11 yr/old drag kid worshiped within LGBTQ community (Mod warning op)

sbsquarepants

klaaaz wrote: »

No, wearing an item of clothing does not indicate gender dysphoria as evidenced by millions of girls wearing trousers. But the traditional conservative posters in this thread get upset and offended when a boy wishes to wear an item of clothing that was traditionally reserved for girls.

What makes you think trousers are even a male item of clothing in the first place?

They are worn by millions of girls - you said it yourself right there!

klaaaz

sbsquarepants wrote: »

And are you some sort of authority on what people should and shouldn't think?

Lets say your brother, husband, son or some other male close to you is up in court for some reason, or going for a job interview or something like that.

They come and ask you for your advice - should I wear -

A: A suit and tie

B: A high heels, fishnets and mini skirt combo

C: A nice floral frock, just like dear old granny used to.

They're leaning toward B or C

What do you tell them, sure no one should bat an eyelid should they - it's just clothes!

I don't judge and dictate to others as to what they should wear, you seem to be very concerned what they do wear.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

What makes you think trousers are even a male item of clothing in the first place?

They are worn by millions of girls - you said it yourself right there!

Trousers were forbidden to be worn by women in most western countries for generations past, with the same conservative attitude to as men wearing dresses, the clothing was strictly genderised. Even in the US there were laws against women wearing trousers. It wasn't until the world war that women wore trousers where it became widespread and it continues to this day. They never had gender dysphoria from wearing trousers!!

sbsquarepants

klaaaz wrote: »

I don't judge and dictate to others as to what they should wear, you seem to be very concerned what they do wear.

If some male friend of mine was heading off to court dressed like a crack whore, I think I'd advise against it.

If you say you wouldn't, then you're either a piss poor friend or a liar.

klaaaz

sbsquarepants wrote: »

If some male friend of mine was heading off to court dressed like a crack whore, I think I'd advise against it.

If you say you wouldn't, then you're either a piss poor friend or a liar.

And you're off again linking what one wears to the sexual side of clothing, you seem obsessed with it, why??
If that male friend of yours turn up in court wearing a dress from neck to toe, you'd be moaning about their ankles showing!

Zorya

klaaaz wrote: »

And you're off again linking what one wears to the sexual side of clothing, you seem obsessed with it, why??
If that male friend of yours turn up in court wearing a dress from neck to toe, you'd be moaning about their ankles showing!

Since you believe Glitter Hole, whose mottos include ''Bottoming for Ireland'' and ''Keep the Fncking Buggery Going'', and whose usual night job involves presenting a kink and fetish act in Gay clubs, is suitable for a day job reading to small toddlers on the public purse once they put on their cardigans, do you also believe primary school teachers employed on the public purse should be allowed to work as publicly advertised sex cam girls / lads or dominatrix artists on their down time?

Wibbs

klaaaz wrote: »

How is it making a statement, a person in a democracy should have the choice to wear trouser/dress/skirt/any everyday clothing as they wish.

There you go again with "should". Sure in a Perfect World™ but I hate to break it to you, it isn't. Unlikely to ever be either. Pick out the most Right On "Progressive" group of people or community you like and I guarantee they will have judgement points. There will always be judgement within a culture and statements that invite judgement will be, well, judged. It is an intrinsic part of human nature. It is also an intrinsic part of human nature to hope and work towards better, but that can go either way too. In a centuries time people could read this thread and exclaim a WTF about many attitudes in it, but you/we might be surprised by which ones.

sbsquarepants

klaaaz wrote: »

And you're off again linking what one wears to the sexual side of clothing, you seem obsessed with it, why??
If that male friend of yours turn up in court wearing a dress from neck to toe, you'd be moaning about their ankles showing!

I think that chip on your shoulder is starting to cut off the blood supply to your brain klaaaz - you're back talking shíte again.

I'm in no way obsessed with the sexual side of clothing, but I'm not claiming it doesn't exist. Again I don't care what he wears - it's just ridiculous to suggest it doesn't effect peoples view of him. Have you never heard the phrase "the clothes make the man"

No matter what people "should" think (as slippery a slope as ever you'll find by the way) If Mr O'Brien turns up for a job interview dressed like Lilly Savage - it's probably not going to end well for him.

As I said the options are you must either be a piss poor friend or a liar - I'm tending towards the latter.

I suppose both could be an option too!

klaaaz

klaaaz wrote:

How is it making a statement, a person in a democracy should have the choice to wear trouser/dress/skirt/any everyday clothing as they wish.

They can, I will choose to base my first opinion of them on what they are wearing.

klaaaz wrote:

I don't judge and dictate to others as to what they should wear, you seem to be very concerned what they do wear.

Neither do I. But I will give advice or tell people they look silly when they do.

klaaaz wrote:

And you're off again linking what one wears to the sexual side of clothing, you seem obsessed with it, why?? If that male friend of yours turn up in court wearing a dress from neck to toe, you'd be moaning about their ankles showing!

No.

And clothes are sexualised. Because of the difference between sexes.

If I was to wear the same inch jeans as my missus, they would fit differently because *gasp* women and men's bodies are usually not the same.

Whether it be around the chest, hips, groin, waist, there are fundamental differences that most clothes designers take into account.

Get over it.

klaaaz

sbsquarepants wrote: »

I think that chip on your shoulder is starting to cut off the blood supply to your brain klaaaz - you're back talking shíte again.

I'm in no way obsessed with the sexual side of clothing, but I'm not claiming it doesn't exist. Again I don't care what he wears - it's just ridiculous to suggest it doesn't effect peoples view of him. Have you never heard the phrase "the clothes make the man"

No matter what people "should" think (as slippery a slope as ever you'll find by the way) If Mr O'Brien turns up for a job interview dressed like Lilly Savage - it's probably not going to end well for him.

As I said the options are you must either be a piss poor friend or a liar - I'm tending towards the latter.

I suppose both could be an option too!

Well O'Brien faces prejudice then based on what he wears to that interview as as a drag person, many companies have rules that gender expression is tolerated. Prejudice is wrong don't you agree?

Deleted User wrote: »

They can, I will choose to base my first opinion of them on what they are wearing.

Neither do I. But I will give advice or tell people they look silly when they do.

Thanks for the reminder of your role in the fashion police

Deleted User wrote: »

And clothes are sexualised. Because of the difference between sexes.

If I was to wear the same inch jeans as my missus, they would fit differently because *gasp* women and men's bodies are usually not the same.

Whether it be around the chest, hips, groin, waist, there are fundamental differences that most clothes designers take into account.

Get over it.

You misinterpreted what sexualised meant but I see you mean different body sizes and shapes in this instance.

Would you object to a man wearing a dress even if it's designed for a man's body?

klaaaz

klaaaz wrote:

Well O'Brien faces prejudice then based on what he wears to that interview as as a drag person, many companies have rules that gender expression is tolerated. Prejudice is wrong don't you agree?

Not always no. I don't find it absurd to prejudge people on certain aspects of their appearance and/or actions.

You don't either. But I'm assuming you will say you aren't in any way prejudiced.

*Patiently awaits the racist argument.

Would you hire someone that looks homeless for a front of house job in a 5star hotel?

Would you hire a 600 lb woman to be a healthy eating advocate?

Would I hire a drag troupe to read to kids?

klaaaz wrote:

Thanks for the reminder of your role in the fashion police

I have no such role.

klaaaz

klaaaz wrote:

Would you object to a man wearing a dress even if it's designed for a man's body?

In his own time, no. To read to my child, no. I wouldn't object in so much as I wouldn't attend. If people want to tell themselves that men wearing dresses is normal, knock yourselves out. It's patently not and normalising drag or transvestitism is,for the want of a better description, not normal.

klaaaz

Deleted User wrote: »

Not always no. I don't find it absurd to prejudge people on certain aspects of their appearance and/or actions.

You don't either. But I'm assuming you will say you aren't in any way prejudiced.

Well there we have it in written form that prejudice based on what a person wears in their appearance is ok.

Deleted User wrote:

*Patiently awaits the racist argument.

Would you hire someone that looks homeless for a front of house job in a 5star hotel?

Would you hire a 600 lb woman to be a healthy eating advocate?

Would I hire a drag troupe to read to kids?

I have no such role.

You like judging people on what they wear, that's fashion based!

Deleted User wrote: »

In his own time, no. To read to my child, no. I wouldn't object in so much as I wouldn't attend. If people want to tell themselves that men wearing dresses is normal, knock yourselves out. It's patently not and normalising drag or transvestitism is,for the want of a better description, not normal.

You don't know the difference between drag and transvestitism.

klaaaz

klaaaz wrote:

Well there we have it in written form that prejudice based on what a person wears in their appearance is ok.

It is natural to prejudge based on someone's appearance. To deny that is absurd.

klaaaz wrote:

You like judging people on what they wear, that's fashion based!

No, the first thing I notice is a person's demeanor and their appearance. Should I notice someone's personality first?

klaaaz wrote:

You don't know the difference between drag and transvestitism.

I do. A drag queen is exaggerated, made for entertainment purposes and usually made to look absurd.

A transvestite chooses to dress as the opposite sex for their own personal reasons.

Neither are "normal". Neither are wrong.

sbsquarepants

klaaaz wrote: »

Well O'Brien faces prejudice then based on what he wears to that interview as as a drag person, many companies have rules that gender expression is tolerated.

That's just the way of the world. You're free to go around dressed as vampire every day of your life if you so wish - just don't expect the rest of the world not to notice or react to it.

klaaaz wrote: »

Prejudice is wrong don't you agree?

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Lets say you are looking to sell womens cosmetics - you place an add for models and 2 turn up looking for the job.

Applicant No1 is Amanda - a real life woman, her very own diddies and everything.

Applicant No2 is A-Man-Duh - he's a 6 foot 8, 19 stone hells angel with a beard that anyone from ZZ Top would kill for.......but he's wearing a dress.

Who to pick....toss a coin I suppose?

sbsquarepants

sbsquarepants wrote:

Who to pick....toss a coin I suppose?

Prejudice.

I look forward to welcomed to the next LGBT rally wearing my MAGA hat and God hates F*gs t-shirt.

It's only fashion after all

thread is now stuck in a cycle of posters discussing:

- what is 'normal' and is 'normal' necessary or desirable

- the use of 'should' as a lecturing tool and whether it is a good or effective method of either arguing or convincing people you disagree with to tell them what they 'should think'

- whether you 'should' bring your kids to an event to support something that isn't 'normal' because you 'should'


lads im not sure we're getting to the nub of this any time soon

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote:

lads im not sure we're getting to the nub of this any time soon

I agree and I will do my best to not engage in circular conversation. It's just hard when you are being deliberately misrepresented as intolerant but I accept your point. We are getting nowhere

DEFTLEFTHAND

Deleted User wrote: »

Prejudice.

I look forward to welcomed to the next LGBT rally wearing my MAGA hat and God hates F*gs t-shirt.

It's only fashion after all

Trump was pro gay before it was cool.

BattleCorp

While I have no problem with adults performing in drag for other adults, it's crap like the pic below that has me against drag performances for kids.



I'm not saying the Glitterhole performance would have been on par with the pic above but a blind person could see why lots of people might be concerned.

klaaaz

Deleted User wrote: »

It is natural to prejudge based on someone's appearance. To deny that is absurd.

No, the first thing I notice is a person's demeanor and their appearance. Should I notice someone's personality first?

What should a person look like in order for them to be pleasing to your eye?

Deleted User wrote: »

I do. A drag queen is exaggerated, made for entertainment purposes and usually made to look absurd.

A transvestite chooses to dress as the opposite sex for their own personal reasons.

Neither are "normal". Neither are wrong.

So you do know the difference, it's a start.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

That's just the way of the world. You're free to go around dressed as vampire every day of your life if you so wish - just don't expect the rest of the world not to notice or react to it.

There are no rules in companies or in law about vampires, there is about gender expression.

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Sometimes yes, sometimes no.

Lets say you are looking to sell womens cosmetics - you place an add for models and 2 turn up looking for the job.

Applicant No1 is Amanda - a real life woman, her very own diddies and everything.

Applicant No2 is A-Man-Duh - he's a 6 foot 8, 19 stone hells angel with a beard that anyone from ZZ Top would kill for.......but he's wearing a dress.

Who to pick....toss a coin I suppose?

You do tend to bring out extreme examples of candidates for interviews, very strange habit you have.

klaaaz

klaaaz wrote:

What should a person look like in order for them to be pleasing to your eye?

I refuse to go around in circles. I have made my point abundantly clear.

klaaaz wrote:

So you do know the difference, it's a start.

Please don't be patronising.

klaaaz

Deleted User wrote: »

I refuse to go around in circles. I have made my point abundantly clear.

You said that you judge people on what they wear so what is the appropriate clothing for a person to you so you won't get offended?

klaaaz

klaaaz wrote:

You said that you judge people on what they wear so what is the appropriate clothing for a person to you so you won't get offended?

I never said offended. I also said that yes, usually my first impression of a person is based on their appearance and demeanor. Totally different to stating that I judge people on what they wear.

There are appropriate attires for different social circumstances. I wouldn't expect my child to be read to by a girl who looked like they were ready for a night out in coppers or a bloke looking like he was in his favourite Laura Ashley number.

The same way I wouldn't expect my butcher to be wearing a scuba outfit or expect to see Leo Varadkar wearing a Nazi uniform.

Please stop misrepresenting me.

klaaaz

Deleted User wrote: »

I never said offended. I also said that yes, usually my first impression of a person is based on their appearance and demeanor. Totally different to stating that I judge people on what they wear.

Appearance includes clothing yes? Or have you reduced it to facial features and hairstyle? Or perhaps you might not like their eye colour?

Deleted User wrote: »

There are appropriate attires for different social circumstances. I wouldn't expect my child to be read to by a girl who looked like they were ready for a night out in coppers or a bloke looking like he was in his favourite Laura Ashley number.

The same way I wouldn't expect my butcher to be wearing a scuba outfit or expect to see Leo Varadkar wearing a Nazi uniform.

Please stop misrepresenting me.

What are the appropriate attires for different social circumstances, everyday casual and office wear in your eyes?

Roger Hassenforder

klaaaz wrote: »

How is it making a statement, a person in a democracy should have the choice to wear trouser/dress/skirt/any everyday clothing as they wish.

Why only "every day clothing"?
Why not wear whatever they want?
Whenever?

Roger could look rather nice wearing a nice white lace babydoll négligée with red bra and thong, dropping off the kids to school, before going to work in the hospital.

Nothing sexual about any of it?
Anyone says otherwise is a bigot


And eez, stop with the women in trousers thing, they've always worn them.

klaaaz

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Why only "every day clothing"?
Why not wear whatever they want?
Whenever?

Roger could look rather nice wearing a nice white lace babydoll négligée with red bra and thong, dropping off the kids to school, before going to work in the hospital.

Nothing sexual about any of it?
Anyone says otherwise is a bigot

Roger would never wear that as you'd be here moaning about being freezing in that number anyway!

Roger Hassenforder wrote:

And eez, stop with the women in trousers thing, they've always worn them.

It's perfectly fits the conservative objections on dress code. Women have not always been allowed to wear trousers. Look up the history of women earning the right to wear trousers.

Roger Hassenforder

klaaaz wrote: »

Roger would never wear that as you'd be here moaning about being freezing in that number anyway!

It's perfectly fits the conservative objections on dress code. Women have not always been allowed to wear trousers. Look up the history of women earning the right to wear trousers.

Seriously though, why not wear what you like when you like?

Mr. Murphy, the 2nd yr girls teacher in Daisy Dukes and boob tube would be really down with the kids teaching English.

Allowed? On/off in some cultures at certain times, but before that and everywhere else, its not a case of women were allowedwear pants. They werent associated with gender (or sex)

Should have never let the women wear pants..

Dante7

Wibbs wrote: »

Not necessarily DD. As I noted above the brain scans of Gay people show definite differences in some areas of the brain. IE Gay men have brains that more resemble Straight women and Gay women have brains that more resemble Straight men. With more research, better science and testing these could become definitive. I strongly suspect Transexual brains will show even more differences and more commonalities with the sex they feel themselves to be. I can see such research being resisted though. For good and bad reasons.

Latest research strongly disputes that. The idea that mammals can be born in the wrong body is tosh. It's just personality disorders for the genuine dysphoric. And as for the males with lippy, they are AGP getting their rocks off by wearing glitter and getting more horny by getting validation by being accepted in female only spaces. I'd be tempted to laugh it all off except I have a young daughter who will be forced to share spaces with these ghouls.

sbsquarepants

klaaaz wrote: »

You do tend to bring out extreme examples of candidates for interviews, very strange habit you have.

I've noticed that nuance is not really your thing - so I exaggerate to make the point.......but it still floats on by, far overhead.

It's almost as if you're refusing to see the obvious!