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

klaaaz

klaaaz wrote:

Why can't you say underwear? You constantly bringing up underwear items in relation to kids is disturbing, no surprise that your fellow conservatives are silent on the matter.

Roger Hassenforder wrote:

My issue with Brian and Klaaazs points that it should be normal or acceptable for anyone to wear what they like, is the hypocrisy of their view. They're not willing to let anyone wear whatever they like. They have limits as to whats acceptable. Everyone does.

It's not disturbing. It's explained here.

klaaaz

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not disturbing. It's explained here.

Not even relevant, Roger is talking about being nearly stark naked in front of kids(his disturbing view), which has nothing to do with how a person dresses(dress, trousers, skirt) according to the "gender norms".

Posters here are offended by drag/crossdressing in public, but have no problem with women wearing trousers, hypocrites!

klaaaz

klaaaz wrote:

Not even relevant, Roger is talking about being nearly stark naked in front of kids(his disturbing view), which has nothing to do with how a person dresses(dress, trousers, skirt) according to the "gender norms".

klaaaz wrote:

Posters here are offended by drag/crossdressing in public, but have no problem with women wearing trousers, hypocrites!

I'm done with you. You keep repeating the same tired accusations despite it having being explained to you countless times.

You know where I stand, I know where you stand.

klaaaz

klaaaz wrote: »

Not even relevant, Roger is talking about being nearly stark naked in front of kids(his disturbing view), which has nothing to do with how a person dresses(dress, trousers, skirt) according to the "gender norms".

Posters here are offended by drag/crossdressing in public, but have no problem with women wearing trousers, hypocrites!

You are an absolutely awful poster. It's been what a week now of you throwing out that abject lie? You know it's a lie so just fuking stop. Your points have zero credibility when you resort to such shlte tactics.

Zorya

For the hard of hearing...

Cross dressing man


Man in Drag


Woman in trousers


Glitter Hole at their regular job


For what it's worth I actually don't have a problem with men wearing dresses, being cross dressers, transitioning gender when adults, having whatever sexual fetish they want as long as it does not involve minors.

So if Barry next door generally wears frocks and would like to volunteer at the library to read, I don't actually have a problem with that. At all.

But that is not what is going on here. There are scales of behaviour, and there is nuance to everything but the gas-lighters in this thread would like to convince people that they are mad to appreciate nuance and context. Well, I am not mad. Glitter Hole is a fetish/kink/sex act normally, it is not a suitable act for interaction with children. Nor do I believe small children need Pride events at all, be it gay pride, trans pride, hetero pride, stripper pride, porn pride, zilch, nada, nothing. They are children. Got it. They don't need to be sexualised in any way, heterosexually, homosexually, any sexually, or brought up to speed on the gender unicorn or queer sexuality/ diversity. There is time enough for complicated things, nuance etc when they are older.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

In that post, I never claimed you did. Calm down.

Really? So why even use the phrase? To sidestep the issue I riased? Because it's either that or your replied to the wrong post.

Because something exists, and I noticed that it's not normal, you accuse me of not dealing with it? What do you want me to do? I already said I would tell my child that there are some strange/ unusual people and things in the world that make strange and unusual choices. I don't deny their existence.

You were the one who questioned why everything has to be normal. I said it doesn't. If people aren't normal, fine. But don't be surprised when you are treated in a non normal fashion.

If someone wanted to dress in a toga and walk down O'Connell Street, fine, go ahead but don't get offended when you get a few odd looks.

I don't give a **** what people do. Just once they don't expect me to wholesale accept THEIR reality and adjust mine accordingly.

You have some cheek to accuse those who raise their children to think men in dresses is unusual as distorting their world view.

Mind boggling.

This brings me back to the original question: why does everything in life have to be normal?

As to your viewpoints raising children, you've done the following:



Denied someone else an opinon

Deleted User wrote: »

That a boy is a boy and a girl is a girl despite their opinion.

I'm saying that someone's personal reality shouldn't be accepted (or encouraged) if it isn't actual reality.

Falsely claimed something is a lie when you have no expereince of it.

Deleted User wrote: »

Accepting a lie isn't supportive. It's damaging.

Compared transgender to a menal illness

An anorexic is too fat in THEIR reality. Should we support their life choices?

Forced your viewpoint of gender onto someone else.

Deleted User wrote: »

I would never accept that she is a male. It's factually incorrect. If she chose to live her life as a man, I would support her in any way I could. That doesn't mean lying to her.

And finally, claimed you would deny your own daughter help because you disagreed with her stance.

If my daughter was anorexic, I don't think it would be healthy to capitulate and agree with her that she could lose a few pounds just because it's her reality.

None of these posts reflects the reality of the world you live in - just your view of it. There are no lies, no alternate realities, no mental illnesses. Just people living lives contrary to your mindset.

No, you don't have to interact with them, and no one is forcing you to. No, you don't even have to accept them. That's fine too.

But if you pass these biases onto your kids - and they ARE biases: just your views of the world - and you tell them that YOUR view of the world is THE way the world IS, then my point stands.

When they encounter the world outside of Daddy's mindset, they won't be able to handle it.

And THIS is how you raise snowflakes.

donaghs

klaaaz wrote: »

Again, you're linking a man in a dress to adult sexy items like fishnets and suspenders, drugs, porn, sexual activity to try to degrade them and deflect. It's simply a man in a dress, an item of clothing worn by many people in society.

Why object to a man in a item of clothing around your kids? You never answered except "you don't like them" and linking unrelated stuff.

Nice try, again. But has been pointed out countless time, “glitter hole” is a sexual slang. Sexual innuendo and just straight forward sex jokes are then main focus of glitter hole’s schtik if you google them. Which is fine for adults. So forgive people if they seem a tad skeptical of their age appropriate children’s events.

klaaaz

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm done with you. You keep repeating the same tired accusations despite it having being explained to you countless times.

You know where I stand, I know where you stand.

Deleted User wrote: »

You are an absolutely awful poster. It's been what a week now of you throwing out that abject lie? You know it's a lie so just fuking stop. Your points have zero credibility when you resort to such shlte tactics.

A snapshot of the list of the offended regarding drag/crossdressing in this thread

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109934384&postcount=1348

The attempt, however, to dismiss concerns about drag queens because they are said to be the ''same'' as pantomime dames is part of a bigger push towards sexualisation of children

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109934879&postcount=1351

Drag is sexualised

Theres nothing homophobic in not wanting grown men in wigs, make up and dresses (or whatever) reading books to kids in a library

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109943151&postcount=1389

The question I found myself asking is why are some drags so keen to spread their message to very young children?
They are trying to introduce a sexual paraphelia as mainstream

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109943182&postcount=1391

There is a huge chance that dudes who dress up as women and tell bawdy jokes at night are Autogynophiliacs. They are equally sexually dysphorics.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109944546&postcount=1413

If you dress in drag when your children's friends come around to your house then yes you should be Garda vetted

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109945489&postcount=1434

Why are these men dressing as women? It's certainly not for the benefit of the children. 5 year old children don't need to know that men go around dressed in women's clothes.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109946356&postcount=1494

What's the point of the man wearing a dress?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109947091&postcount=1519

The history of drag is interesting, the first males who pantomimed women on stage did so to be derogatory, it was also associated with blackface. Later it came to be associated with gay clubs and outre queer culture, and now the performance is being used in public relations to normalise gender fluidity. People are entitled to think what they like about any of these evolutions of drag culture, love them, hate them, and consider it unsuitable for small children

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109954388&postcount=1605

I have an issue with the man in a dress being around my kids

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109955003&postcount=1618

I said using drag queen acts for events with small children inevitably brings sexualisation into the picture because drag acts are fundamentally linked to sexuality, the queer scene, fetish, and so on. It is inappropriate

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote:

But if you pass these biases onto your kids - and they ARE biases, because none of it is grouded in scientific fact, just your view of the world - and tell them that your view of the world is THE way the world IS, then my point stands.

No it isn't. It's not biased to say a man is a man and a woman is a woman. No amount of surgery changes that biological fact.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote:

How about you tell them both sides of the issue and ask them what they think themselves, rather than telling them what to think?]

What are both sides of the issue?

A lad wears a dress. Fine off you pop chief. You look a bit strange but off you go. That's my side.

A lad wears a dress. Doesn't want to look unusual. That's his side?

Sorry but in my experience, I've never seen a bloke in a dress that didn't look a bit odd.

What from me saying "some people are unusual and make unusual choices" and "there's nothing wrong with it, it's just not normal" is condemnation and telling my children what to think?

It's be much more damaging in my opinion, to tell my child that any choice she makes will be accepted and she never has to conform to society.

The world doesn't work like that.

klaaaz

Zorya wrote: »

Nor do I believe small children need Pride events at all, be it gay pride, trans pride, hetero pride, stripper pride, porn pride, zilch, nada, nothing. They are children. Got it. They don't need to be sexualised in any way, heterosexually, homosexually, any sexually, or brought up to speed on the gender unicorn or queer sexuality/ diversity. There is time enough for complicated things, nuance etc when they are older.

News for you, children have attended Pride events like the main parade where tens of thousands of people have paraded and children have attended the recent smaller Trans Pride march, all usually accompanied by their family members. Bringing children to a Pride event is not sexualising them, this talk you have of indoctrination is conspiracy stuff just like what our homegrown Gemma thinks!

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

No it isn't. It's not biased to say a man is a man and a woman is a woman. No amount of surgery changes that biological fact.

Been down that road, there's been enough research to cast doubt on that. Gender is far from biological. Call it a social construct if you must, but that doesn't deny its existence.

What are both sides of the issue?

A lad wears a dress. Fine off you pop chief. You look a bit strange but off you go. That's my side.

A lad wears a dress. Doesn't want to look unusual. That's his side?

Sorry but in my experience, I've never seen a bloke in a dress that didn't look a bit odd.

What from me saying "some people are unusual and make unusual choices" and "there's nothing wrong with it, it's just not normal" is condemnation and telling my children what to think?

It's be much more damaging in my opinion, to tell my child that any choice she makes will be accepted and she never has to conform to society.

The world doesn't work like that.

Again, you haven't read the post: I wasn't talking about how YOU view the world. I know how YOU view the world, and I'm not denying this. This isn't about YOU.

I was talking about how you relate to alternate views and pass these alternate views onto your kids so they're prepare for the real world and not just your view of it.

"The world doesn't look like that" to who?

Roger Hassenforder

klaaaz wrote: »

Not even relevant, Roger is talking about being nearly stark naked in front of kids(his disturbing view), which has nothing to do with how a person dresses(dress, trousers, skirt) according to the "gender norms".

Posters here are offended by drag/crossdressing in public, but have no problem with women wearing trousers, hypocrites!

Nonsense.
Its the reduction to the absurd that exposes your utter hypocrisy on clothing.
You're all to eager to define whats acceptable or what should be normal, and condemn the conservative in others, hypocritically with a "wont anyone think of the kids" guff.

And persist in a nonsense argument, calling a highly normalised and everyday piece of womens attire "cross dressing". Pants/trousers are factually a gender norm for women, as there is a high improbability of observing a women in a random population (western) wearing pants. There is a very low probability of observing a man in a dress. Its not normal.

BTW, few are offended by a man in a dress. We're just calling it as not the normal. You dont seem to be grasping this.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote:

I was talking about how you relate to alternate views and pass these alternate views onto your kids so they're prepare for the real world and not just your view of it.

I. Do.

I tell them that some people are unusual and make unusual choices which are fine but not usual.

Mind blowing.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote:

"The world doesn't look like that" to who?

The majority of people in the western world.
**** it, may as well teach them about both sides of the anti Vax debate, the sandy hook conspiracy, NAMBLA, necrophelia, flat earth, Israel Vs Palestine etc while I'm at it.

Or maybe, just maybe, I'll wait until they are a little older to get into a nuanced debate with them about things that are a little off the beaten track.

If they happen to notice a man walking around in a lovely summer gown and happen to ask me about it, I'll revert to "yeah that's usually what a girl wears. It's a bit unusual alright, but some people don't do normal things. Up to them".

I'm a bigot.

Zorya

klaaaz wrote: »

News for you, children have attended Pride events like the main parade where tens of thousands of people have paraded and children have attended the recent smaller Trans Pride march, all usually accompanied by their family members. Bringing children to a Pride event is not sexualising them, this talk you have of indoctrination is conspiracy stuff just like what our homegrown Gemma thinks!

:rolleyes:

The subject of the thread, Desmond is Amazing, can be viewed via Google twerking at a Pride parade, half naked, much younger, to an audience of adult males in drag.

klaaaz

Zorya wrote: »

:rolleyes:

The subject of the thread, Desmond is Amazing, can be viewed via Google twerking at a Pride parade, half naked, much younger, to an audience of adult males in drag.

The thread has changed to the controversy over the drag people(posted first ironically by a Gemma supporter https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109933374&postcount=1342, check the Gemma thread for their contributions) reading a book to kids and it brought out all the anti-drag posters to the fore plus we have the anti-trans brigade lumped in for good measure when drag is nothing to do with trans.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

I. Do.

I tell them that some people are unusual and make unusual choices which are fine but not usual.

Mind blowing.

What's so mindblowing about people making unusual choices?

The majority of people in the western world.
**** it, may as well teach them about both sides of the anti Vax debate, the sandy hook conspiracy, NAMBLA, necrophelia, flat earth, Israel Vs Palestine etc while I'm at it.

Or maybe, just maybe, I'll wait until they are a little older to get into a nuanced debate with them about things that are a little off the beaten track.

If they happen to notice a man walking around in a lovely summer gown and happen to ask me about it, I'll revert to "yeah that's usually what a girl wears. It's a bit unusual alright, but some people don't do normal things. Up to them".

The problem here in a nutshell - apart from you not reading posts (fifth time) as none of this engages with what I wrote - is that you can't handle viewpoints that alternate from your own without getting upset. Case in point...

I'm a bigot.

This doesn't make you a bigot. Getting upset about it and inferring that people are calling you a bigot makes you look a bit snowflakey though.

Zorya

klaaaz wrote: »

The thread has changed to the controversy over the drag people(posted first ironically by a Gemma supporter https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=109933374&postcount=1342, check the Gemma thread for their contributions) reading a book to kids and it brought out all the anti-drag posters to the fore plus we have the anti-trans brigade lumped in for good measure when drag is nothing to do with trans.

Way to go with attempting to ignore what I wrote with talking about anything else. I never look at the Gemma thread as I haven't the remotest interest in her, so have no experience with what you are diverting towards. You mention her a lot though, maybe you have a secret crush on her but I advise not going there as she has been co opted by idiots. She reminds me of the old IRA support chicks.

Anyway what about Desmond twerking at Pride?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote:

The problem here in a nutshell - apart from you not reading posts (fifth time) as none of this engages with what I wrote - is that you can't handle viewpoints that alternate from your own without getting upset. Case in point...

Sorry princess. I'm usually good at reading comprehension. What viewpoints can't I handle?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote:

This doesn't make you a bigot. Getting upset about it and inferring that people are calling you a bigot makes you look a bit snowflakey though.

I've not once gotten offended. I have felt on some occasions by certain posters that some of my words were being misrepresented to infer that I was bigoted. Didn't upset me though.

I honestly don't mind someone on the internet calling me a snowflake. It's such a ridiculous term. Says more about them.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry princess. I'm usually good at reading comprehension. What viewpoints can't I handle?

1) The idea what some people see nothing wrong with a man wearing a dress;

2) The idea that transitioning gender is real.

Why do I have to tell you things you already know?

I've not once gotten offended. I have felt on some occasions by certain posters that some of my words were being misrepresented to infer that I was bigoted. Didn't upset me though.

Yeah...

I honestly don't mind someone on the internet calling me a snowflake. It's such a ridiculous term. Says more about them.

Except I didn't actually call you anything did I? I said getting upset with an alternative viewpoint makes somoene look like a snowflake. Which you did.

I don't know if it's a one-off or something that happens all the time.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote:

1) The idea what some people see nothing wrong with a man wearing a dress;

You honestly think that I can't handle that? I don't see anything "wrong" in it either. I just think it's odd.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote:

2) The idea that transitioning gender is real.

Also, you think that I can't handle that? I don't believe it to be true but I absolutely believe that some people do.

Your reading comprehension is perhaps not up to scratch either Princess. And perhaps you may want to try projecting a little less. You seem far less tolerant to my opinions than I am to yours.

(Perhaps it's just your style of writing)

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote:

Except I didn't actually call you anything did I? I said getting upset with an alternative viewpoint makes somoene look like a snowflake. Which you did.

of course you didnt. There was no implication there at all.

I specifically said that I wasn't upset. But sure, perhaps in your alternate view, I was so I have to respect it.

Alternative facts...... Where have I heard that before? Seems like the Dark Lord Trump has more in common with his enemies than they'd like to admit.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

You honestly think that I can't handle that? I don't see anything "wrong" in it either. I just think it's odd.



Also, you think that I can't handle that? I don't believe it to be true but I absolutely believe that some people do.

Your reading comprehension is perhaps not up to scratch either Princess. And perhaps you may want to try projecting a little less. You seem far less tolerant to my opinions than I am to yours.

(Perhaps it's just your style of writing)



of course you didnt. There was no implication there at all.

I specifically said that I wasn't upset. But sure, perhaps in your alternate view, I was so I have to respect it.

Grand so, after all that, you're completely fine with both and have accepted the different realities you denied even existed a few days ago. End of that part of the discussion.

Alternative facts...... Where have I heard that before? Seems like the Dark Lord Trump has more in common with his enemies than they'd like to admit.

Did I write alternative facts, or did I write alternative viewpoints?

FFS.

The last time I will explain this.

I accept that some people see nothing wrong with a man wearing a dress. If you don't see anything unusual, then that's unusual in itself. I don't care either way.

When it comes to transgenderism (which has nothing to do with this thread) I am of the belief that there are two sexes/genders. Male and female (you could include Intersex but because of the exceptionally rare occurrence of that happening, I will simplify it to the main two).

If a man feels like he is a woman and wants surgery to make him more comfortable on his skin then by all means. It doesn't change his genetics.

I'm not anti trans. I never claimed these people didn't exist or have a right to live how they want to live.

And you said alternate viewpoints but surely someone else's viewpoint is their fact? Or does that only work sometimes?

Actually, it doesn't matter.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

FFS.

The last time I will explain this.

I accept that some people see nothing wrong with a man wearing a dress. If you don't see anything unusual, then that's unusual in itself. I don't care either way.

When it comes to transgenderism (which has nothing to do with this thread) I am of the belief that there are two sexes/genders. Male and female (you could include Intersex but because of the exceptionally rare occurrence of that happening, I will simplify it to the main two).

If a man feels like he is a woman and wants surgery to make him more comfortable on his skin then by all means. It doesn't change his genetics.

This is a bit of s shift in denying the reality.

I'm not anti trans. I never claimed these people didn't exist or have a right to live how they want to live.

Never said you were and never believed you were.

And you said alternate viewpoints but surely someone else's viewpoint is their fact? Or does that only work sometimes?

Eh... no. It's not close to the same.

AllForIt

I can't believe someone just mentioned anti-drag posters. Dragaphobia. Add it to your keyboard dictionary.

klaaaz

Zorya wrote: »

Way to go with attempting to ignore what I wrote with talking about anything else. I never look at the Gemma thread as I haven't the remotest interest in her, so have no experience with what you are diverting towards. You mention her a lot though, maybe you have a secret crush on her but I advise not going there as she has been co opted by idiots. She reminds me of the old IRA support chicks.

Anyway what about Desmond twerking at Pride?

What about Desmond, that has been discussed to death? Why you want to view it is weird, that's giving an audience to the wrongdoers.

You have a constant habit linking to American conservative speakers on anything gender related, just like the ilk in Gemma's camp. Next you'll be posting about the dangers of unicorns in schools!

Zorya

klaaaz wrote: »

What about Desmond, that has been discussed to death? Why you want to view it is weird, that's giving an audience to the wrongdoers.

You have a constant habit linking to American conservative speakers on anything gender related, just like the ilk in Gemma's camp. Next you'll be posting about the dangers of unicorns in schools!

It's a thread about Desmond.

You and Gemma. It's getting serious.

klaaaz

Zorya wrote: »

It's a thread about Desmond.

You and Gemma. It's getting serious.

I am sizzling hot around Gemma, when she throws that holy water on me :P

p1akuw47h5r3it

klaaaz wrote: »

What about Desmond, that has been discussed to death? Why you want to view it is weird, that's giving an audience to the wrongdoers.

You have a constant habit linking to American conservative speakers on anything gender related, just like the ilk in Gemma's camp. Next you'll be posting about the dangers of unicorns in schools!

You have to be one of the worst posters on the site.
Desmond was brought back up to counter your argument that bringing the children to pride events isn't sexualising them, when there is a video of a child twerking in Little clothing at a pride event.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

DanDan6592 wrote: »

You have to be one of the worst posters on the site.
Desmond was brought back up to counter your argument that bringing the children to pride events isn't sexualising them, when there is a video of a child twerking in Little clothing at a pride event.

Don't know the full context, but bringing them to shouldn't be (but it would depend on the event in question: outdoor mid day parade, for example).

Having them participate in one would be a different matter though.

BattleCorp

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Don't know the full context, but bringing them to shouldn't be (but it would depend on the event in question: outdoor mid day parade, for example).

Having them participate in one would be a different matter though.

I take it from the highlighted sentence above you wouldn't be happy with the object of this thread, Desmond Napoles, participating in a gay pride parade?

I guess the nightclub stuff he did would be wrong too, yes?