Gender and the law

[Chuck Naill]

Nothing in the way I approach a topic has changed at all. I don't fit into your narrative anymore that I do Ted's. "

Candy/Chuck:
As much as you like everything to be all about "you," my comments were about TSherbs.
Sorry!

Nope, you quoted and responded to me, @724Seney. Maybe review your post. 😀

[724Seney]

Nothing in the way I approach a topic has changed at all. I don't fit into your narrative anymore that I do Ted's. "

Candy/Chuck:
As much as you like everything to be all about "you," my comments were about TSherbs.
Sorry!

Nope, you quoted and responded to me, @724Seney. Maybe review your post. ��

You Ma'am ( or sir or whatever) are the consummate moron.
Both your post and mine were about TSherbs.
Even he says so!! See Post #14 "Thanks Chuck, but I am not the topic here. You're free to make comments on the topic, should you wish."
Maybe you want to review it???

[Chuck Naill]

Nothing in the way I approach a topic has changed at all. I don't fit into your narrative anymore that I do Ted's. "

Candy/Chuck:
As much as you like everything to be all about "you," my comments were about TSherbs.
Sorry!

Nope, you quoted and responded to me, @724Seney. Maybe review your post. ��

You Ma'am ( or sir or whatever) are the consummate moron.
Both your post and mine were about TSherbs.
Even he says so!! See Post #14 "Thanks Chuck, but I am not the topic here. You're free to make comments on the topic, should you wish."
Maybe you want to review it???

Yes, I agree you are not the topic, but you tried to suggest things that are not true about me specifically, and I needed to clarify. Say what you need, but leave me out of the discussion on your posts.

[724Seney]

Say what you need, but leave me out of the discussion on your posts

Sorry pal, if you post something it is "fair game" to be cited or referenced by another.

[Chuck Naill]

Say what you need, but leave me out of the discussion on your posts

Sorry pal, if you post something it is "fair game" to be cited or referenced by another.

Posts what you decide, but leave me out of the discussion on your posts.

[724Seney]

Say what you need, but leave me out of the discussion on your posts

Sorry pal, if you post something it is "fair game" to be cited or referenced by another.

Posts what you decide, but leave me out of the discussion on your posts.

What is it with you and the other Stooges?
Newsflash! You are not the rule makers around here.

I realize that you three think you own this sub-forum. And, if fact you pretty much do so having driven everyone else away by your incessant nonsense.
But that notwithstanding, the FPG Forum rules, and not yours, are the ones which govern this sub-forum.

[TSherbs]

....

Female impersonators are people that deserve to be loved, respected, and held with dignity as with any human born or unborn, young or aged. Just because I do not think they should have unfettered performance freedom doesn't mean they are any less worthy of love.

1) Why do you keep referring to these persons as "female impersonators"? Do you mean to single out only the biological males who read to children in the clothing of the other gender? I keep asking you this.

...

Maybe, Chuck, if you addressed #1 above, the thread might get back on the topic of gender and the law.

[dneal]

This might be informative, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/01/o...smid=url-share

The other side of the argument.

[Chuck Naill]

....

Female impersonators are people that deserve to be loved, respected, and held with dignity as with any human born or unborn, young or aged. Just because I do not think they should have unfettered performance freedom doesn't mean they are any less worthy of love.

1) Why do you keep referring to these persons as "female impersonators"? Do you mean to single out only the biological males who read to children in the clothing of the other gender? I keep asking you this.

...

Maybe, Chuck, if you addressed #1 above, the thread might get back on the topic of gender and the law.

I use it to distinguish it from people who are transitioning from one gender to another. A trans person begins to dress as the gender for which they identify. They are not performing or acting.

[Chuck Naill]

This might be informative, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/01/o...smid=url-share

The other side of the argument.

One of my concerns for a trans person is that they might do something today for which they cannot undo later.

[TSherbs]

....

Female impersonators are people that deserve to be loved, respected, and held with dignity as with any human born or unborn, young or aged. Just because I do not think they should have unfettered performance freedom doesn't mean they are any less worthy of love.

1) Why do you keep referring to these persons as "female impersonators"? Do you mean to single out only the biological males who read to children in the clothing of the other gender? I keep asking you this.

...

Maybe, Chuck, if you addressed #1 above, the thread might get back on the topic of gender and the law.

I use it to distinguish it from people who are transitioning from one gender to another. A trans person begins to dress as the gender for which they identify. They are not performing or acting.

@Chuck: Maybe I am not being clear enough with my question. Let me try again.

1) Why do you keep using language that *only* refers to males dressing in traditionally female clothing? Do you not have the same concerns about women who dress in traditionally male clothing (like in a three-piece suit)?

[dneal]

TSherbs demands an answer to his "clarified" question, while still intentionally obsfuscating the issue.

But when presented with a clear question, he responds with this:

That's a biased question, and I have addressed this before. Repeatedly. If you have something to assert, just go ahead and do it. You seem to want me to defend these "men" (only) against charges in your own head. Why don't you just spell them out for others to read, and then we know what you mean so that we can respond?

And he wonders why discussion isn't possible here.

[TSherbs]

This might be informative, https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/01/o...smid=url-share

The other side of the argument.

One of my concerns for a trans person is that they might do something today for which they cannot undo later.

I thought about this. And I wondered if states allow rhinoplasty for minors. They do (there are some stipulations about bone growth being completed, so males typically need to wait a little longer). Even simply for cosmetic reasons. Minors just need parental permission and surgeon approval. Rhinoplasty is actually a complicated, basically non-reversible surgical proceedure That will affect persons for the rest of their lives, with potential for adverse complications and later regrets (and even later disfigurement during aging).

Additionally, there is no legal age restriction for breast reduction surgery, nor for breast augmentation. General practice is to recommend that women wait until age 18 to be able to give their own consent, but girls under 18 may receive both of these surgical proceedures with parent and surgeon approval.

I become skeptical when a more stringent standard is being put on gender hormone therapies than on these other complicated surgical proceedures. To me, this difference smacks of prejudice and rigidity or politics (election posturing).

Concern for the decision-making of minors is valid. But we already have several controls in place to help with this, and these controls have been acceptable for decades of medical and legal practice. But somehow treating gender identity and dysphoria issues in the same manner is not acceptable.

edited to add: Also consider the complicated and serious decision of marriage. All states set the basic age minimum of 18 for being able to marry simply with one's own consent. However, I believe that all states allow 17 year olds, and some even 16 year olds, to marry if they have parental approval. A few even say 15. So, potentially one can marry with parent approval at ages younger than one can use hormone blockers to treat gender dysphoria. Not sure I see justice and equity in the distinctions here.

[dneal]

Rhinoplasty is not a double mastectomy on a minor.

The false-equivalency gyrations you can achieve are astounding.

[Chuck Naill]

....

Female impersonators are people that deserve to be loved, respected, and held with dignity as with any human born or unborn, young or aged. Just because I do not think they should have unfettered performance freedom doesn't mean they are any less worthy of love.

1) Why do you keep referring to these persons as "female impersonators"? Do you mean to single out only the biological males who read to children in the clothing of the other gender? I keep asking you this.

...

Maybe, Chuck, if you addressed #1 above, the thread might get back on the topic of gender and the law.

I use it to distinguish it from people who are transitioning from one gender to another. A trans person begins to dress as the gender for which they identify. They are not performing or acting.

@Chuck: Maybe I am not being clear enough with my question. Let me try again.

1) Why do you keep using language that *only* refers to males dressing in traditionally female clothing? Do you not have the same concerns about women who dress in traditionally male clothing (like in a three-piece suit)?

It depends, Ted. When Julie Andrews dressed in a man's suit in the movie Victor Victoria. The intent was to pass her off as a man.

Is the intent to fool anyone into believing a female impersonator a real female? To me, drag, is an exaggeration and not meant to fool anyone. As the drag person said that I quoted, the intent is sexual. This might not apply to everyone, but it probably applies to most.

[Chuck Naill]

TSherbs demands an answer to his "clarified" question, while still intentionally obsfuscating the issue.

But when presented with a clear question, he responds with this:

That's a biased question, and I have addressed this before. Repeatedly. If you have something to assert, just go ahead and do it. You seem to want me to defend these "men" (only) against charges in your own head. Why don't you just spell them out for others to read, and then we know what you mean so that we can respond?

And he wonders why discussion isn't possible here.

It was a dodge on his part, @dneal. The question is valid, and I answered it for myself. The pandemic shut down the usual venues for drag performances.

[TSherbs]

....

Female impersonators are people that deserve to be loved, respected, and held with dignity as with any human born or unborn, young or aged. Just because I do not think they should have unfettered performance freedom doesn't mean they are any less worthy of love.

1) Why do you keep referring to these persons as "female impersonators"? Do you mean to single out only the biological males who read to children in the clothing of the other gender? I keep asking you this.

...

Maybe, Chuck, if you addressed #1 above, the thread might get back on the topic of gender and the law.

I use it to distinguish it from people who are transitioning from one gender to another. A trans person begins to dress as the gender for which they identify. They are not performing or acting.

@Chuck: Maybe I am not being clear enough with my question. Let me try again.

1) Why do you keep using language that *only* refers to males dressing in traditionally female clothing? Do you not have the same concerns about women who dress in traditionally male clothing (like in a three-piece suit)?

It depends, Ted. When Julie Andrews dressed in a man's suit in the movie Victor Victoria. The intent was to pass her off as a man.

Is the intent to fool anyone into believing a female impersonator a real female? To me, drag, is an exaggeration and not meant to fool anyone. As the drag person said that I quoted, the intent is sexual. This might not apply to everyone, but it probably applies to most.

I don't follow you here. When would you allow a woman in a three piece suit to read to children, and when would you not? Can you be more specific about when yes, and when no? And how does a trans person fit in to your distinction? Should a trans person be able to read to children?

[Chuck Naill]

....

Female impersonators are people that deserve to be loved, respected, and held with dignity as with any human born or unborn, young or aged. Just because I do not think they should have unfettered performance freedom doesn't mean they are any less worthy of love.

1) Why do you keep referring to these persons as "female impersonators"? Do you mean to single out only the biological males who read to children in the clothing of the other gender? I keep asking you this.

...

Maybe, Chuck, if you addressed #1 above, the thread might get back on the topic of gender and the law.

I use it to distinguish it from people who are transitioning from one gender to another. A trans person begins to dress as the gender for which they identify. They are not performing or acting.

@Chuck: Maybe I am not being clear enough with my question. Let me try again.

1) Why do you keep using language that *only* refers to males dressing in traditionally female clothing? Do you not have the same concerns about women who dress in traditionally male clothing (like in a three-piece suit)?

It depends, Ted. When Julie Andrews dressed in a man's suit in the movie Victor Victoria. The intent was to pass her off as a man.

Is the intent to fool anyone into believing a female impersonator a real female? To me, drag, is an exaggeration and not meant to fool anyone. As the drag person said that I quoted, the intent is sexual. This might not apply to everyone, but it probably applies to most.

I don't follow you here. When would you allow a woman in a three piece suit to read to children, and when would you not? Can you be more specific about when yes, and when no? And how does a trans person fit in to your distinction? Should a trans person be able to read to children?

I see the Robin William's female and the Julie Andrews male the same. Neither were hypersexualized characters. Both characters were formed out of need. I wouldn't have a problem with either character reading to children.

As far as I am concerned, a trans person can read to children, be a lifeguard, perform surgery, be a train engineer, a social worker, schoolteacher, or any other professional/volunteer task as long as they, like anyone else, have the skill set appropriate for the task.

[TSherbs]

....

Female impersonators are people that deserve to be loved, respected, and held with dignity as with any human born or unborn, young or aged. Just because I do not think they should have unfettered performance freedom doesn't mean they are any less worthy of love.

1) Why do you keep referring to these persons as "female impersonators"? Do you mean to single out only the biological males who read to children in the clothing of the other gender? I keep asking you this.

...

Maybe, Chuck, if you addressed #1 above, the thread might get back on the topic of gender and the law.

I use it to distinguish it from people who are transitioning from one gender to another. A trans person begins to dress as the gender for which they identify. They are not performing or acting.

@Chuck: Maybe I am not being clear enough with my question. Let me try again.

1) Why do you keep using language that *only* refers to males dressing in traditionally female clothing? Do you not have the same concerns about women who dress in traditionally male clothing (like in a three-piece suit)?

It depends, Ted. When Julie Andrews dressed in a man's suit in the movie Victor Victoria. The intent was to pass her off as a man.

Is the intent to fool anyone into believing a female impersonator a real female? To me, drag, is an exaggeration and not meant to fool anyone. As the drag person said that I quoted, the intent is sexual. This might not apply to everyone, but it probably applies to most.

I don't follow you here. When would you allow a woman in a three piece suit to read to children, and when would you not? Can you be more specific about when yes, and when no? And how does a trans person fit in to your distinction? Should a trans person be able to read to children?

I see the Robin William's female and the Julie Andrews male the same. Neither were hypersexualized characters. Both characters were formed out of need. I wouldn't have a problem with either character reading to children.

As far as I am concerned, a trans person can read to children, be a lifeguard, perform surgery, be a train engineer, a social worker, schoolteacher, or any other professional/volunteer task as long as they, like anyone else, have the skill set appropriate for the task.

Me too.

So, is "hyper-sexualized" determined by one's clothing? Are sequined dresses, or a lot of make-up, hyper-sexualized? Are cheerleading outfits hyper-sexualized? The problems of making these distinctions in law is where the argument comes down to. There are people trying to ban "drag" readings no matter what the books or stories are about or how they are dressed. They simply call libraries and threaten librarians or threaten the folks doing the readings.

Another way of thinking about dress, behavior, and sexualization: should children not be allowed to watch Gilligan's Island? Is parental control of the tv in the home not enough to ensure child "safety" around the suggestive sexual behaviors of adults on all the streaming services on TVs (and what used to be the public airwaves)?

These questions of mine are all pointed at trying to shed light on what I am suspicious of being a double-standard: that we accept the presence of hyper-sexualized heterosexual behavior in books, movies, tv, in our homes, and in our culture everywhere, but for some reason become unnerved by men in women's dresses and make-up. I, too, sometimes have knee-jerk negative reactions. But I question this and make myself examine it for bias and prejudice. I must ask not "What is their problem with not fitting into the hetero orthodoxy," but rather "what is my problem with their not fitting in?" And see what I find out.

[Chuck Naill]

I am not unnerved by anything. Like you, I am sure, we have seen it all. I don't think I have a double standard. For me there is a difference between RuPaul and Mrs. Doubtfire. There is a difference of intent and a different depiction of the character. I wouldn't want to take a child for a reading and depend on the performer to tailor their performance to a child's mind.

Also, I do not think a drag performer to be the best source of comfort or depiction of sex. While there may exist some need to think their drag performances are widening their appeal and acceptance, this is for adults to decide, not a child.

For me, I cannot allow my desire for a drag performer to be treated with normal human respect to go beyond my natural protection of children. They are adults and must own their decision and how they perform. We may need to disagree if you think otherwise.