Tennessee poised to ban public drag shows, hormone therapy for children

[smf]

To play Devil’s Advocate, what exactly is the difference? The admission fee? The controlled environment? I’d argue it’s weird to invite children to any setting where grown men wear women’s lingerie, but then again, there’s more to drag shows than that - there’s also (unfunny) comedy, so hey. I’ve only seen a drag show once and I can’t say I’d go again - the drinks were nice, but the host was rather obnoxious.

So I would say you're making a category mistake by suggesting that drag shows should be banned because they involve men wearing lingerie in front of children.

And the fact people from your side keep trying to make that argument, makes me think you're all being disingenuous.

I believe the behavior you are describing would already be illegal for anyone, whether they were a drag queen taking part in a drag show, or not. Making drag shows illegal because of some imagined threat to children, is bigotry.

Does that make my position clearer?

Otherwise you might as well execute all men, in case one of them rapes a woman. And all women too, because women could murder the remaining women.

 

[Foxi4]

So I would say you're making a category mistake by suggesting that drag shows should be banned because they involve men wearing lingerie in front of children.

And the fact you keep trying to make that argument, makes me think you're being disingenuous.

I believe the behavior you are describing would already be illegal for anyone, whether they were a drag queen taking part in a drag show or not. Making drag shows illegal because of some imagined threat to children, is bigotry.

I didn’t say any of those things - I just got here, my guy. You might be confusing me with somebody else.

 

[smf]

I didn’t say any of those things - I just got here, my guy. You might be confusing me with somebody else.

You right wingers all merge into one here, my basic point still stands.

Your devils advocate is bigoted. At some point you might want to understand why, rather than lashing out.

I figure you won't change though.

 

[Foxi4]

You right wingers all merge into one here, my basic point still stands.

Your devils advocate is bigoted.

We actually seem to be in agreement - I too believe that parading in lingerie (more specifically a thong) in front of children in a purposefully sexualised manner should be frowned upon. I asked a specific question - I asked if there’s a difference between doing that in private versus doing that at a drag show. You said that there isn’t and both are already illegal. We’re not disagreeing. I don’t know what your beef is.

 

[ZeroFX]

A ban on 18+ stuff to stay for 18+ only is such a 2020+ thing lmao. And this is somehow absurd for some people, let kids play like the infants they are.

 

[smf]

We actually seem to be in agreement - I too believe that parading in lingerie (more specifically a thong) in front of children in a purposefully sexualised manner should be frowned upon. I asked a specific question - I asked if there’s a difference between doing that in private versus doing that at a drag show. You said that there isn’t and both are already illegal. We’re not disagreeing. I don’t know what your beef is.

You said I’d argue it’s weird to invite children to any setting where grown men wear women’s lingerie

I'd argue that nobody is doing that, so how are you playing devil's advocate by arguing that it's weird? The law will prevent men dressing as women, unless they are in specially licensed venues.

Your one specific question isn't very clear.

 

[lolcatzuru]

I would recommend you stop doing that. That will already get you prosecuted.

i agree which is why i dont do that.

 

[Sir Tortoise]

You're being intentionally obtuse, and didn't address when I actually asked in my first post. So I'll save you the trouble of looking for it and just ask again:

My question is ... what is this impulse to put men dressed as comically oversexualized women in front of small children? Why do you support doing this, why so these transgender "drag artists" want to do this so much????? Why is it so important to dress up literally "like a drag queen" and perform burlesque-type acts in front of small children? (if not to influence those children, or worse)

Yes, I just replied to that, initially responding to you and then the other guy who said similar. Why do they need to (or why is it "important", if you prefer), then why do they want to. See above.

it doesnt matter what i believe, but what im hearing is something that is morally and legally wrong should be ok because the person enjoys it, you dont have to believe its morally wrong to, as a man, where a thong in front of children and dance in front of them, thus i think its wrong, obviously you dont, which is fine, but what makes one better than the other.

You misheard me then. You asked why they want to, I replied with some possible reasons. I don't think something should be allowed based on enjoyment, but things should be disallowed based on potential harm assosciated with that. Serial killing is fairly self-explanatory for that one. As for shows, I'm going to guess that we both agree that non-drag shows are unlikely to cause harm. I would then say that a show where a man dresses as a woman doesn't pose any greater inherent harm than a show where a man dresses in whatever other way.

As for the rest, it looks like we've arrived at the actual argument you wanted to make. Firstly, "legally wrong" is a bit circular. This is about something potentially becoming banned/illegal in the future and the presumed question of if that should be the case. "This should be banned because it has/will be banned" doesn't really work, but whatever, this is probably stemming from the enjoyment thing.

Morally wrong? Depends on your morals, I don't think a man wearing clothes that aren't traditionally masculine is morally wrong. But you use the example of a thong. I'm going to guess that the problem there isn't that it isn't masculine enough, but that it's too revealing or is probably going to be used in a sexualized way. So the same problem as a man being nude or close enough in other wear in front of kids. Agreed.

So if that's the case, I'd question why dressing in drag is being equated to a sexual act. Having been to a few pantomines, that seems flawed. For what its worth, the bill is apparently claiming to focus on adult drag entertainment based on the article, and, yeah, its called "adult entertainment" for a reason. The criticism against this bill seems to be its vague wording, suggesting that it could be used to class any sort of drag as "adult entertainment" even if it, well, isn't. If I were a family-friendly performer who dressed in drag, a possible $2500 fine and jail time would be pretty concerning. I probably wouldn't just trust that the government's opinions about what is classed as what would line up with my own with that hanging over my head.

Maybe the wording won't be abused, but you sort of have to wonder why the bill is specifically targeted at drag performances instead of the alleged actual root of this: don't let kids see adult entertainment. Drag or otherwise.

 

[Foxi4]

I’d argue it’s weird to invite children to any setting where grown men wear women’s lingerie

I'd argue that nobody is doing that, so how are you playing devil's advocate by arguing that it's weird?

Well, that’s the crux of the argument, isn’t it? You have a juxtaposition between someone doing it as a sexual kink and someone doing it as a form of adult entertainment. You have the same activity in two different contexts, so I wanted to know if you consider the two different or equivalent. I didn’t even voice an opinion on whether drag shows should be banned or not - I’m a libertarian, I don’t believe in banning things far more damaging than a drag show. I do, however, recognise drag shows as adult entertainment, and personally I wouldn’t take a child to one for that reason. That’s not a legal prescription on my part, it’s an opinion.

 

[lolcatzuru]

Yes, I just replied to that, initially responding to you and then the other guy who said similar. Why do they need to (or why is it "important", if you prefer), then why do they want to. See above.


You misheard me then. You asked why they want to, I replied with some possible reasons. I don't think something should be allowed based on enjoyment, but things should be disallowed based on potential harm assosciated with that. Serial killing is fairly self-explanatory for that one. As for shows, I'm going to guess that we both agree that non-drag shows are unlikely to cause harm. I would then say that a show where a man dresses as a woman doesn't pose any greater inherent harm than a show where a man dresses in whatever other way.

As for the rest, it looks like we've arrived at the actual argument you wanted to make. Firstly, "legally wrong" is a bit circular. This is about something potentially becoming banned/illegal in the future and the presumed question of if that should be the case. "This should be banned because it has/will be banned" doesn't really work, but whatever, this is probably stemming from the enjoyment thing.

Morally wrong? Depends on your morals, I don't think a man wearing clothes that aren't traditionally masculine is morally wrong. But you use the example of a thong. I'm going to guess that the problem there isn't that it isn't masculine enough, but that it's too revealing or is probably going to be used in a sexualized way. So the same problem as a man being nude or close enough in front of kids. Agreed.

So if that's the case, I'd question why dressing in drag is being equated to a sexual act. Having been to a few pantomines, that seems flawed. For what its worth, the bill is apparently claiming to focus on adult drag entertainment based on the article, and, yeah, its called "adult entertainment" for a reason. The criticism against this bill seems to be its vague wording, suggesting that it could be used to class any sort of drag as "adult entertainment" even if it, well, isn't. If I were a family-friendly performer who dressed in drag, a possible $2500 fine and jail time would be pretty concerning. I probably wouldn't just "trust" that the government's opinions about what is classed as what would line up with my own with that hanging over my head.

Maybe the wording won't be abused, but you sort of have to wonder why the bill is specifically targeted at drag performances instead of the alleged actual root of this: don't let kids see adult entertainment. Drag or otherwise.

can you make this point into a non harry potter book please.

Post automatically merged: Feb 25, 2023

Well, that’s the crux of the argument, isn’t it? You have a juxtaposition between someone doing it as a sexual kink and someone doing it as a form of adult entertainment. You have the same activity in two different contexts, so I wanted to know if you consider the two different or equivalent. I didn’t even voice an opinion on whether drag shows should be banned or not - I’m a libertarian, I don’t believe in banning things far more damaging than a drag show. I do, however, recognise drag shows as adult entertainment, and personally I wouldn’t take a child to one for that reason. That’s not a legal prescription on my part, it’s an opinion.

A a libritarian, interesting, +5 respect points, you lost some earlier, but you making up for it now.

 

[smf]

Well, that’s the crux of the argument, isn’t it? You have a juxtaposition between someone doing it as a sexual kink and someone doing it as a form of adult entertainment. You have the same activity in two different contexts, so I wanted to know if you consider the two different or equivalent.

So you are continuing to make the category mistake by saying all drag shows involve men dressed in lingerie.

While the law bans all forms of male or female impersonators in public.

"drag shows" aren't adult entertainment, by any stretch of the imagination. Adult entertainment is adult entertainment.

You might find drag shows offensive, but you're allowed to be offended. We're allowed to ignore you.

 

[Foxi4]

A libritarian, interesting, +5 respect points, you lost some earlier, but you making up for it now.

Not sticking your nose in people’s business, and making sure that they don’t stick their noses in yours, is a relatively good way to live your life, at least in my experience.

 

[lolcatzuru]

Not sticking your nose in people’s business, and making sure that they don’t stick their noses in yours, is a relatively good way to live your life, at least in my experience

oh hard agree, i get the feeling you dont like me which is a shame because it seems like we agree on a few things, which is nice, i would also like toss in there, and as long as it isnt hurting anyone.

 

[Foxi4]

So you are continuing to make the category mistake by saying all drag shows involve men dressed in lingerie.

While the law bans all forms of male or female impersonators in public.

I asked the question in a vacuum and I got my answer. I don’t particularly care about banning things, as I’ve indicated previously. If you’re asking about the law specifically, it reminds me of Zion Curtains in Utah, which are peak stupidity. If you don’t know what those are, Google it - you’ll get a good laugh.

 

[smf]

Not sticking your nose in people’s business, and making sure that they don’t stick their noses in yours, is a relatively good way to live your life, at least in my experience.

Libertarians are all about not sticking their noses in people's business, until it's the libertarian that is upset.

I asked the question in a vacuum and I got my answer. I don’t particularly care about banning things, as I’ve indicated previously.

You seem to care about creating false narratives about drag shows though.

 

[Foxi4]

oh hard agree, i get the feeling you dont like me which is a shame because it seems like we agree on a few things, which is nice, i would also like toss in there, and as long as it isnt hurting anyone.

I’m an impartial arbiter, I don’t know you. I can’t like you or dislike you because you’re a stranger to me - you can divorce yourself from that feeling if that’s the impression you got. I’m just a janitor - I clean the halls here. A royal janitor, to be fair, but a gilded mop is still a mop.

Libertarians are all about not sticking their noses in people's business, until it's the libertarian that is upset.

I don’t know if it gives you any comfort, but I’m not upset. A little confused by the hostility, but not upset.

You seem to care about creating false narratives about drag shows though.

I don’t know what you’re talking about. I’m not “spreading” any “narratives”, I don’t care what shows you go to in your spare time.

 

[lolcatzuru]

I’m an impartial arbiter, I don’t know you. I can’t like you or dislike you because you’re a stranger to me - you can divorce yourself from that feeling, if that’s the impression you got. I’m just a janitor - I clean the halls here. A royal janitor, to be fair, but a gilded mop is still a mop.
I don’t know if it gives you any comfort, but I’m not upset. A little confused by the hostility, but not upset.

im sorry if you thought i was hostile toward you, if i can clear that id be happy to.


and idk i think theres a little leeway in there fore liking or disliking someone, i dont know hitler, but im confident i dislike him.

 

[Sir Tortoise]

can you make this point into a non harry potter book please.

Hey, I'm just trying to show my working. But sure. Those books aren't *that* long though, especially not the early ones.

Drag isn't inherently sexual, like any other kind of performance. Bill is pretty vague with its wording and some are sus it could be abused if people in power don't like any kind of drag.

 

[Foxi4]

and idk i think theres a little leeway in there fore liking or disliking someone, i dont know hitler, but im confident i dislike him.

I think you know enough *of him* to form an opinion, which is an acceptable substitute for going on 3 dates with Hitler before deciding if you want to form a relationship.

Also, Godwin’s Law.

 

[lolcatzuru]

Hey, I'm just trying to show my working. But sure. Those books aren't *that* long though, especially not the early ones.

Drag isn't inherently sexual, like any other kind of performance. Bill is pretty vague with its wording and some are sus it could be abused if people in power don't like any kind of drag.

thank you, and perhaps it is not, but i would argue the CLOTHING one wears while participating in it is inherently sexual, a thong for example, perhaps not as cumbersome as some womens underwear, i think we can both agree has a certain connotation that makes it undesirable around kids, ill tell you what, ill meet you in the middle, if drag people start wearing parkas in front of kids, you got yourself a deal

Post automatically merged: Feb 25, 2023

I think you know enough *of him* to form an opinion, which is an acceptable substitute to going on 3 dates with Hitler before deciding if you want to form a relationship.

Also, Godwin’s Law.

had to look that up, i wont talk anymore about him senpai i swear