a defense of drag show/drag queens..

[Flannel Jesus]

What does that have to do with me or anything I've written? Why would you ask such a fucking stupid question? Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Contextually, that's what was happening. Sculptor was replying to someone who was saying homosexuals need to go back into the closet. You were vehemently disagreeing with sculptors reply, saying nobody's trying to impose anything, meaning you're defending the "go back into the closet" comment - ostensibly you're saying the go back into the closet comment wasn't about imposing anything.

Is that what you intended to do?

So now I'm responsible for someone else's comments? Get fucked.

No, you're responsible for what you said. Someone else says gays should go back into the closet, sculptor disagrees with them, you disagree with sculptor. You're responsible for that. If you disagree with sculptor, who is only disagreeing that gay people need to go back into the closet, as far as I can tell that means you agree gay people need to go back into the closet. Or at the very least you're arguing that it's not imposing to tell gay people to go back into the closet, or whatever else that guy is suggesting.

[Flannel Jesus]

I think you simply have to ask yourself did any of us actually chose their sexual orientation?
And given the fact the being off the "norm" of straight heterosexuality is seen as some sort of social crime, and those "afflicted" are evil pariahs - who the actual fuck would chose to be gay, or trans or anything other than straight?

I think it's unquestionable, at this point, that gay people do not in fact choose to be gay, any more than straight people choose to be straight. There's too much evidence. And like you I Intuit that trans people are not choosing to be trans - mostly - simply because the downsides of being trans are generally too huge for it to be an attractive choice to most people.

If gender were just a social construct, that almost implies about trans people that if they were raised differently, they wouldn't be trans...

Indeed.
It also implies that a "gay cure" could work, when of course such attempts fail, and could only succeed in psychological harm.

Further to my point about transness and "gender is entirely a social construct" being at odds with each other, I've just recalled this case:

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

If gender was entirely a social construct, there would have been no reason why raising David as a girl should have failed.

You cannot make someone trans by raising them as the opposite gender. Or at least it looks that way to me.

And conversely, imo, you can't look at a trans person and suggest they wouldn't be trans if they were raised properly as the right gender. Plenty of trans women were raised in traditional families with traditional values as traditional boys, any they grow up and apparently, deep down, feel that they're women anyway.

[Sculptor]

You're replying to a chain that started with someone saying "back into the closet you go!" about gay people.

Do you think homosexuality needs to be suppressed? Legally, or just socially?

What does that have to do with me or anything I've written? Why would you ask such a fucking stupid question? Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Contextually, that's what was happening. Sculptor was replying to someone who was saying homosexuals need to go back into the closet. You were vehemently disagreeing with sculptors reply, saying nobody's trying to impose anything, meaning you're defending the "go back into the closet" comment - ostensibly you're saying the go back into the closet comment wasn't about imposing anything.

Is that what you intended to do?

I have the bigot on ignore for this sort of reason.
No need to defend me, she undermines her own position with every word HyperKaren is completely unhinged.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It also implies that a "gay cure" could work, when of course such attempts fail, and could only succeed in psychological harm.

The larger, prevailing ethic is that homosexuality (and other deviancies) exist and must be accepted in a liberal society.

I do not accept the term "deviant". That is the language of the Nazis.
Pretty soon someone will come along and find out how you deviate from the the norm. Then its you for the gas chambers

My own view? Nevertheless it should be suppressed, not encouraged, not advertised, not presented as a viable alternative life-style.

“Back into the closet you go!” — yet it is a far more spacious closet.

There is a point, surely you recognize this? when the normalization of deviancy will become intolerable even to liberal-minded people.

oooh poor victim~!!
You seem to be a victim of your own bigotry - enjoy!
The difference here is that you want to impose your version of normality onto other people, whilst the people you like to call deviant just want to be left alone to life their lives with the same rights that you have.

My view is that each one of us, each one who has an idea and an opinion, we have to *locate* ourselves within the belief and understanding system in which we really do exist. *Location* and *locating* imply discovering and knowing oneself, perhaps at a deeper and a more committed level. So, what I notice about what you say (the 'poor victim lol' comment and your general guilt-slinging) is that I can fairly locate you within a cultural zealotry which is intensely moralistic and moralizing.

de·vi·ate (dē′vē-āt′)
v. de·vi·at·ed, de·vi·at·ing, de·vi·ates
v.intr.
1. To turn aside from a course or way: hikers who deviated from the main path.
2. To depart, as from a norm, purpose, or subject; differ or stray. See Synonyms at swerve.
v.tr.
To cause to turn aside or differ.
n. (-ĭt)
A deviant.
[Late Latin dēviāre, dēviāt- : Latin dē-, de- + Latin via, road; see wegh- in Indo-European roots.]
de′vi·a′tor n.
de′vi·a·to′ry (-ə-tôr′ē) adj.

Curious then, and I think revealing, that my introduction of the term 'deviancy' evokes in you brandishing the "You are a Nazi!" stick. It is the ultimate blame tool and it compares with a zealous Christian believer's use of the designation "Satanic!"

True, to define 'normalcy' and a standard does involve many different sets of judgment and assessment -- a value-system -- but the use of that profoundly moralizing epithet to describe anyone whose ideas and values you wish to demonize is a pretty transparent tactic. So then, the first order of business is disassembling that sort of usage.

And when that is done, I suggest, a window opens to examine entire realms of liberal and I think hyper-liberal moralization that functions within processes of 'social engineering'. Merely by seeing and understanding that we live in worlds where these techniques of manipulation are used enables us to deconstruct that level of *argument* and get back to the real topic: the definition of values.

My argument is in favor of the man-woman relationship, the productive, child-bearing relationship, and that placed at the very center of valuation and of value. I've worked it (my argument) out without recourse to a religious platform of belief, but I cannot say that metaphysical notions do not operate in my value-stress.

So I can, and without much huffing or puffing, simple assert that a rational standard of normalcy does exist which, generally speaking, is intuitively grasped. Those who define some other, contradicting, value-set are free to do so. But their arguments (in my view) generally fail.

So I work from this premise: it is best to accentuate and valuate in the highest category the 'normal' man-woman relationship. Deviancy from that norm must be tolerated (homosexuality must be tolerated) but it must be suppressed by mutual agreement. The 'fruitful' and 'productive' man-woman relationship should be encouraged, indeed it should be afforded rights and rewarded. And anything that operates against it should be criticized.

Have I sunk into what you call "bigotry"? I do not think so.

Would I recommend teaching the value that I am here describing and defending? Certainly yes. Is that the same as *imposing*? To some degree it is because of the entire process of *inculcation*.

So let's be realistic: If you were to design an education program for the young you would, without doubt, inculcate them in the values that you profess, would you not? The modern hyper-liberal moral system is intensely demanding and intensely moralizing and we are all aware that one can be 'cancelled' for even minor deviations (whooops!)

in·cul·cate (ĭn-kŭl′kāt′, ĭn′kŭl-)
tr.v. in·cul·cat·ed, in·cul·cat·ing, in·cul·cates
1. To impress (something) upon the mind of another by frequent instruction or repetition; instill: inculcating sound principles.
2. To teach (others) by frequent instruction or repetition; indoctrinate: inculcate the young with a sense of duty.
[Latin inculcāre, inculcāt-, to force upon : in-, on; see in-2 + calcāre, to trample (from calx, calc-, heel).]
in′cul·ca′tion n.
in·cul′ca′tor n.

In my view the conversation proposed in this thread is a good one and should be taken seriously. And to understand why people differ so strongly can only be understood if their value-systems are examined at an atomic and molecular level.

[Alexis Jacobi]

So now I'm responsible for someone else's comments? Get fucked.

And as a matter of fact gay organisations are distancing themselves from the extreme 'transactivist' groups and standing up for women since transactivists have outed themselves as violent misogynistic shitheads.

My comment had a good deal of ironic content. To 'go back in the closet' means to tone it down a great deal. It means even to 'self-suppress'. In my view (which I can express coherently) it is gays themselves who must value and elevate hererosexual (productive, family) unions over their own (sterile) relationships.

It is also ironic that those who not long ago were viewed as *bad* and *abnormal* for their sexual orientation now seem to feel they have a leg to stand on when other deviants come out of a closet and demand to inhabit the public space.

At the very least they then are offered a *comparative* perspective.

What is interesting to me is to observe that each of you (those who now argue against though you are certainly tremendously radical in your social and political orientation, that is when examined comparatively to a generation back) trying to cut each other to pieces and slinging guilt-terms like rotting tomatoes.

It is you-plural and the sort of conversation you are invested in that I believe should become the topic.

[Alexis Jacobi]

No need to defend me, she undermines her own position with every word HyperKaren is completely unhinged.

Ooooooh. Now the slicing knife really shows itself! You see, when the terms you use, and the way they are used, is examined cooly and with distance, it is easy to see that your argumentation is based in a wielded hyper-rhetoric that has two essential poles. One of course is 'the Nazi'. The ever-useful emblem of ontological malevolence. The other is your sense of 'normalcy' which is left amorphic to some degree, that seems true, but it is virulently opposed to any idea- or value-set which you disagree with. In any case, here you are defending and explaining why certain forms of deviancy should be tolerated. But you don't really couch your arguments in anything like a traditional argument. On what basis do you defend the values that you hold to? What are those values?

[Peter Kropotkin]

as I normally don't write on days I am working, lack of time,
I do have a thought about drag show/drag queens....
perhaps, just perhaps think of it as ART... and how do
we define ART:

ART: something that is created with imagination and skill
and that is beautiful or that expresses important ideas
or feelings....

and I see the drag queen fully expressing their own identity
within ART... think of it as "performance art" and people
will pay good money to go to ART shows or see "performance art"
and as ART does practices the possibilities of being human, we
can see that being in drag, does promote the possibilities
within us.... in dressing "DRAG" we can see what is possible for us
to become or not....it becomes a way of expressing oneself....in
this line of thinking, having drag queens reading children's books
make perfect sense... ARTISTS reading literature/ART.....

being a drag queen is an artistic expression of what one is or feels....
is ART risky? yep, quite often pushes the boundaries of being
human, but that is the point of ART, to push those boundaries..
to express what possibilities are available to us if we only had
the imagination to look...has ART aways been attacked as being
unsuitable for children? yep, I point out recently that a picture of the statue
of David in Florence, was taken to be obscene by some parents in FLA,
think about that for a minute.....ART being considered to be obscene,
and life goes on.... so think of these drag queen and these drag shows,
as being ART...is being a drag queen obscene? only in the eyes of the
beholder....

Kropotkin

[Alexis Jacobi]

being a drag queen is an artistic expression of what one is or feels....
is ART risky? yep, quite often pushes the boundaries of being
human, but that is the point of ART, to push those boundaries..

Get back to work Kropotkin! You're slacking.

Oh. So that's what art is about! I was under the impression it had many many other and different purposes. It is nice when those in the know, who also represent the *righteous* among us, clarify our ideas with clear statements.

If you declare that art is essentially about the *pushing of boundaries* then quo warranto the values that you declare are to be pushed? You could just as easily declare that pushing back against deviant exertions, or over-stepping limits, could be or should be an object of art.

You know what? Many here do not seem to have any solid base at all in sound reasoning. Now why is that? Because you have never actually examined, in depth, your value-base.

You simply open your mouths and expel material.

Are your values based in what you feel?

[Alexis Jacobi]

Or at the very least you're arguing that it's not imposing to tell gay people to go back into the closet, or whatever else that guy is suggesting.

It is beyond any doubt imposing to take a stance that gays, and many other sexual deviants, should tone down their rhetoric and their activism. Beyond doubt. But all value-systems are *imposed* through social and education mechanisms.

The 'closet' to go back into is infinitely more spacious than the former one, and the former one was remodeled according to Liberalism's values.

[Flannel Jesus]

No one is trying to 'impose' anything on anyone (apart from you of course).

Or at the very least you're arguing that it's not imposing to tell gay people to go back into the closet, or whatever else that guy is suggesting.

It is beyond any doubt imposing to take a stance that gays, and many other sexual deviants, should tone down their rhetoric and their activism. Beyond doubt. But all value-systems are *imposed* through social and education mechanisms.

The 'closet' to go back into is infinitely more spacious than the former one, and the former one was remodeled according to Liberalism's values.

Thank you for clearly and unambiguously proving vegetariantaxidermy wrong here. I have no idea why she felt the need to defend your words in that way, you clearly aren't interested in the defense she offered.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Thank you for clearly and unambiguously proving vegetariantaxidermy wrong here.

It is the least I can do. If I can be of further help please don't hesitate to ask.

VegetrianTaxidermy is, like so many here, a bundle of confusion, contradiction and hot rhetoric. It is a great deal of fun to unravel it nonetheless.

[Peter Kropotkin]

ok, how about this... what exactly is the difference
between dressing up for Halloween and dressing up as
a drag queen? I can't see any difference at all..
think of the people who read at libraries that are dressed
up as comic book hero's or as Dracula, and how is that
different than drag queens reading? again, I can't tell
the difference....

or note that drag queens use makeup.. and at Halloween,
people also use makeup.... and quite often, as elaborate
as any drag queen... now what? do we ban Halloween?
because it might, might offend someone? to make an argument
against drag queens can also be repeated about anyone dressed up
at Halloween....

Kropotkin

[Flannel Jesus]

Thank you for clearly and unambiguously proving vegetariantaxidermy wrong here.

It is the least I can do. If I can be of further help please don't hesitate to ask.

VegetrianTaxidermy is, like so many here, a bundle of confusion, contradiction and hot rhetoric. It is a great deal of fun to unravel it nonetheless.

I get the impression that she doesn't actually know what context she was commenting in. I don't think she intended to agree with you, but some wires got crossed for her.

[mickthinks]

Get back to work Kropotkin! You're slacking.

Oh. So that's what art is about! I was under the impression it had many many other and different purposes. It is nice when those in the know, who also represent the *righteous* among us, clarify our ideas with clear statements.

If you declare that art is essentially about the *pushing of boundaries* then quo warranto the values that you declare are to be pushed? You could just as easily declare that pushing back against deviant exertions, or over-stepping limits, could be or should be an object of art.

You know what? Many here do not seem to have any solid base at all in sound reasoning. Now why is that? Because you have never actually examined, in depth, your value-base.

You simply open your mouths and expel material.

Are your values based in what you feel?

It is unlike you to begin constructing an argument and then abandon it part way through, Alexis.

You started by asserting that PK had omitted some important purposes of art from his argument in support of drag queening. But the mere existence of other purposes doesn't invalidate the claim of PK's that you seemed to be taking issue with. Of course, one or more of those missing purposes might undermine or negate PK's point about boundaries and risk if they were examined more closely.

But you haven't submitted any of them to closer examination. You haven't even identified any of them. You've simply waved your airy hand as if casting an argument-nullifying spell over the discussion.

What were you thinking?

[Sculptor]

The larger, prevailing ethic is that homosexuality (and other deviancies) exist and must be accepted in a liberal society.

I do not accept the term "deviant". That is the language of the Nazis.
Pretty soon someone will come along and find out how you deviate from the the norm. Then its you for the gas chambers

My own view? Nevertheless it should be suppressed, not encouraged, not advertised, not presented as a viable alternative life-style.

“Back into the closet you go!” — yet it is a far more spacious closet.

There is a point, surely you recognize this? when the normalization of deviancy will become intolerable even to liberal-minded people.

oooh poor victim~!!
You seem to be a victim of your own bigotry - enjoy!
The difference here is that you want to impose your version of normality onto other people, whilst the people you like to call deviant just want to be left alone to life their lives with the same rights that you have.

My view is that each one of us, each one who has an idea and an opinion, we have to *locate* ourselves within the belief and understanding system in which we really do exist. *Location* and *locating* imply discovering and knowing oneself, perhaps at a deeper and a more committed level. So, what I notice about what you say (the 'poor victim lol' comment and your general guilt-slinging) is that I can fairly locate you within a cultural zealotry which is intensely moralistic and moralizing.

Thank you .
THis is what Freud called Projection.
Has anyone ever used the term nascisist in your presence?
I'm not the one telling people what they can and cannot do. You need to learn to live and let live.

You'll be calling me immoral next for being permissive of gays, trans and drag queens.
People like you are never satisfied until everyone is as buttoned up and unhappy as you are.