5 ms·
> Drag shows involve violating social norms as a form of voluntary self expression. Such rejection of social norms should not be granted state sanction by hosti
by msla 4y ago
> Drag shows involve violating social norms as a form of voluntary self expression. Such rejection of social norms should not be granted state sanction by hosting such events in public libraries.
Mere assertion. Not an argument.
The supposed arguments against drag queen story time are either unserious hand-wringing about supposed harms coming from drag, a form of art older than modern gender roles, or simple threats of violence. Neither are actual arguments, just argument-shaped word noises.
> By contrast, trans people presenting consistent with their biological gender identity isn't a form of voluntary self expression, any more than it is for a cis person to do so.
"Biological gender identity" is ill-defined here, to the extent I honestly don't know what you mean: Do you mean a trans woman, such as Blaire White, dressing and acting like a woman? The phrase "biological gender identity" seems to conflate the modern conception of sex (genitals, chromosomes to some extent, hormones) with the modern conception of gender (roles, presentation, identity) and I'm now confused.
- freejazz 4y agorayiner is clearly just expressing their own personal distaste for non-passing trans individuals. Is Rayiner checking the genitals of everyone that interacts with children, or is Rayiner just implicitly assuming their sex based upon their gender expression??
- rayiner 4y agoAre you seriously comparing non-passing trans people to drag performers?
- freejazz 4y agoI'm not, are you??
- selimthegrim 4y agoYou do realize in the subcontinent that transpeople interact with kids all the time in the street? I remember meeting them in my family’s neighborhood in Karachi when I was 7 or 8. You might want to ask your dad about this if you don’t believe me.
- fknorangesite 4y ago> and I'm now confused. So is rayiner, I think.
- rayiner 4y agoThe premise for broad acceptance of trans rights, just as it is for gay rights, is the scientific fact that prenatal endocrine exposure controls sexual orientation and people’s feelings about what gender they are: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128159682000098 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B97801.... It’s not at all “ill-defined” it’s the scientific premise behind saying that someone is born transgender as opposed to choosing to be transgender. Accepting the right of people to present themselves consistent with their gender identity has nothing to do with sanctioning breaking gender norms for “art” or other purposes, which is the focus of drag.
- plorg 4y agoI guarantee you that people who support the rights of trans people to be trans people are not doing so contingent on there being some kind of purely biological basis. Most people probably don't even know there is a proposed biological mechanism. In any case, for those I know who have considered it, most reject the notion that one's acceptance be based on simply having no choice in the matter of their gender identity, sexuality, or other identifiers like skin color or disability, because it suggests that their value is arrived at only reluctantly and it is on them to prove they should be treated like anyone else. Contrary to your quixotic theory, most nominally liberal or queer-accepting people I've met root their ethics in something like humanism (including for example Christian humanism). A person is valuable because they are, because they exist. Self-expression is an outgrowth of such a belief. It is part of flourishing and living into the world. It is rarely if ever a worldview of itself. Similarly, drag is not just art for the sake of art or transgression for the sake of transgression. It has not always been considered transgressive. It has a long tradition in gay spaces as an activity that brings people together and in many ways is used to show that queer people are not alone. It is a way of exploring the boundaries of what it means to be human. All of it is of a piece because people are not collections of independent atomic functions, they are bodies and minds and live in spaces.
- rayiner 4y agoYou’re incorrect. Only a quarter of the country even identifies as “liberal.” Support for same sex marriage is over 70%. That is because science in the 1990s established the biological basis of sexual orientation. There was a concerted educational campaign about that in the 2000s, including Lady Gaga’s song “Born that Way” in 2011. The following statement from the American Psychological Association is quoted prominently in Obergefell: “Only in more recent years have psychiatrists and others recognized that sexual orientation is both a normal expression of human sexuality and immutable. See Brief for American Psychological Association et al. as Amici Curiae 7–17. The Human Rights Campaign defines sexual orientation as: “Sexual Orientation: An inherent or immutable enduring emotional, romantic or sexual attraction to other people. > In any case, for those I know who have considered it, most reject the notion that one's acceptance be based on simply having no choice in the matter of their gender identity, sexuality, or other identifiers like skin color or disability, because it suggests that their value is arrived at only reluctantly and it is on them to prove they should be treated like anyone else. Your conclusion only follows if you begin with an individualistic humanist perspective. Most people in the world, and probably a plurality in America, believe in natural order, not individual choice. Virtue is doing what you’re supposed to do; vice is acting contrary to nature’s or God’s plan. Conformity is pro-social; non-conformity is anti-social. Consequently, it’s extremely significant whether that sexual orientation and gender identity are innate. It means God made you that way. And it means that you’re doing what you’re programmed to do, and not deliberately thumbing your nose at society’s conventions.