Excruciating’: Canadian TV shows uncomfortable children talking to drag queens

Date.

 

You admitted you never heard the term before. The negative connotation came from your imagination. Perhaps insisting on that falsehood is easier than addressing the issue we are discussing here today. There is zero benefit to having dragsters interact with our children. Like you said, its dumb.

 

The hypothetical is that the Muslim is demanding others bend to his will and content he finds objectionable to not be allowed. I don’t think a Muslim reader should be banned either as long as they have demand for such — no one should be forced to attend but people should not be banned just because of their inclusion in a group like you are asking for.

 

In your examples, people are being forced no matter what. Either draggers have to hold their readings outside the library, or concerned parents have to leave the building. In your opinion, why does the dragger get to enjoy "preferred citizenship"?

 

Do Teletubbies get preferred citizenship? What about women playing dress up as a princess? Should no one be able to read to children for fears that some parent somewhere might be offended?

It’s fascinating that you are really saying that because someone that you don’t like is in the building, and libraries are usually fairly large, that you will have to leave it and thus they are the one that should be banned.

 

I asked a simple question based on your own examples. Why do you need to misrepresent my position? I never said I don't like these people. I don't even know them. Im sure they are a lot of fun at parties.

 

I do not believe allowing them into public spaces to read is a special status.

I am not misrepresenting anything, you can deny animosity but your statements show otherwise.

The cognitive dissonance is what is confusing as your normally don’t do that — I might not typically agree with your statements but they are usually understandable. This position isn’t

 

Any animosity came from your imagination. I often use humor and often avoid terms that were fed to us.


My position is simple.

Men in drag should not have access to our children without parental consent.

If you disagree, fine. All I ask is for you do demonstrate a benefit to support

In contrast, I have listed arguments against:

1. There is no benefit.
2. Children are developing emotional intelligence and pay close attention to facial expressions. The exaggerated facial expressions of these "despots in dresses" create confusion and can negatively affect the child. A similar example is Coulrophobia.
3. Parents know their kids better than anyone and circumventing their consent is far from bein g justifies in this case.
4. I don't buy that this politicized issue has anything to do with story time and enriching little minds. Its a trial balloon.
5. If there is a real demand for this type of entertainment, they can offer it to parents directly and there is no longer an issue.
6. It raises questions at an age where it is not possible to understand the answers.

Can you list any pros?

 

If a parent brings their child to a story hour then they have consented, do you agree?

You keep trying to assert my position is that children should be around drag queens without parental consent. Until you can stop regurgitating strawman arguments your pro/con list is irrelevant.

You are saying drag queens should be banned from public libraries over the objections of some parents, is that not your position?

 

Im not sure how I can make my position any more clear. It appears that we agree on the main issue, and disagree on autocratic crossdressers using the public library to gain access to children. That is not the same thing as banning them from entry. Priests may also use the public library as long as they don't commandeer the kids section like the loud, proud, and endowed would like to.

No, bringing children to the library does not equal consent. Far from it.

Are you able to address anything on my short list?

 

Horny.

 

Yes, dumb.
But should not be illegal.

 

Ha! I was thinking about where to go for date night with my wife. I was not thinking that at the time, but it is part of the deal

I never suggested we make it a crime. They just don't get invited to read to kids at the library.

I appreciate the discussion.

 

Your “short list” is based on how you feel. I can simply say I feel the opposite.

Parents taking their children to such events have consented for their children to be there. You have said that they should not be allowed as it might offend other parents but then dodge that pretty much everything will offend someone. You just don’t care about those other offenses.

You have to give a better reason than you think their presence is someone a “trial run” to groom children.

Why not leave it in the parents hands? If the performer has no audience then rotate it to one that does.

 

You are incorrect. My list is based on actual science. Are you familiar with emotional intelligence? (EI) Also, you are not qualified to speak for what I care about. I never used the terms "offend" or "groom". (I don't even use the term Drag Queen)

If the parent accepts an invitation to a dictator debutant with a dik, reading, that is consent. If they are just taking their kids to the library, only to find the kids section was commandeered by a proselytizing priest or a bedazzled man with delusions of royalty, that objecting parent becomes the second class citizen.

Their objections are more than reasonable.

BTW, I am using playful terms for humor purposes only and in no way mean to denigrate those that feel the need to project an image of femininity that was fed to them by society. "Drag" in other parts of the world would not involve a dress, makeup, and long eyelashes.

 

Can you expand on what you mean when you said it was a trial run?

If a parent objects to people playing dress up as an animal or they object to a woman exposing their hair do they become a second class citizen?

That is your opinion

Dragger isn’t playful — but I don’t really care what slang you use. I care about equal applications of the law and freedom of expression combined with parental consent.

 

I said "trial balloon". It means that access to children at the library is not the end game. One can jump tp showing young girls ones penis in the locker room. Baby steps.

Conflating this issue with Barney the dino or Scooby Doo, only reveals the inability to think of a single benefit. So far, no one can.

Any negative connotations from my terms came from your own imagination and you have been corrected already.

As far as my opinion, mine is the only one that counts when it comes to my children. Thats how things should remain.

Did you look up EI?

 

I would like to know why female exotic dancers are not going to elementary schools to read stories for children in their exotic dancing outfits. I'd find that equally as offensive by the way and I also like drag shows and enjoy the occasional female exotic dancers. Who cares? The point is LEAVE THEM KIDS ALONE!

 

Drag queens are not trans people. You are using a fallacy to justify barring a group that isn’t related to trans issues being allowed to read.

Reading to children is the benefit. Entertainment. Humor. You simply cannot defend that everyone is offended over something while simultaneously saying it’s offensive to bar them.

Again, if offense is the qualifier then are you ok barring women due to Muslim men’s complaints? Or women dressing up as a princess? Why does your objection overrule theirs?

EI is a psychological term, I haven’t seen any studies showing that children seeing drag queens harms them in any stage of life. Care to present some?

 

Thats funny. How can you tell the difference between drag and trans? (Without actually giving them a honk!)

No one is arguing against reading to children and I never used the term "offended" or suggested barring anyone.

You can use muslims, priests and plushies and my position remains consistent. They don't get to commandeer the public library.

Did you ever get a chance to look up EI?

 

One is a performer and the other has a medical condition.

You have absolutely suggested barring one specific group from reading to kids with parental consent but do not hold the same metric towards other that some parents may object to.

So are you saying all of these groups should be barred from reading events because some parent somewhere finds it objectionable?

If you have a point about emotional intelligence then make it.

 

You are moving further from the truth. My position is one of support for those objecting to exposing young children to these people. I have made several points against and have yet to see a single point in support.

Children learn how to feel based on tonality and facial expressions. The exaggerated facial expressions painted on these performers can interfere with these little developing minds and create a condition similar to coulrophobia.

Can you list one benefit? You can't use "Reading to children" as no one is arguing against that.

 

And you were never even close to the truth.

Freedom of expression, freedom of choice, freedom of association. There is also an issue of many libraries not being able to fill these reading events due to lack of participation or lack of a reader.

You are wanting to revoke all of those while refusing to even acknowledge that parents may object to other performers shows just where your narrative is.

 

Instead of repeatedly misrepresenting my position, can you list a single benefit in support and address the EI issue?

 

Unless you can cite a medical or psychological article showing that EI would be negatively impacted by a performer reading to them I am wholly uninterested in your assumptions.

What part am I misrepresenting? You have stated you want these performers to be barred from public library reading events over the objections of some parents but do not hold the same to objections over women readers or character readers disregarding the partners that have given consent for their children to attend.

Is that not your position?