In any case, the way you write about self expression (and the Matt Walsh-level unseriousness of describing drag shows as a mockery to trans women) suggest you're not really looking to find a common ground that would allow non-conformity in public.
But there is a big difference between that and putting one on at a public school or library.
This argument is brought to you by the same crowd of incels and other neo-reactionaries who lament the public reaction to their continued efforts to be shockingly edgy
> Such rejection of social norms should not be granted state sanction by hosting such events in public libraries.
Why? What social norms should the state care about? All social norms? What about the social norms of say, redlining communities? Should the state sanction that social norm, because it's a social norm?
No, sorry, standard brown immigrant socialization—which is why both DeSantis and Youngkin won on this issue. Look, my family voted for Biden but we would lose our shit if any of our kids got a tattoo. You do not want to fight us in that turf.
> Why? What social norms should the state care about?
If we are talking about what state sanction directed to children, then it should be the social norms parents want to impart to their kids. There id a majority coalition for those norms to include accepting people who are born different. There is not a majority coalition in support of voluntary gender norm breaking in the name of self expression.
As opposed to in the name of what else? your posts are so weird - no one is trying to fight you, so maybe tone it down. Like, you post at me like I'm going into your community and making you do things with your children, it's a bit ridiculous. We are just chatting on a website.
>No, sorry, standard brown immigrant socialization—which is why both DeSantis and Youngkin won on this issue.
What?
To conform their outward presentation to the gender they identify with, which is a fact rooted in biology.
>No, sorry, standard brown immigrant socialization—which is why both DeSantis and Youngkin won on this issue.
> What?
The vast majority of the world does not embrace white American notions of individualistic self expression. We think norm enforcement and conformity are good things that help kids stay on track. Both Youngkin in VA and DeSantis in FL won majorities among Hispanics (a group that usually favors democrats) by focusing on that disconnect between liberal teachers and more conservative families. https://interactives.ap.org/votecast-2021-va; https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/florida-latinos-turned-f...
I'm sorry but how is that not also self expression?
>The vast majority of the world does not embrace white American notions of individualistic self expression. We think norm enforcement and conformity are good things that help kids stay on track. Both Youngkin in VA and DeSantis in FL won majorities among Hispanics (a group that usually favors democrats) by focusing on that disconnect between liberal teachers and more conservative families.
This is completely non-responsive to what you offered it as a response to.
Rachel Levine (a trans woman) dresses how she does for the same reason I (a cis man) do. Both our brains have a notion of our own sex, and we conform to society’s gender norms consistent with that internal understanding. It’s completely different than people who dress the way they do, or get tattoos or nose rings to make a statement, set themselves apart as individuals, or thumb their nose at society and it’s rules.
> This is completely non-responsive to what you offered it as a response to.
Not at all. You characterized my position as “incel” above, because the people having all the kids mostly share my viewpoint. It’s the dominant view in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, etc. Liberal Americans are the most pathologically individualistic people in the world.
> Not at all. You characterized my position as “incel” above, because the people having all the kids mostly share my viewpoint. It’s the dominant view in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, etc. Liberal Americans are the most pathologically individualistic people in the world.
No, I categorized your position as being espoused by incels. Which is true. I don't care what you are.
> It’s the dominant view in Asia, Africa, the Middle East, etc. Liberal Americans are the most pathologically individualistic people in the world.
Well, we are talking about American culture here so I'm not sure what you think your point serves.
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.
So is rayiner, I think.
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.
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.
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.
Perhaps what you call nose-thumbing is in fact "doing what you're programmed to do" by genetics and upbringing.
I mean, this is either an ill-informed or wildly hateful view. Many drag shows are appropriate for children. Many drag shows are not appropriate for children.
We didn't criminalize TV writers when South Park contained adult humor. In fact, we started showing it all day long.
No it's not and that's a completely disingenuous reading of what is actually going on in Florida, which is clearly reactive politics and pearl-grasping over every single culture war issue because their governor is pushing these kinds of policies to gain nat'l political prominence.
>That’s why these middle aged librarians have drag shows for kids. In a way drag shows are a mockery of trans women. That doesn’t matter to them, because for them the overriding principle is self expression.
Lol, I see what's really going on with your post now.
That's certainly a narrative one side sells. One does have to wonder though, how it is that this could be possible given the complete lack of power in society held by those individuals. Maybe it's a bit more hyped up than it really is.
Yes. They're the ones who try to enforce their views at gunpoint.
> These people are pushing their views through the education system (I do not know the extent of it, just that it exists), and seemingly without the consent of parents (i.e., social transitions without informing parents).
You were going so well until the end, there. They don't enable social transition without parental consent, they insist upon genital inspections without parental consent. Looking at the genitals of pre-pubescent children isn't something which would interest me, but they seem quite keen on it. It isn't something I can condone, of course, and not something I can meet them halfway on.
> While I deeply disagree and detest the use of the term "groomer", the people who are doing so, are doing so in reaction to this dogma.
Insisting on access to the genitals of children is grooming behavior. Normalizing the idea that strangers get to poke around without consent is pure grooming. It's why I can't accept it.
While I deeply disagree and detest the use of the term "groomer", the people who are doing so, are doing so in reaction to this dogma. Mind you, this is not about sexual minorities, but about infringing on child-parent relationships. As far as I best know (I can be wrong), the dogma is largely unsubstantiated, and it is not majority accepted in most places around the world (look at the UK for instance). Mind you, this is not about trans or gay acceptance, but the rejection of the biological sex binary, the conflation of sex and gender, and the subversion of parent-teacher relationships in favour of this dogma.
Furthermore, I don't think "groomer" is the modern newspeak. If anything, the dogma that the terrible term "groomer" was meant to counter has the support of countless of mainstream institutions, academic, political, medical, etc. Unless you live in a pure conservative bubble of any sorts, the dogma is word, the dogma is the newspeak; for starters, painting actual bigots and people who have compassion for these minorities (but refuse to toe the line behind this dogma) with the same brush by calling them "would-be killers". As such, there is a middle ground to be found, a minority of extremists such as yourself just get in the way.