers to the wiping out of an ethnic or national people. 

[Heartstrings]

13 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

What? The exemplar was a woman in a pointy bra.

But also with a full beard.  I’m pretty open minded and on the left but I would not be ok with a person with a full beard in the shower area. 

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

But also with a full beard.  I’m pretty open minded and on the left but I would not be ok with a person with a full beard in the shower area. 

It might have been me, PCOS sucks. My body doesn’t perform womanhood well.

Edited June 19, 2023 by Sneezyone

[Dmmetler]

I think one thing that is missing is the awareness that in some parts of the US, what is discussed theoretically and academically  (eg "Is drag a negative stereotype of women that is damaging to women, including trans women") becomes one of the points used in the media to whip up a frenzy that leads to bans. A year ago, those discussions were happening here, and drag shows were getting protested, similar to what Melissa describes in her area. OPeds that were "just discussing" and making, in many cases, reasonable points, started showing up. 
 

The first bill passed by the state legislature defined drag as "adult oriented cabaret" and put the same restrictions on it as a strip club-which, in the south, is a lot, and which had significant implications beyond the club scene, because drag was defined as "performing as the opposite gender". And guess which "discussions" were used on the statehouse floor? 

 

So "just discussing" isn't just academic here. It's dangerous. It may read like a slippery slope fallacy, but the fact is, said slope has slipped and turned into an avalanche that is crushing people.  
 

The same has happened with every single piece of anti-LGBT (and anti-woman, because this is what happened with abortion) legislation here. It starts with academic discussion and law review articles and theoretical constructs. It moves into the media and on social media, often misquoted and taken out of context, and into the pulpits of churches and into the community. All before it becomes legislation. 
 

This is also what leads to the absolutist positions on the other side. Because if you cede something (like a person with a full beard and a cone bra shouldn't be in a locker room where young girls are dressing), you get to the point where a woman with short hair can't safely use the bathroom in a shopping center without being accosted and put at risk. Because if all started with "just discussing"-and ended in legislation. 
 

It is very, very frustrating for me to see people in safe places who have the flexibility for nuance be unaware that their talking points are enabling the things they say they'd never support here. 

 

Edited June 19, 2023 by Dmmetler

[Ting Tang]

5 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

But also with a full beard.  I’m pretty open minded and on the left but I would not be ok with a person with a full beard in the shower area. 

Yeah, we're not talking about a woman with PCOS.  We're talking about a man dressed in drag insisting on using a facility designated as a private space for little girls.  I don't care if the man is attracted to other men, it's not right.  Pretty sure my gay uncle, who came out in the late 70s/80s, has never shown up to a kids' camp and demanded to get into the girls' locker room. 

Edited June 19, 2023 by Ting Tang

[Melissa Louise]

Ppl shouldn't gaslight.

The person in the camp story was male, regardless of his drag and/or gender identity. 

 

[Heartstrings]

1 minute ago, Melissa Louise said:

That's not really in response to what I said, which is that genocide refers to the wiping out of an ethnic or national people. 

We don’t really have a word yet for the purposeful wiping out of a group based on characteristics such as gender or sexuality, or disability.  The way of English is to borrow words to describe new things.  I think genocide works until we get a new word, or the definition will expand.   Fussing over strict definitions of words  is fine for academics, but until it’s sorted out the lowly people will use the words available to us.  

[Melissa Louise]

1 minute ago, Dmmetler said:

I think one thing that is missing is the awareness that in some parts of the US, what is discussed theoretically and academically  (eg "Is drag a negative stereotype of women that is damaging to women, including trans women") becomes one of the points used in the media to whip up a frenzy that leads to bans. A year ago, those discussions were happening here, and drag shows were getting protested, similar to what Melissa describes in her area. OPeds that were "just discussing" and making, in many cases, reasonable points, started showing up. 
 

The first bill passed by the state legislature defined drag as "adult oriented cabaret" and put the same restrictions on it as a strip club-which, in the south, is a lot, and which had significant implications beyond the club scene. And guess which "discussions" were used on the statehouse floor? 

 

So "just discussing" isn't just academic here. It's dangerous. It may read like a slippery slope fallacy, but the fact is, said slope has slipped and turned into an avalanche that is crushing people.  
 

The same has happened with every single piece of anti-LGBT (and anti-woman, because this is what happened with abortion) legislation here. It starts with academic discussion and law review articles and theoretical constructs. It moves into the media and on social media, often misquoted and taken out of context, and into the pulpits of churches and into the community. All before it becomes legislation. 
 

This is also what leads to the absolutist positions on the other side. Because if you cede something (like a person with a full beard and a cone bra shouldn't be in a locker room where young girls are dressing), you get to the point where a woman with short hair can't safely use the bathroom in a shopping center without being accosted and put at risk. Because if all started with "just discussing"-and ended in legislation. 
 

It is very, very frustrating for me to see people in safe places who have the flexibility for nuance be unaware that their talking points are enabling the things they say they'd never support here. 

 

Just because the right decided that they'd come and snitch some feminist talking points they think might play well in a sound bite doesn't mean women have to give up on feminism.

The hard right aren't women's allies; they're just taking what they want for their own reasons. Once they're done, the need for feminism will remain. 

Damned if I'm going to put up with clowns on one side of me telling me to shut up, and jokers to the right of me saying the same. No. Neither side get to define my speech or politics. 

It's absolutely crazy to suggest that we need to cede 6ft bearded males in the girls showers so that girls can continue to have short hair cuts. 

How about blokes keep out, AND girls can be gender non-conforming? I believe this is called feminism! 

[Melissa Louise]

5 minutes ago, Heartstrings said:

We don’t really have a word yet for the purposeful wiping out of a group based on characteristics such as gender or sexuality, or disability.  The way of English is to borrow words to describe new things.  I think genocide works until we get a new word, or the definition will expand.   Fussing over strict definitions of words  is fine for academics, but until it’s sorted out the lowly people will use the words available to us.  

There's no need to be bitchy. I'm not an academic. Ordinary people can like ideas. 

[KSera]

5 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

It is very, very frustrating for me to see people in safe places who have the flexibility for nuance be unaware that their talking points are enabling the things they say they'd never support here.

This seems to suggest that our only options on every issue are on the far extreme of one side or the other, because we shouldn’t discuss anything more nuanced than that. I just don’t see how that’s desirable. Social media sucks. The band wagon effect sucks. I don’t see that throwing out the ability to have reasoned discussions because some people might use them for the bad purpose they were already after anyway is going to help things. I still maintain that “if you don’t like drag shows then don’t go, but there’s zero reason to ban them” leads to more people being able to live with that than an argument that drag is crucial, which is much more likely to polarize people and drive them the other way. So I guess I’m saying that I think the very black and white all good or all bad approach is the one that actually drives more of the laws being enacted that I do not support. If people felt they had a middle road option, I think they’d be less likely to go so extreme. 

[SKL]

13 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

I think one thing that is missing is the awareness that in some parts of the US, what is discussed theoretically and academically  (eg "Is drag a negative stereotype of women that is damaging to women, including trans women") becomes one of the points used in the media to whip up a frenzy that leads to bans. A year ago, those discussions were happening here, and drag shows were getting protested, similar to what Melissa describes in her area. OPeds that were "just discussing" and making, in many cases, reasonable points, started showing up. 
 

The first bill passed by the state legislature defined drag as "adult oriented cabaret" and put the same restrictions on it as a strip club-which, in the south, is a lot, and which had significant implications beyond the club scene. And guess which "discussions" were used on the statehouse floor? 

 

So "just discussing" isn't just academic here. It's dangerous. It may read like a slippery slope fallacy, but the fact is, said slope has slipped and turned into an avalanche that is crushing people.  
 

The same has happened with every single piece of anti-LGBT (and anti-woman, because this is what happened with abortion) legislation here. It starts with academic discussion and law review articles and theoretical constructs. It moves into the media and on social media, often misquoted and taken out of context, and into the pulpits of churches and into the community. All before it becomes legislation. 
 

This is also what leads to the absolutist positions on the other side. Because if you cede something (like a person with a full beard and a cone bra shouldn't be in a locker room where young girls are dressing), you get to the point where a woman with short hair can't safely use the bathroom in a shopping center without being accosted and put at risk. Because if all started with "just discussing"-and ended in legislation. 
 

It is very, very frustrating for me to see people in safe places who have the flexibility for nuance be unaware that their talking points are enabling the things they say they'd never support here. 

 

Surely you aren’t suggesting that discussion of controversial issues should be banned.

[Sneezyone]

DHs gene pool produces a lot of six foot women. Is height a failure to perform womanhood well too?

[SKL]

Figuring out the right balance between laws and freedoms has always been challenging.  It takes time and faith.

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, KSera said:

This seems to suggest that our only options on every issue are on the far extreme of one side or the other, because we shouldn’t discuss anything more nuanced than that. I just don’t see how that’s desirable. Social media sucks. The band wagon effect sucks. I don’t see that throwing out the ability to have reasoned discussions because some people might use them for the bad purpose they were already after anyway is going to help things. I still maintain that “if you don’t like drag shows then don’t go, but there’s zero reason to ban them” leads to more people being able to live with that than an argument that drag is crucial, which is much more likely to polarize people and drive them the other way. So I guess I’m saying that I think the very black and white all good or all bad approach is the one that actually drives more of the laws being enacted that I do not support. If people felt they had a middle road option, I think they’d be less likely to go so extreme. 

Where is the evidence that the bolded has worked/is working? Look around for Pete’s sake. It’s not as though these discussions have led to any nuanced anything, just ever more extreme restrictions.

[Meriwether]

1 minute ago, Sneezyone said:

DHs gene pool produces a lot of six foot women. Is height a failure to perform womanhood well too?

You are being disingenuous. My daughter is almost 6 feet tall and not slight. She will likely also have chin hair when she is older. Everyone knows that is not the same as the camp example. Everyone.

[SKL]

Just now, SKL said:

Figuring out the right balance between laws and freedoms has always been challenging.  It takes time and faith.

Xx and xy is simple enough.  Almost 100% of humans fit nicely into one or the other, without any biased opinions involved.

[Dmmetler]

Just now, SKL said:

Surely you aren’t suggesting that discussion of controversial issues should be banned.

No, but I am saying that those who are "just talking" need to be aware that "just talking" is NOT a no-cost act. 
 

 

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Meriwether said:

You are being disingenuous. My daughter is almost 6 feet tall and not slight. She will likely also have chin hair when she is older. Everyone knows that is not the same as the camp example. Everyone.

If we’re defining women by their stature, the presence/absence of breasts, childbearing ability, facial/body hair etc., yeah, you’re gonna set A LOT of women up for abuse/harassment.

[Heartstrings]

7 minutes ago, KSera said:

Social media sucks. The band wagon effect sucks

I don’t think social media is what was being referred to, I think it was legislators. Which matter a whole lot more than memes on social media.  

[KSera]

21 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

It might have been me, PCOS sucks. My body doesn’t perform womanhood well.

I thought it had been established this turned out not to be a trans woman but a man in drag. The last thing most trans women are going to do is draw attention to themselves in this way in a women’s room. I know you have said you don’t believe me when I say that in their own words, this makes things harder for some trans women, but their writing is out there if you want to verify. Since trans is something someone is and drag is something someone does, I’m more interested in standing up for transwomen not being equated to people in drag. Not the same thing at all. 

[Melissa Louise]

1 minute ago, KSera said:

This seems to suggest that our only options on every issue are on the far extreme of one side or the other, because we shouldn’t discuss anything more nuanced than that. I just don’t see how that’s desirable. Social media sucks. The band wagon effect sucks. I don’t see that throwing out the ability to have reasoned discussions because some people might use them for the bad purpose they were already after anyway is going to help things. I still maintain that “if you don’t like drag shows then don’t go, but there’s zero reason to ban them” leads to more people being able to live with that than an argument that drag is crucial, which is much more likely to polarize people and drive them the other way. So I guess I’m saying that I think the very black and white all good or all bad approach is the one that actually drives more of the laws being enacted that I do not support. If people felt they had a middle road option, I think they’d be less likely to go so extreme. 

More people need to hold to the uncomfortable middle.

Drag should be legal - no-one has to go. Adults can choose to make permanent body modifications but the evidence for pediatric treatment is thin and current best practice worldwide says no.

Sports should be an open and a women's,category so that access AND fairness can be maintained. Vulnerable male prisoners need protection but so do vulnerable females.

Transwoman deserve rape crisis services, but that can co-exist with provision of single sex services for women who need it.

We can be caring to our trans relatives and friends  and support their rights to medical care, housing and employment, but not have to believe or state like a mantra that TWAM.or TMAM or agree to be gaslight about evident males. 

3 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

No, but I am saying that those who are "just talking" need to be aware that "just talking" is NOT a no-cost act. 
 

 

In what material way has my.mentioning the gay history of drag, and concerns re both appropriation of gay culture and sexism and misogyny in parts of drag culture, in a thread of WTM, had any cost? 

 

[MercyA]

4 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

It’s not as though these discussions have led to any nuanced anything, just ever more extreme restrictions.

IDK. DD and I have a lot of discussions inspired by threads here. I think both of us are more nuanced in our thinking as a result. Small sample, I know.

You all (both sides and the middle!) bring up things I've never thought about in depth before. That's one of the reasons I love this board. I trust that just about everyone is thoughtful, bright, and operating from good motives.

[KSera]

8 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

No, but I am saying that those who are "just talking" need to be aware that "just talking" is NOT a no-cost act. 
 

 

I guess at this point I’m wondering what is it exactly that’s being said here, especially by me I guess I’m wondering, since you keep quoting me about this, that you think is a dangerous thing to say regarding drag?

Here’s my first post on this thread, the 7th post, as a refresher of my position:

”I'm not sure if you're saying Pride month seems manufactured or drag story hour. They are two different categories to me. I find the current banning and vilification of drag anything to be totally wrong and ridiculous and am 100% against it. At the same time, drag story hour makes little sense as a concept for children to me. It seems more made for the adults, as drag doesn't usually have anything to do with children (a child dressing in gender non-conforming ways isn't in "drag"). So, while they have drag story time here, it's not something I take my kids to, but I think it's stupid for people to be going out of their way to ban it. Just don't go if it's not your thing.”

which part of that is dangerous?

[Ting Tang]

15 minutes ago, Melissa Louise said:

More people need to hold to the uncomfortable middle.

Drag should be legal - no-one has to go. Adults can choose to make permanent body modifications but the evidence for pediatric treatment is thin and current best practice worldwide says no.

Sports should be an open and a women's,category so that access AND fairness can be maintained. Vulnerable male prisoners need protection but so do vulnerable females.

Transwoman deserve rape crisis services, but that can co-exist with provision of single sex services for women who need it.

We can be caring to our trans relatives and friends  and support their rights to medical care, housing and employment, but not have to believe or state like a mantra that TWAM.or TMAM or agree to be gaslight about evident males. 

In what material way has my.mentioning the gay history of drag, and concerns re both appropriation of gay culture and sexism and misogyny in parts of drag culture, in a thread of WTM, had any cost? 

 

It's easy to avoid advertised drag shows and story hours.  Maybe I should try an experiment.  My daughter has a camp tomorrow.  I'm going to show up wearing only a molded lacy bra (don't have a gold one), tutu, and perhaps a pair of heels hidden in the depths of my closet.  Kids range in age 4-14, boys and girls.  I'll see how the other parents and grandparents react.  Better yet, I'll have my husband wear these things and take her himself.  Yeah.  

 

(Just kidding.  It's ridiculous.)

Edited June 19, 2023 by Ting Tang

[Sneezyone]

11 minutes ago, KSera said:

I thought it had been established this turned out not to be a trans woman but a man in drag. The last thing most trans women are going to do is draw attention to themselves in this way in a women’s room. I know you have said you don’t believe me when I say that in their own words, this makes things harder for some trans women, but their writing is out there if you want to verify. Since trans is something someone is and drag is something someone does, I’m more interested in standing up for transwomen not being equated to people in drag. Not the same thing at all. 

Nah, I just don’t see how  drag anything impacts me in any material way, see the fixation on it as an extension of the bigoted, right wing hysteria sweeping the land, and want no parts of it, not the ‘nice’ version, ‘moderate’ version, ‘light’ version, none of it. I think many here won’t be happy until, like Gattica, we’re doing retinal scans and blood draws to separate the worthy from the unwashed dregs before entering any public space.

Edited June 19, 2023 by Sneezyone

[Melissa Louise]

Honestly, it's starting to sound like women just shouldn't have talked so loud, should have been good, quiet little girls who didn't get in the way with their pesky feminist concerns. 

Which, ironically, demonstrates gender - the imposition of particular social norms on females - put others first! - and why gender is such a shit concept to reify. 

[Meriwether]

14 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

If we’re defining women by their stature, the presence/absence of breasts, childbearing ability, facial/body hair etc., yeah, you’re gonna set A LOT of women up for abuse/harassment.

A woman is someone with xx chromosomes.

[KSera]

Also, I guess this should be expected for me, but I’ve been getting it from both sides on this thread. At the same time that apparently my position that drag shouldn’t be banned but I think it’s fine to discuss drag is being criticized as leading to these laws I disagree with, I’ve also defended it quite strongly in a number of posts from other people who wanted to insist the libraries are hosting sexualized entertainment for children. 

 

 

 

[Idalou]

11 hours ago, Melissa Louise said:

Nobody is obliged to 'listen' in a thread. 

Not being obliged to.listen doesn't mean you get veto in who speaks. 

Except I clearly remember threads where you and other non-Americans bashed someone here, telling him he could not understand because he was not an Australian. I don't think you titled your threads to ask that, either. And while you do not like that poster, it was always framed as you can have no say because you are not one of us, lol

Edited June 19, 2023 by Idalou

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, Meriwether said:

A woman is someone with xx chromosomes.

So blood draws it is.