[Sivad]

confuses drag, something that is purely performative in the sense that it is meant for the stage

That's bullshit, they don't just cross dress on stage and the alter ego they project emerges directly from their gender and sexual identities. It's not just some hobby for these people, it's who they are.

You suck, Maz. You suck at every conceivable level. You are utterly incompetent at spreading hate in any meaningful fashion and we all know you're a desperate wannabe Nazi.

You're just desperate to make this about anything but the fact that liberals are subjecting children to a debauched, hardcore party culture that no children should ever be exposed to. And I'm not judging anyone for hard living, I've done my share of that and that's how I know it's not something children should be around. Those people have no business doing kids story time at the local library, sex, drugs, and disco ain't for kids.

[SpecialOlympian]

You're just desperate to make this about anything but the fact that liberals are subjecting children to a debauched, hardcore party culture that no children should ever be exposed to. And I'm not judging anyone for hard living, I've done my share of that and that's how I know it's not something children should be around. Those people have no business doing kids story time at the local library, sex, drugs, and disco ain't for kids.

There's no way that there was ever a part of your life that didn't suck and was fun you weird, old, angry Boomer.

Also please stop telling us how badly you want to fuck drag queens and do coke you degenerate. Lmfao @ "I've done drugs so I am qualified to talk about gay people." What an ally gays have in you, a guy whose entire conception of homosexuality is drugs and disco.

[Sivad]

old, angry Boomer.

You're off by like three decades. Boomers are in their 60s, I'm not even in my 40s yet.

"I've done drugs so I am qualified to talk about gay people."

Not all gay people are debauched hedonists, that's your bigotry showing. And I can speak intelligently about it because in another life I did a lot of business with people in that scene.

[Pants-of-dog]

Since there were no cocaine lines and anal sex available for the toddlers, this is a strawman.

[maz]

ITT: Maz is such a Noemon Edit: Rule 2 Violation that he confuses drag, something that is purely performative in the sense that it is meant for the stage, with gender and sexuality because he is so Noemon Edit: Rule 2 Violation that he doesn't even know how to hate gay people right.

I used to work with a guy who became a drag queen. He became addicted to crack and became a prostitute after he began running with a group of queens. Sure probably not all drag queens are drug addict prostitutes, but what percentage are?

Also, the most virulent anti-Pizzagate guy on the forum is out here virulently defending child grooming in public places by weird sex people?

[Pants-of-dog]

@maz

Please present evidence that there was child grooming occurring at the DQST.

[Victoribus Spolia]

Since there were no cocaine lines and anal sex available for the toddlers, this is a strawman.

I used to work with a guy who became a drag queen. He became addicted to crack and became a prostitute after he began running with a group of queens. Sure probably not all drag queens are drug addict prostitutes, but what percentage are?

Not all gay people are debauched hedonists, that's your bigotry showing. And I can speak intelligently about it because in another life I did a lot of business with people in that scene.

Also please stop telling us how badly you want to fuck drag queens and do coke you degenerate. Lmfao @ "I've done drugs so I am qualified to talk about gay people." What an ally gays have in you, a guy whose entire conception of homosexuality is drugs and disco.

I've done my share of that and that's how I know it's not something children should be around. Those people have no business doing kids story time at the local library, sex, drugs, and disco ain't for kids.

This thread needs Jesus.

[Pants-of-dog]

https://www.wbur.org/artery/2018/10/12/ ... ra-cristal

[maz]

@maz

Please present evidence that there was child grooming occurring at the DQST.

By the program's own definition they want to children to have LGBT role models. Role models groom people, usually young people.

What Is Drag Queen Story Hour?

Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) is just what it sounds like—drag queens reading stories to children in libraries, schools, and bookstores. DQSH captures the imagination and play of the gender fluidity of childhood and [bold]gives kids glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models.[/bold]

By the way, the people who are organizing these library story hours pretend as though these library events are organic constructs between the library and local groups. They are in fact a foundation-funded construct that was started by a San Francisco-based non-profit called RADAR Productions.

This is on the American Library Association's website for Libraries Respond: Drag Queen Story Hour

[Pants-of-dog]

By the program's own definition they want to children to have LGBT role models. Role models groom people, usually young people.

Oh I see. You either are unaware of what grooming usually means, or you did a bait and switch.

If your claim was that these drag queens are attempting to teach the kids that being drag or LGBTQ is fine and not worthy of bigotry and discrimination, then yes, that is exactly what is going on. Is there a problem with that?

By the way, the people who are organizing these library story hours pretend as though these library events are organic constructs between the library and local groups. They are in fact a foundation-funded construct that was started by a San Francisco-based non-profit called RADAR Productions.

This is on the American Library Association's website for Libraries Respond: Drag Queen Story Hour

And?

Anyway, you seem to think that death threats are fine. So, do you think it would be okay if drag queens threatened these protesters with death?

Also, do you think the librarians deserved the death threats they got?

[Drlee]

If your claim was that these drag queens are attempting to teach the kids that being drag or LGBTQ is fine and not worthy of bigotry and discrimination, then yes, that is exactly what is going on. Is there a problem with that?And?

Yes. A very big problem. Three actually.

The first, as I have already said, is that this maneuver is aimed a children who are not sexual beings yet and do not understand clearly gender roles.

Second. The decision to educate children about sex should lie with the parents to as great an extent as possible. Most certainly not with the library. I am unsympathetic to the argument that "nobody is forcing parents to take their kids to this event". Kids will talk about it. So we have completely naive kids trying to explain this stuff to their friends.

Third. This is publicly funded. The very idea that tax money is going to a stunt like this is questionable. Particularly when we keep in mind that we are talking about kids under 5. Older than that and they read to themselves So we are, at taxpayers expense introducing questionable behavior to children who can't understand.

Now you have also fallen into a trap. You used the term LGBTQ. I can easily make the case that certain of these are not appropriate for discussion with little children.

Some of us live in the real world. It is not all sunbeams and unicorns. I would caution my son against dressing like a girl. I probably would not allow it at this young age. Even older it will open him up to derision and worse at the hands of his fellow students. Even the term "queer" in your acronym has questionable meaning even for adults without trying to explain it to a child. Can a 5 year old decide to "be" queer? No. Can they construct some play around their limited knowledge of what the term means? Yes. Am I for teaching kids this age that these things are "OK"? No. I am for teaching them to treat all of the people they meet with respect and kindness. Muddying the waters with sexual behaviors and gender stereotypes is unnecessary and potentially damaging.

Anyway, you seem to think that death threats are fine. So, do you think it would be okay if drag queens threatened these protesters with death? Also, do you think the librarians deserved the death threats they got?

Please stop doing this shit. It is unworthy of you. It is a cheap shot. Usually the kind fired by those who are loosing an argument very badly.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes. A very big problem. Three actually.

The first, as I have already said, is that this maneuver is aimed a children who are not sexual beings yet and do not understand clearly gender roles.

Do you consider this different from all the other examples of gender roles that children this age are exposed to?

I agree that they are not sexual beings, yet that has nothing to do with being exposed to gender roles. We are all constantly exposed to gender roles almost all the time, and toddlers are also exposed to them.

Second. The decision to educate children about sex should lie with the parents to as great an extent as possible. Most certainly not with the library. I am unsympathetic to the argument that "nobody is forcing parents to take their kids to this event". Kids will talk about it. So we have completely naive kids trying to explain this stuff to their friends.

Since no one is giving the toddlers sex education, this seems like an odd criticism.

At best, the DQST is modelling a diversity of gender roles, and gender roles are leated to biological sex (i.e. male or female) and that this in turn is related to sexual activity.

Third. This is publicly funded. The very idea that tax money is going to a stunt like this is questionable. Particularly when we keep in mind that we are talking about kids under 5. Older than that and they read to themselves So we are, at taxpayers expense introducing questionable behavior to children who can't understand.

The storytellers and other facilitators were volunteers, form what I understand.

Now you have also fallen into a trap. You used the term LGBTQ. I can easily make the case that certain of these are not appropriate for discussion with little children.

This seems more like a criticism of my wording than an actual rebutal or argument.

Some of us live in the real world. It is not all sunbeams and unicorns. I would caution my son against dressing like a girl. I probably would not allow it at this young age. Even older it will open him up to derision and worse at the hands of his fellow students. Even the term "queer" in your acronym has questionable meaning even for adults without trying to explain it to a child. Can a 5 year old decide to "be" queer? No. Can they construct some play around their limited knowledge of what the term means? Yes. Am I for teaching kids this age that these things are "OK"? No. I am for teaching them to treat all of the people they meet with respect and kindness. Muddying the waters with sexual behaviors and gender stereotypes is unnecessary and potentially damaging.

I would not sweat this small stuff.

Please stop doing this shit. It is unworthy of you. It is a cheap shot. Usually the kind fired by those who are loosing an argument very badly.

You do know that one of the drag queens has been receiving death threats, and that some of the librarians felt so threatened by the protesters that they switched branches, and that a protester came to the library with a gun, right?

I understand that this thread was started with the purpose of attacking the DQST volunteers.

They did wrong. They unknowingly let a convicted sex offender read to kids. They made a mistake. They acknowledge that, and they had set up a system to ensure that would never happen again.

And then they stopped the program because they felt that the threat to the safety of the queens and the children was too high, because of said death threats and gun carrying.

If the purpose of this thread is to look at what each side has done wrong, let us do that.

[Drlee]

Do you consider this different from all the other examples of gender roles that children this age are exposed to?

Yes. Very much. If it were not highly unusual it would not be done at all.

I agree that they are not sexual beings, yet that has nothing to do with being exposed to gender roles. We are all constantly exposed to gender roles almost all the time, and toddlers are also exposed to them.

Sure they are. And there is a time and place for them to be exposed to the outliers. Not at that age and not at the library. You are just restating your position. Anything new to say?

Since no one is giving the toddlers sex education, this seems like an odd criticism.

They most certainly are. They are forcing a discussion about it. Gender roles are all about sexuality. To deny it is typical of the extreme left but not accurate.

At best, the DQST is modelling a diversity of gender roles, and gender roles are leated to biological sex (i.e. male or female) and that this in turn is related to sexual activity.

Right. And none of this should have anything at all to do with toddlers. And is certainly not a learning experience we assign to librarians rather than parents.

The storytellers and other facilitators were volunteers, form what I understand.

Libraries are publicly funded institutions.

This seems more like a criticism of my wording than an actual rebutal or argument.

Do try to actually answer a point rather than simply feigning shallowness.

I would not sweat this small stuff.

I see. You consider bullying due to gender rolls "the small stuff".

You do know that one of the drag queens has been receiving death threats, and that some of the librarians felt so threatened by the protesters that they switched branches, and that a protester came to the library with a gun, right?

Sounds like a police problem to me. I trust someone called them.

I understand that this thread was started with the purpose of attacking the DQST volunteers.

On the contrary. It started with the purpose of attacking the wisdom of the program at all.

They did wrong. They unknowingly let a convicted sex offender read to kids. They made a mistake. They acknowledge that, and they had set up a system to ensure that would never happen again.

Oddly, I disagree with this too. At least I would keep an open mind about it. Unless the offender was prohibited from being near children as a condition of his probation or parole, and provided he was closely supervised I see no harm in it as far as that goes. It was surly though an example of how unwise it was to start this nonsense in the first place and how little real thought went into it.

And then they stopped the program because they felt that the threat to the safety of the queens and the children was too high, because of said death threats and gun carrying.

Right. I'll bet that was it. I'll bet the public outcry and even outrage in some cases had nothing at all to do with it.

From the OP: Protesters and counter-protesters continued to show up in great numbers.

If the purpose of this thread is to look at what each side has done wrong, let us do that.

No its not. It is to challenge the wisdom of the public employees who undertook to make this a thing in a government building.

[Victoribus Spolia]

@Drlee writing like a conservative for the first time in a long while. Refreshing.

Though I don't see the point.

@Pants-of-dog has stated in other threads that he would be willing facilitate his own child as a minor in transitioning through a change of gender even to the point of reassignment surgery.

So this conversation is entirely futile, Pants has no conception of homosexuality or transgenderism being in any way inappropriate for children to be exposed to because he does not see these lifestyles as less normal or less natural, let alone deviant or indecent. He would likely concede that they are "less frequent," but any sense of them being abnormal would be viewed as a notion stemming from systemic institutional oppression of these lifestyles by the white christian patriarchal capitalist class.

You are wasting your time on this one @Drlee.

[Pants-of-dog]

Yes. Very much. If it were not highly unusual it would not be done at all.

How is it different?

More importantly, how is it not a good idea to expose children to it. Please note that children are already exposed to gender roles.

Sure they are. And there is a time and place for them to be exposed to the outliers. Not at that age and not at the library. You are just restating your position. Anything new to say?

Children who go to storytime wuth their moms while their dads work are also exposed to gender roles “at that age and at the library”.

So if the problem is that toddlers should not be taught gender roles at that age and at the library, do you have a problem with the usual gender roles taught at that age at the library?

They most certainly are. They are forcing a discussion about it. Gender roles are all about sexuality. To deny it is typical of the extreme left but not accurate.

No, it is not about sexuality at all.

At best, the DQST is modelling a diversity of gender roles, and gender roles are leated to biological sex (i.e. male or female) and that this in turn is related to sexual activity.

Right. And none of this should have anything at all to do with toddlers. And is certainly not a learning experience we assign to librarians rather than parents.

Why should it not have anything to do with toddlers?

Libraries are publicly funded institutions.

Yes, and the cost to the taxpayer would be the exact same regardless if DQST happens or not.

Do try to actually answer a point rather than simply feigning shallowness.

Then make actual arguments instead of assuming that I am discussing sex just because I mentioned a specific word.

I see. You consider bullying due to gender rolls "the small stuff".

That was the ponly thing I would worry about, and I would not deal with it by being homophobic in my own house and repressing my child’s natural self expression.

Bullying my own child does not seem like a good way to deal with bullying outside the house.

Sounds like a police problem to me. I trust someone called them.

So you agree that the death threats are a problem and should be discussed.

On the contrary. It started with the purpose of attacking the wisdom of the program at all.

Well, when there is an intelligent criticism about the program, it will be a new thing in this thread.

Oddly, I disagree with this too. At least I would keep an open mind about it. Unless the offender was prohibited from being near children as a condition of his probation or parole, and provided he was closely supervised I see no harm in it as far as that goes. It was surly though an example of how unwise it was to start this nonsense in the first place and how little real thought went into it.

So you are all right with sex offenders reading to kids, but not drag queens. Okay.

Right. I'll bet that was it. I'll bet the public outcry and even outrage in some cases had nothing at all to do with it.

According to the article in the OP, the threats to safety targeted at the children, the librarians, and the drag queens was the main reason for shutting it down.

No its not. It is to challenge the wisdom of the public employees who undertook to make this a thing in a government building.

Well, I will point out that death threats against innocent people is a bad thing, and the homophobic protesters did that.

And if you do not like it, you can instead focus on how the person reading the story was wearing a dress.

I find the whole threat of violence to be more of a danger.

—————————-

@Drlee writing like a conservative for the first time in a long while. Refreshing.

Though I don't see the point.

@Pants-of-dog has stated in other threads that he would be willing facilitate his own child as a minor in transitioning through a change of gender even to the point of reassignment surgery.

So this conversation is entirely futile, Pants has no conception of homosexuality or transgenderism being in any way inappropriate for children to be exposed to because he does not see these lifestyles as less normal or less natural, let alone deviant or indecent. He would likely concede that they are "less frequent," but any sense of them being abnormal would be viewed as a notion stemming from systemic institutional oppression of these lifestyles by the white christian patriarchal capitalist class.

You are wasting your time on this one @Drlee.

Actually, I never claimed what you think I did. You obviously misunderstood.

It has been a while since you have made an argument in these forums. Would you care to try?

[Victoribus Spolia]

Actually, I never claimed what you think I did. You obviously misunderstood.

If so, I suppose you wouldn't mind answering my question.

Would you assist your child, if desiring to do so and if approved by a medical professional, to transition to a different gender and receive sexual reassignment surgery, prior to the age of 18.

Yes or No?

It has been a while since you have made an argument in these forums.

I really don't know what you are referring to.

If you are referring to my general decrease in being on POFO, well that is true and will continue for sometime as I am now entering the phase of completing my homestead and doctorate and will welcoming our sixth child in the next month or so. I simply have more important things to do and more time to do them.

Would you care to try?

Try to what and argue for what?

What is there to argue? None of this matters to me, I have proven that transgenderism is an immoral lifestyle from my proof for objective morality that you have refused to debate after being formally challenged to do so SEVEN previous times. So this whole thread is pointless to me and would be a waste of my time and knowing you, I am suggesting that @Drlee not waste his time either.

After all, you are only concerned with getting the last word not with actually engaging in debate, and given your views on this particular topic, @Drlee's perspective and argument are entirely missing the mark, you two are speaking past each other because you (pants) do not see anything deviant or unnatural about these lifestyles. My characterization of your general worldview on this topic was entirely accurate and you know this is the case and for this reason @Drlee is wasting his time because the core disagreement is ultimately a matter that reduces down to issues of moral philosophy, anthropology, and even metaphysics. Because you have refused to have those debates with me, speaking about these topics on such a superficial and surface level would be fruitless.

Try to see it from my perspective; I don't believe in public spaces (as opposed to private), I think any non-reproductive sexuality is murder by definition, and I regard association to be purely voluntary. What could I possibly find in this conversation as a common basis for dialogue? The closest thing I would say is that ultimately people should be free to associate with who they wish and discriminate against who they wish, and on that principle this case is the decision of the parents; whether its moral or not is separate from whether it is their right (in my opinion).

Other than that, I have nothing to really contribute on this specific topic, it assumes too much of things that I would contend at a more fundamental level.

[Pants-of-dog]

If so, I suppose you wouldn't mind answering my question.

Would you assist your child, if desiring to do so and if approved by a medical professional, to transition to a different gender and receive sexual reassignment surgery, prior to the age of 18.

Yes or No?

It would depend on the specific circumstances and what the medical professionals say.

How is this relevant to the thread?

I really don't know what you are referring to.

If you are referring to my general decrease in being on POFO, well that is true and will continue for sometime as I am now entering the phase of completing my homestead and doctorate and will welcoming our sixth child in the next month or so. I simply have more important things to do and more time to do them.



Try to what and argue for what?

What is there to argue? None of this matters to me,

Then you are in this thread just to attack your strawman from another thread?

I have proven that transgenderism is an immoral lifestyle from my proof for objective morality that you have refused to debate after being formally challenged to do so SEVEN previous times. So this whole thread is pointless to me and would be a waste of my time and knowing you, I am suggesting that @Drlee not waste his time either.

After all, you are only concerned with getting the last word not with actually engaging in debate, and given your views on this particular topic, @Drlee's perspective and argument are entirely missing the mark, you two are speaking past each other because you (pants) do not see anything deviant or unnatural about these lifestyles. My characterization of your general worldview on this topic was entirely accurate and you know this is the case and for this reason @Drlee is wasting his time because the core disagreement is ultimately a matter that reduces down to issues of moral philosophy, anthropology, and even metaphysics. Because you have refused to have those debates with me, speaking about these topics on such a superficial and surface level would be fruitless.

Try to see it from my perspective; I don't believe in public spaces (as opposed to private), I think any non-reproductive sexuality is murder by definition, and I regard association to be purely voluntary. What could I possibly find in this conversation as a common basis for dialogue? The closest thing I would say is that ultimately people should be free to associate with who they wish and discriminate against who they wish, and on that principle this case is the decision of the parents; whether its moral or not is separate from whether it is their right (in my opinion).

Other than that, I have nothing to really contribute on this specific topic, it assumes too much of things that I would contend at a more fundamental level.

I stopped reading this after a while.

If you have no argument, I suggest getting a blog instead of taking threads off topic.

If your argument is about freedom of association, olease note that the protesters were trying to infringe on the right of association of the drag queens and children.

[Victoribus Spolia]

It would depend on the specific circumstances and what the medical professionals say.

How is this relevant to the thread?

You said I didn't understand your view and I cited your view in this thread as a basis for arguing that your position is fundamentally misunderstood by another poster. For those reasons alone its relevant.

So, if the child desired the change, you could afford it (or it was paid for), and all of the relevant medical professionals and all of your friends and immediate
family members supported that act, would you assist your child (prior to the age of 18) to transition to a different gender and receive reassignment surgery.

Yes or No?

Can't make it much simpler than that, just answer the question. You said I misunderstood and therefore misrepresented you, so prove it.

Or are you going to say that you will refuse to answer my questions because questions are an attempt by me to assert some sort of home-erotic racist domination on you like you said to me recently in a different thread?

I stopped reading this after a while.

Yes, that was a lot of words for you. I am sure it was difficult.

If you have no argument, I suggest getting a blog instead of taking threads off topic.

I will post as I wish, if you feel that a rule has been violated please report it to the relevant site administrators.

Noemon Edit: Rule 2 Violation

[Pants-of-dog]

You said I didn't understand your view and I cited your view in this thread as a basis for arguing that your position is fundamentally misunderstood by another poster. For those reasons alone its relevant.

Yes, your misunderstanding is such that it even confuses transsexuality and gender dysphoria with drag culture.

So, if the child desired the change, you could afford it (or it was paid for), and all of the relevant medical professionals and all of your friends and immediate
family members supported that act, would you assist your child (prior to the age of 18) to transition to a different gender and receive reassignment surgery.

Yes or No?

Can't make it much simpler than that, just answer the question. You said I misunderstood and therefore misrepresented you, so prove it.

I did answer it. It is not a simple yes or no question.

Or are you going to say that you will refuse to answer my questions because questions are an attempt by me to assert some sort of home-erotic racist domination on you like you said to me recently in a different thread?

Lol, you really misunderstood that one. But that is not a surprise.

Yes, that was a lot of words for you. I am sure it was difficult.

I will post as I wish, if you feel that a rule has been violated please report it to the relevant site administrators.

Do you think it was right for the protesters to force their views of freedom of association on the library and its staff and volunteers?

[Victoribus Spolia]

Yes, your misunderstanding is such that it even confuses transsexuality and gender dysphoria with drag culture.

Presumptuous ad-hominem, you and @Drlee were discussing gender and so was I.

I did answer it. It is not a simple yes or no question.

So i'll ask again in a way that includes those "circumstances,"

So are there ANY circumstances in which you would facilitate your child (under the age of 18) to transition to a different gender and receive sexual reassignment surgery?

YES or NO?

If yes, please give us an example of such circumstances.

How is this difficult? I am asking you to clarify your views. Please do so; otherwise, your claim that I misunderstood you will be dismissed as baseless.

Lol, you really misunderstood that one. But that is not a surprise.

Please explain, you said you did not want to answer my questions because it would somehow give in to me wanting to dominate you.

What did you mean by this?

Do you think it was right for the protesters to force their views of freedom of association on the library and its staff and volunteers?

Protesting does not violate freedom of association unless they violently and physically prevented the library staff, the volunteers, and the parents from doing as they planned to do in their mutual association and we have laws against this sort of behavior.

You can protest someone else's freedom to associate without violating their freedom as the association isn't actually prevented in a real and physical way.

Likewise, the protestors did not "force their views," as no one was made to change their positions at gunpoint or by means of actual coercion or the threat of such.

That would be the only "forcing of views" that I would recognize as logically legitimate.

Hence, any immoral "forcing" must be such that violates the NAP; otherwise its not a "forcing" in any real sense as far as I am concerned.