Desantis

[Chuck Naill]

Again, drag is not banned in Tennessee. As with many things, restrictions apply where children are concerned. It is up to the parents to shield and protect as their conscience or standards require. For me, if I have to decide who to protect, it will always be the child.

[TSherbs]

I do know, from reading, there is sunlight between the LGBQ community and Drag Actors and especially people who are transitioning.

No, there is not. I recommend that you get more informed. This "sunlight" that you describe may be of your own making rather than any actual marked differences between these communities that you describe.

[TSherbs]

Again, drag is not banned in Tennessee.

Are you intentionally ignoring the law that was just passed? Why are you doing this? Starting July 1, 2023, drag performances (my language) will be banned from all Tenessee public spaces, whether children are present or not.

no public libraries

no public schools

no public parks

no street corners or other public spaces where performances often occur

no public performance venues of any kind (amphitheaters, publicly funded indoor theaters, etc)

[TSherbs]

Again, drag is not banned in Tennessee.

Are you intentionally ignoring the law that was just passed? Why are you doing this? Starting July 1, 2023, drag performances (my language) will be banned from all Tenessee public spaces, whether children are present or not.

no public libraries

no public schools

no public parks

no street corners or other public spaces where performances often occur

no public performance venues of any kind (amphitheaters, publicly funded indoor theaters, etc)

Or "in a location" where a "minor" might be able to "see" it (private property viewable from a neighbor's house....this line means just about everywhere that a family with anyone under 18 might be)

here is the bill (an amendment, actually): https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/113/Bill/SB0003.pdf

[TSherbs]

oops, that was meant as an edit, not as a quote....

[Chuck Naill]

Again, drag is not banned in Tennessee.

Are you intentionally ignoring the law that was just passed? Why are you doing this? Starting July 1, 2023, drag performances (my language) will be banned from all Tenessee public spaces, whether children are present or not.

no public libraries

no public schools

no public parks

no street corners or other public spaces where performances often occur

no public performance venues of any kind (amphitheaters, publicly funded indoor theaters, etc)

Yesterday on Fresh Air a Drag Actor was interviewed. He is not banned, but restricted.

[Chuck Naill]

Let’s say I was going to the library to pick up a book or public park for a family picnic or personal solitude. I wouldn’t go nude or practice anything that might not be appropriate for most. Given that I’m in a public space, I restrict myself accordingly. When I am at home 🏠 or with others of like mind, my actions can be less restricted.

[TSherbs]

Again, drag is not banned in Tennessee.

Are you intentionally ignoring the law that was just passed? Why are you doing this? Starting July 1, 2023, drag performances (my language) will be banned from all Tenessee public spaces, whether children are present or not.

no public libraries

no public schools

no public parks

no street corners or other public spaces where performances often occur

no public performance venues of any kind (amphitheaters, publicly funded indoor theaters, etc)

Yesterday on Fresh Air a Drag Actor was interviewed. He is not banned, but restricted.

It's a good thing that these "restrictions" as you call them aren't against, say, blacks from entering certain restaurants, theaters, hotels, etc. Would you tell them, "You're not 'banned' from these places, you're just 'restricted'? You know, out of worry that white children might see you holding hands or kissing a white woman and be sexually and morally corrupted"?

Chuck, you seem to have become a bit more progressive-minded, according to your own explanation, about people of color because of your inclusion in your family of childen of color and subsequent readings. But in terms of gender and sexuality, perhaps because you have had less exposure and have done less reading, you are not so equality inclined and continue to hold onto the idea that exposure to other gender identities and practices is a vector of moral corruption. I just want to remind you that this is EXACTLY what was said for centuries about allowing children to see mixed-race couples and was considered a clear moral truth.

And yet it was clearly a lie brought on by the human reluctance to accept the "other" as an equal and how determined we are to see our own tribes (one of them, hetersexuality) as superior.

It is a good thing that in Shakespeare's day they did not allow men to dress as women in plays, wear make-up and dresses, engage in love scenes and on-stage kisses. Because of course that would have signalled the break down of sexual values...Oh wait...Elizabethan law actually REQUIRED men to play the women's parts....oh, how times have changed...All those perverts in the audience watching men make out with men for sexualized entertainment (Romeo and Juliet features a morning scene as the sun comes up after the first time they have sex. Juliet is 13, by the way, being played by a younger, slight-framed male, and everyone in the audience knows this).

[TSherbs]

The language of the Tennessee law includes the criterion that of being "prurient" in nature. Here, again, is the language of the Tenessee law coming into effect July 1:

"Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a location other than an
adult cabaret that features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers,
male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient
interest, or similar entertainers, regardless of whether or not performed for consideration

Only two of these items state anything about "nudity" (your example), and all the rest are simply references to adult sexualized entertainment...until you get to the end parts about "impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, or similar entertainers, regardless of whether or not performed for consideration." That last part gets vaguer and vaguer and broader and broader, to the point that it becomes unclear just what "prurient" means (highly subjective, no?) and whether or not an "impersonator" includes trans-persons simply demonstrating public affection and/or sexual attraction in all the ways that society permits heterosexuals to do without criminal charges. After all, the law includes "whetehr or not performed for consideration," which I take to mean even if performed free of charge or remuneration of any kind. Well, regular public behavior is performed "without consideration," so just what behaviors are meant to be criminalized here? Can a director no longer cast a single-gender play for a public stage (or any stage that might include a high school senior in its audience) that includes physical attraction, seduction moves, or sex?

[Chuck Naill]

I’m not defending or advocating the law, Ted.

Race was a poor analogy choice on your part to introduce.

[dneal]

The question isn't: why don't people want drag queens to perform in front of children?

The question is: why do drag queens want to perform in front of children?

Reframe it properly, and we all intuitively know the answer. What's really strange is that a person who regularly decries pedophilia in the clergy is defending this.

[Chuck Naill]

"Not all drag queens want to perform in front of children. Kitty Demure is honest about what drag performances are about and thinks that sexualizing children is wrong, very wrong.

My theory, which I’ll argue vigorously forever, is that children shouldn’t be near anyone whose primary self-identification revolves around sex. (“I am a gay teacher” versus “I am a teacher.”) The work of a drag queen is all about sex.


https://www.americanthinker.com/blog..._children.html

[TSherbs]

I’m not defending or advocating the law, Ted.

I only brought it up because you stated that Tennessee had not banned drag shows, when they actually just have done so (effective July 1, 2023) in order to bar any performances, for pay or for free, by any person in the dress of another sex (this, of course, was not defined in the law) in all public spaces and anywhere else that a minor (under 18) would have a chance to be able to see it (this includes private property). It's been all over the news because Tennessee was the first state to enact such a law.

The race referrence was simply a tool to try to illuminate your language (distinguishing between "restriction" and "banning") in a new light. There is no difference to the person who is denied entry to a building when you tell them that they are "restricted by law" from entering versus that they are "banned by law from" from entering.

And I brought up the Shakespearean references because I am well aware of the many kinds of dramatic productions that make unusual race, gender, and ethnic casting decisions to enhance various themes of the plays. This law, poorly written as it is, makes Tennessee likely to put in criminal jeopardy certain productions of plays because they cast cross-gender (the way that Shakespeare had to, for example). And all-female casts, too.

[TSherbs]

The larger context, of course, is a political culture war over LGBTQ+ visibilty and rights and efforts at equality. There is an enormous systemic bias in our culture and in most of our minds toward and in support of heterosexuality. No one doubts the importance of heterosexual union for reproduction, and no one doubts the dominance, statistically, of heterosexuality in the population. But legitimacy and equity are not determined by numerical dominance. The queer communities are asking to be seen, to be legitimate, to be un-harrassed and un-victimized. To see a woman in a three-piece suit reading to children as a moral threat to children is a way of mis-seeing clothing that goes back over 120 years (I know of statements made around 1900 in the print media).

The problem isn't what clothing people wear. It wasn't in 1900, and it is not now. Are we really stuck in those old-fashioned mental boxes of women shouldn't wear pants and men shouldn't wear dresses?

[TSherbs]

My theory, which I’ll argue vigorously forever, is that children shouldn’t be near anyone whose primary self-identification revolves around sex. (“I am a gay teacher” versus “I am a teacher.”) The work of a drag queen is all about sex.

What do you mean by the bolded part above? Do you mean the act of sexual intercourse, or do you mean gender presentation, or do you mean one's genetic sexual haploid at birth? If you mean one's sexual preference, then you must be against every hetero parent who lives with their spouse of the opposite gender. Every day they outwardly project their sexual identity to their children, boldly, with the full force of sleeping in same beds, calling each other pet names, hugging, touching, kissing, reproducing. They say "wife" and "husband" and "mother" and "father" and every day their children witness these clear messages of the sexual preferences of their heterosexual parents. They hear tales of meeting each other, of being attracted to each other, of courtship, even stories often of how the children were conceived. So, if you want to be "fair," and you want to keep "sexual identity" away from children, then there is an enormous hetero system of cultural messaging that you will have to erase. Or at least acknowledge, and then explain why you accept that messaging and not homosexual identity messaging. Without hypocrisy, that is.

[dneal]

Chuck - I applaud your demeanor and rationality in this discussion, sincerely.

TSherbs - Your posts are full of multi-syllabic jargon and buzzwords, but say very little. Jar has called it word-salad in the past. This: "The problem isn't what clothing people wear." for example, is spurious or (scarily) sincere ignorance of the issue.

Your bolded question to Chuck is answered by the example in parentheses that immediately follows. This issue isn't about clothing choice. It is about adult men performing routines you would see in a strip club - in some cases stripper poles, swings, etc... If you are confused about the word "sexual", then let's say "erotic". Or "ribald". The truth is it's obscene and vulgar. We're talking of instances of men in G-Strings spreading their legs in front of K-6 aged children. It's a kink and to involve children makes it "perverse".

Although Chuck reads old-school conservative publications, at least he is somewhat aware of the other political side. Actual gay men are appalled at these shows, and know it for what it is. Grooming. There are endless examples that the right (both old and new) are trumpeting (no pun intended). Dear god, just Google "Jeffery Marsh"; the TikTok "counselor" who is there to talk to kids when they need to go "no contact" with their parents (i.e.: keep it secret). Classic grooming, in global news; because a Muslim woman in Britain mocked him and called him out. Newsweek Article Now she and her children are being threatened.

As an aside, I wonder about the consequences of Al Jazeera running articles on it as well.

So seriously, are your publications not making you aware of this sort of thing? Are you being tribal and not wanting to recognize what "your side" is doing? Are you genuinely ok with this?

The left and right can't continue to live in two realities.

I doubt you would find many who have a problem with Ru Paul. I doubt you would find many people who object to the existence of drag-queen cabarets, bars, whatever. That's not the issue. Erotic, lewd, bawdy, vulgar, sexual acts are being performed for children. Do you remember the progressive proposal to reframe pedophilia as "Minor Attracted Persons"?

[Chuck Naill]

I’m not defending or advocating the law, Ted.

I only brought it up because you stated that Tennessee had not banned drag shows, when they actually just have done so (effective July 1, 2023) in order to bar any performances, for pay or for free, by any person in the dress of another sex (this, of course, was not defined in the law) in all public spaces and anywhere else that a minor (under 18) would have a chance to be able to see it (this includes private property). It's been all over the news because Tennessee was the first state to enact such a law.

The race referrence was simply a tool to try to illuminate your language (distinguishing between "restriction" and "banning") in a new light. There is no difference to the person who is denied entry to a building when you tell them that they are "restricted by law" from entering versus that they are "banned by law from" from entering.

And I brought up the Shakespearean references because I am well aware of the many kinds of dramatic productions that make unusual race, gender, and ethnic casting decisions to enhance various themes of the plays. This law, poorly written as it is, makes Tennessee likely to put in criminal jeopardy certain productions of plays because they cast cross-gender (the way that Shakespeare had to, for example). And all-female casts, too.

This is purely conjecture, but the law may have originated because of public performances by drag actors.

I am very aware of America's racial past of restricting and banning African Americans from much of what it's white citizens took for granted and often continue in some locations. To conflate Jim Crow Laws with the Tennessee Law banning public performance, but not restricting the free exercise of adult performance, does not equate the terms.

Unless I am mistaken, when a boy plays a girl or girl a boy, the representation is not sexual and is incidental to the performance.

[Chuck Naill]

The larger context, of course, is a political culture war over LGBTQ+ visibilty and rights and efforts at equality. There is an enormous systemic bias in our culture and in most of our minds toward and in support of heterosexuality. No one doubts the importance of heterosexual union for reproduction, and no one doubts the dominance, statistically, of heterosexuality in the population. But legitimacy and equity are not determined by numerical dominance. The queer communities are asking to be seen, to be legitimate, to be un-harrassed and un-victimized. To see a woman in a three-piece suit reading to children as a moral threat to children is a way of mis-seeing clothing that goes back over 120 years (I know of statements made around 1900 in the print media).

The problem isn't what clothing people wear. It wasn't in 1900, and it is not now. Are we really stuck in those old-fashioned mental boxes of women shouldn't wear pants and men shouldn't wear dresses?

As I think I mentioned, the LGBQ community do not want the Drag actors to be their spokespeople. Queer people should be seen, valued, and respected, fully. They deserve dignity. They are not playing dress up. In some way, a dressed up male performer is doing an injustice toward trans people.

You mentioned Dolly before. She is a performer and an entertainer. Her costumes reflect how she wants to be seen in public as a singer. When she was an actor in 9-5, her dress reflected what women usually wear at the office.

[Chuck Naill]

My theory, which I’ll argue vigorously forever, is that children shouldn’t be near anyone whose primary self-identification revolves around sex. (“I am a gay teacher” versus “I am a teacher.”) The work of a drag queen is all about sex.

What do you mean by the bolded part above? Do you mean the act of sexual intercourse, or do you mean gender presentation, or do you mean one's genetic sexual haploid at birth? If you mean one's sexual preference, then you must be against every hetero parent who lives with their spouse of the opposite gender. Every day they outwardly project their sexual identity to their children, boldly, with the full force of sleeping in same beds, calling each other pet names, hugging, touching, kissing, reproducing. They say "wife" and "husband" and "mother" and "father" and every day their children witness these clear messages of the sexual preferences of their heterosexual parents. They hear tales of meeting each other, of being attracted to each other, of courtship, even stories often of how the children were conceived. So, if you want to be "fair," and you want to keep "sexual identity" away from children, then there is an enormous hetero system of cultural messaging that you will have to erase. Or at least acknowledge, and then explain why you accept that messaging and not homosexual identity messaging. Without hypocrisy, that is.

I was searching on why drag actors wanted to perform in front of children and this popped up. Since this is a primary source, I found their perspective insightful. If they feel that the primary self-identification revolves around sex, this would be inappropriate for children. As you know, children learn roles for adults. They will call you out in a heartbeat.

There was one video that I did not post where a drag actor lifted their dress to expose their panties. As a teacher, if you had a female student who lifted their skirt to the class to show their panties, would that be concerning. If they said to you the drag person did it, how would you respond?

As an aside, some children want attention. They learn that by acting in a particular way provides the attention they crave. As you know, this attention can be destructive. For me, if I am going to have to take sides, I will side with the families of small children.

[TSherbs]

To conflate Jim Crow Laws with the Tennessee Law banning public performance, but not restricting the free exercise of adult performance does not equate the terms.

Of course they are not "equal." I pointed out that the same moral charge of corruption was levied against them. I am not "conflating" them.

Unless I am mistaken, when a boy plays a girl or girl a boy, the representation is not sexual and is incidental to the performance.

Except when it is not, as during love scenes, etc. Plenty of plays (songs, films, novels, poems, paintings) are very much about the attraction of a heterosexual couple, which ultimately is about sexuality.

Here's another way to look at it: when a play is about heterosexual attraction (or even about the consummation of that attraction in sex), our culture has rarely had objection or stated things like "stop making everything about your sexual preference." Culture expects to see sexual attraction and heterosexual signaling in its population. Whispers begin when we don't see these things by a certain age. However, simply change the signaling to that of homosexual identity or attraction, and now we get "stop making things about your sexual identity or preference." This is what I mean by bias, or a double standard. Did you see the cruel reactions to Brokeback Mountain?

Even though there has been cultural and legal progress over the last 50 years, the LGBTQ+ community knows full well that large swaths of America, especially religious America, would rather that they put their identity signaling--so common in hetero society--on mute. It's a sort of "don't ask, don't tell" approach to sexual difference, but the "don't tell" is not applied to the majority hetero population. The queer communities get told, "You now have legal parity; isn't that enough? Can we stop having to face your sexual identity in everything that you do?" Of course it is not enough; this would never be "enough" for heteros either if we were to be told that we could have ONLY legal parity, but continue to be shortchanged on all the other social fronts of society. In fact, heteros KNOW this (IMO), and this is why they dig their heels in: real parity, real equity and equality of dignity and righteousnous and equal access to religion and to jobs and the erasure of systemic bias would mean giving up hetero privilege and power. And that is VERY difficult to ask of any group (tribe) that has for so long enjoyed and counted on, even subconciously, the advantages.