SCOTUS Decision: Ban on "Talk" Conversion Therapy is Unconstitutional

[webbles]

5 minutes ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

"I don't see": This is very much a "you" problem. Sometimes life isn't kind enough to give us bright black and white boundaries without nuance. We just have to deal with it the best we can. 

I actually can't see it either.  It feels like Analytics position is that reasonable people will do reasonable things.  Which means that "girl's bathrooms" are wide open to unreasonable people since they don't follow reason.  And these unreasonable people couldn't be prosecuted by just going into the bathroom and doing things that are similar to what you do in a bathroom but for unreasonable reasons.  The law, up until 2013 (this is the first time a law was passed that explicitly talked about bathrooms and trans and was in California), said that if a male (either transwoman or not) entered a bathroom and were told to leave by store owner/employee and the person did not, they could be prosecuted for trespassing.  Now, in areas where it is acceptable for self-id, stores would not want to do that because they could be punished for discrimination.

How is that not a "laissez faire" approach?  If anyone can go into a bathroom per their own reasonableness, then anyone can go into a bathroom.  Why have sex-segregated bathrooms, lockers, etc at that point?  Since there is no bright black and white boundaries, why would we keep saying there is with the sex-segregated bathrooms, lockers, etc.

[smac97]

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

You have totally misrepresented Analytics position  

I don't think I have.  I think Analytics' position requires him to talk out of both sides of his mouth. 

On the one hand, he disputes the need for any limiting principles, but then he denies not wanting to impose any limiting principles.

When asked to articulate limiting principles, all he can come up with is "people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate."  That is no principle at all.  It doesn't limit anything.  It does not allow any enforcement mechanism.  

As I see it, "people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate" is de facto "Anyone can go into women's bathrooms for any reason or no reason at all."  Analytics denies this, but won't explain why.

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

After 18 pages of discussion, it is pretty clear that you don't really want to understand what the problems are with this kind of unnecessary law other than gin up the right wing public.  

I have been listening to people who disagree with me.  Where I have not understood their position, I have asked for clarification.  At other times I have pointed out flaws and gaps in reasoning and fallacies.  That's not an unwillingness to understand.  It's just disagreement.

For example, when @Analytics categorically refuses to articulate any coherent limiting principles, that needs to be addressed.

When the practical result of his preferred policy will be the eradication of sex-segregated spaces, he refuses to acknowledge or address that.

When he persistently injects fallacies and distractions from the topic so as to discuss me instead of the topics at hand, that needs to be addressed.

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

Even showing you photos of what transgenders actually look like

What some "transgenders actually look like," sure.  But that's not really pertinent to our discussion, since my preferred public policy is to administer sex-segregated spaces by biological sex, not by "self-identity" or what people "look like."

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

and why forcing someone who has transitioned to a man would cause way more upset and uncertainty.

No woman has ever, in the history of the world, ever "transitioned into a man," nor has any man ever "transitioned into" a woman.

Instead, what we often see see is biological males who have taken cosmetic, medical and sartorial measures to deliberately appear and "identify" as women.  A man putting on a dress and makeup does not make him a woman.  His subjective self-identity doesn't make him a woman.  We can and should treat such persons with respect, but respect ought not include going along with falsehoods and delusions.

20 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think 18 pages of you constantly going back to square one is enough for me as well.  

Okay.  "Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure."

I am there.  I hope you are too.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Calm]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

there have been some "Story Hours" that plainly were highly sexual:

I wonder if drag queen sexualized story hours are actually any more common than non drag queen ones.  It’s not like there have never been lines crossed by cis gendered books at the library before (anything to do with sex education for example has likely been involved in a controversy).

[smac97]

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Quote

You have endorsed a laissez faire approach, with no limiting principles.  I don't see how that is anything but "arguing that girl's bathrooms should be wide open to anybody."

"I don't see": This is very much a "you" problem.

Part of having conversations is explaining our respective positions.  @Analytics has presented what I see as a denial of something fairly obvious.  

Again, I see no legal daylight between "Anyone can go into women's bathrooms for any reason or no reason at all" and "people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate."  @Analytics never articulated a distinction, and has now withdrawn from the discussion.  @california boy has now withdrawn.  And my point remains unrebutted.

There's no obligation to rebut it, of course.

1 hour ago, SeekingUnderstanding said:

Sometimes life isn't kind enough to give us bright black and white boundaries without nuance. We just have to deal with it the best we can. 

Here's how I deal with @Analytics reasoning, such as it is:

I see no legal daylight between "Anyone can go into women's bathrooms for any reason or no reason at all" (which I see as the practical outcome of his preferred policy position) and "people should only go into the bathroom that is most appropriate" (which is his own statement of his preferred policy).

But it looks like the discussion may be winding down.  That's okay.  This is a good opportunity for us to "Embrace the Discomfort of Non-Closure."  No need to conclude with zingers or putdowns.  We can share our respective thoughts, compare and contrast them, evaluate them in light of reasoning and evidence, and then choose how to proceed.

I think women's spaces were originally created to benefit women and girls in terms of safety and privacy (and, re: women's sports, fairness).

I think such spaces have always been based on biological sex, not subjective self-identifications (with some potential limited, case-by-case exceptions for persons with actual DSDs).

Discussion of people with DSDs in this context is, in my view, almost purely pretextual.  We all know that we are not speaking of that tiny percentage of persons whose biological sex remains intractably epistemically uncertain.  Virtually the entirety of this discussion is about men going into women's spaces, and justifications/rationalizations therefore.

In a contest between the interests of women/girls and men who subjectively "identify" in ways incongruent with reality, I think the interests of the former should prevail.

That some men have dressed up to look like women and entered into women's bathrooms does not mean that they should.

I think subjective "self-identity" is an unworkable and unenforceable policy in terms of maintaining sex-segregated spaces.  It has the net effect of eradicating those spaces.

I think the Kansas statute is quite defensible, and I hope it withstands constitutional challenges.

I think these efforts, the deliberate and public instances of men making incursions into women's bathrooms, changing rooms, sports, prisons, etc., together with the deliberate and public instances of exposing small children to highly sexualized live adult performances, are not healthy or appropriate developments for our society.

Thanks,

-Smac

[The Nehor]

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

They are different varieties of the same terrible thing: the sexualization and grooming of children.

Nope.

7 hours ago, smac97 said:

I have not been speaking of all drag shows, just those that involve children and highly sexualized performances.

So not the library readings you specifically mentioned? Then why did you mention them at all?

In other words I don’t believe you.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Yes.  Whether or not one believes that "drag" is inherently sexual, there have been some "Story Hours" that plainly were highly sexual:

Library Apologizes For Hosting ‘Rainbow Dildo Butt Monkey’ Kids Event

 

And transgender people or drag queens were involved in this event in what way?

Or did you just assume they were connected.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

 

Even when Drag Queen Story Hours are not overtly sexualized, they remain difficult to defend as healthy for small children. Young children are still forming basic categories about sex, adults, and social roles. Presenting them with adult performers in exaggerated, often hyper-feminine or boundary-blurring costumes and personas introduces confusion at an age when clarity is more useful than ambiguity.

This is adults projecting their insecurities onto children. Children don’t get that confused about the whole thing. Adults do.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

There is also the deeper question of purpose: why is this particular form of adult performance art being directed at toddlers and preschoolers in the first place? Reading books to children is good. Using the occasion to stage an adult entertainment style that plays with gender and sexuality—even theatrically—is a different matter. Children do not need that layer of complexity, and it is reasonable to question whether it serves their development or adult ideological preferences.

So someone crossdressing is pornography. Again, turning drag queens and transgender people into pornography. You deny doing it and then keep doing it.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

See above.

I didn’t say every drag show is “grooming” in the typically criminal sense of preparing a child for sexual abuse (the "Rainbow Dildo Butt Monkey" sure seemed to be going there). 

That performance was done by a carnival troupe and not a drag queen organization or transgender group. It is disturbing how you assume the two must be connected.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The concern is supplemental and different. Drag, as a performance style, is rooted in adult nightlife and often involves exaggerated, sexualized, or boundary-blurring presentations of gender. When that same aesthetic is brought into a story hour for toddlers and preschoolers, it introduces adult themes and adult performance conventions into a setting meant for very young children. Parental presence doesn’t automatically make the content age-appropriate any more than it would if the performer were doing a burlesque-lite routine or a striptease while reading Goodnight Moon.

Again, crossdressing is the equivalent of a striptease. Again, turning people into porn.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Young children are still learning basic categories—male/female, adult/child, public/private. Staging an adult entertainment form that plays with those categories can confuse them. You can oppose that as developmentally inappropriate without accusing anyone of being a predator.  That said, some of these events have includes sexualization and grooming of children. The disagreement is about what belongs in front of small children, not about whether every participant has criminal intent.

The term grooming and sexualization are being stretched beyond belief here. Child beauty paegents sexualize children. Children attending an event does not sexualize the child. You are using propagandist scare terms in an unexamined way.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You are attributing a position to me that I have not taken. I have not said I am fine with adults taking children to nudist resorts. I’m not.

And you want to criminalize it?

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The issue with Drag Queen Story Hours is not that every participant is a predator. It is that an adult performance style rooted in nightlife, exaggerated gender presentation, and often sexualized aesthetics is being staged for very young children. That is age-inappropriate. Again, young children are still forming basic categories about sex, adults, and social roles. Introducing them to that particular form of adult entertainment—even when a book is being read—adds confusion and adult themes that do not belong in a story hour for toddlers and preschoolers.

Drag queens reading children’s stories are not anything like a burlesque drag show. Also again, it is not confusing to children.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Parental presence does not automatically make something appropriate. The same would be true of other adult performance styles. The question is whether this belongs in front of small children in the first place, not whether it meets the legal definition of grooming. You can oppose it as developmentally unsuitable without needing to prove criminal intent.

In other words you want to police the choices of other parents.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

Again, you are repeating a claim I haven’t made. I have not said nudist resorts are fine for children. I’m not okay with that either.

You are quite the busybody about other people’s choices.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

The “why do you care” line is a distraction. People are allowed to object to what is put in front of young children without needing to prove a secret motive. The objection is straightforward: drag is an adult performance style that plays with gender and often draws on sexualized aesthetics. Staging it for toddlers and preschoolers in a library story hour introduces adult themes and boundary-blurring presentations to children who are still learning basic categories about sex and social roles. That is age-inappropriate.

No, it is really not. Children get the concepts of queerness and transgender people pretty easily. It is the adults that are confused. I really suspect this is people who feel confused and have a problem with queer people projecting their insecurities onto children. Hence the assumption that evil adults are corrupting children when children don’t find queer people disgusting and unnatural.

1 hour ago, smac97 said:

You can disagree with that judgment. But asking what is “really driving” the concern is an attempt to change the subject rather than address whether the activity belongs in front of small children in the first place.

Then you should write up think pieces about why parents shouldn’t take their children to such events. Instead you seem to be calling for legal enforcement of your views. Why? Do you think you would lose in a more general ‘marketplace of ideas’ context and want to appeal to violence and coercion because of that?

[Calm]

21 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

And transgender people or drag queens were involved in this event in what way?

Interesting.  The company looks more Cis gendered than anything else.  Lots of grey hair too.  Agree it’s an over sexualuzed version of a monkey. 
 

Carnival for seniors anyone?

https://mandingaarts.co.uk/about-us/

Edited 6 hours ago by Calm

[smac97]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Yes.  Whether or not one believes that "drag" is inherently sexual, there have been some "Story Hours" that plainly were highly sexual:

Library Apologizes For Hosting ‘Rainbow Dildo Butt Monkey’ Kids Event

And transgender people or drag queens were involved in this event in what way?

See here:

Quote

Quite why a scantily clad drag act with a sexually explicit name is needed to help children read is never spelled out. And while this talk of exploring ‘different lifestyles’ might sound innocent enough, the Drag Queen Story Hour movement explicitly promotes gender-identity ideology – including the belief that we can be born in the wrong body. Many parents are understandably wary of exposing their kids to this.

 

While this is new territory for Germany, in Britain we have seen a proliferation of drag events aimed at children in recent years. Many of these acts, as well as promoting trans ideology, draw on explicitly sexual themes. Take, for instance, the infamous case of a drag queen called ‘Flowjob’, who visited a Scottish primary school in 2020. He then read to children aged between four and 11, much to the dismay of parents. Worse still, in 2021, a performer who was memorably dubbed the ‘rainbow dildo butt monkey’ appeared at a library in Redbridge for an LGBT arts initiative. This event was supposed to be aimed at children as young as four.

Perhaps most disturbing of all was the case of the ‘Caba Baba Rave’ in March this year. Drag queens in fetish get-up put on a burlesque show in London aimed at mothers and babies, aged between zero and two. Time and again, children have been exposed to what everyone can surely recognise are adult performances.

The sexual nature of these kinds of events is almost always obscured in their marketing. This allows organisers and their defenders to dismiss parents’ complaints as bigoted and ill-informed. The Munich story hour, for example, claims that it will teach children in attendance about ‘boys in dresses, princesses with free will, the colours blue and pink… and the discovery of their own freedom’. On the surface, this sounds relatively harmless. But given the past form of these events, will it really just teach kids about their freedom to dress as they please?

When libraries and schools invite adult performers with overtly sexual public personas to interact with children, parents have a right to demand answers. It should be common sense that no four-year-old needs a drag act to teach him how to read – least of all a drag act called ‘Eric Big Clit’.

And this:

Here:

What I Saw at Drag Queen Story Hour

Quote

It was quite easy to locate my city’s chapter, and I signed up to attend one on a Saturday morning at 11:30 a.m. 

...

There were roughly 15-20 families in attendance, 98 percent of which were white. It also appeared that more than half the families were older parents, probably having had their first child when they were 35-38.

...

In total, three drag queens read stories. The emcee, already a tall man, grew into a giant when he put on six-inch heels and strutted across the stage in a bedizened outfit consisting of a short and hideously ugly purple feathered dress, a green wig, and flesh-colored stockings. He was welcomed to an uproar of cheers from the parents. The kids looked confused as their parents took hold of their wrists to make them clap along. At one point, when reading a book that introduced the various different colors, a queen asked, “Now who likes the color black?” In a sudden uproar, the parents began to woot and shout: “We do!!” I got the impression that the queens were not the only performers at the theatre.

I recently read an article in Reader’s Digest about what “really” happens at Drag Queen Story Hours, as explained by drag queen Veranda L’Ni to reporter Elizabeth Yuko. “Despite what you might have heard or read,” said Veranda, “absolutely nothing about our program is adult themed.” Having experienced one myself, I can now comfortably and objectively state that this is flatly untrue. All three queens were hyper-sexually dressed, although to varying degrees. The mildest was the tall drag queen, whose outfit I described above. The most extreme and offensive outfit was worn by a queen who flaunted a double-slitted, tight pink dress that displayed a generous amount of thigh—so much so that when he sat down, all were able to see not only the totality of his thigh, but also his butt cheek. His bodice was translucent, so we could see his fake breasts bouncing around, as well. Somewhere in the middle was the portly queen, who sported a tight bedazzled jumpsuit that hugged his BBL (Brazilian Butt Lift—one to make any woman jealous).

d

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Even when Drag Queen Story Hours are not overtly sexualized, they remain difficult to defend as healthy for small children. Young children are still forming basic categories about sex, adults, and social roles. Presenting them with adult performers in exaggerated, often hyper-feminine or boundary-blurring costumes and personas introduces confusion at an age when clarity is more useful than ambiguity.

This is adults projecting their insecurities onto children. Children don’t get that confused about the whole thing. Adults do.

I think many kids are going to be confused at this sort of thing.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Drag queens reading children’s stories are not anything like a burlesque drag show. Also again, it is not confusing to children.

I think it is confusing.  

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

Parental presence does not automatically make something appropriate. The same would be true of other adult performance styles. The question is whether this belongs in front of small children in the first place, not whether it meets the legal definition of grooming. You can oppose it as developmentally unsuitable without needing to prove criminal intent.

In other words you want to police the choices of other parents.

We don't let children into certain venues and events, even with parental consent.  We as a society have made that decision, not just me.

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

You can disagree with that judgment. But asking what is “really driving” the concern is an attempt to change the subject rather than address whether the activity belongs in front of small children in the first place.

Then you should write up think pieces about why parents shouldn’t take their children to such events. Instead you seem to be calling for legal enforcement of your views. Why? Do you think you would lose in a more general ‘marketplace of ideas’ context and want to appeal to violence and coercion because of that?

Again: The “why do you care” line is a distraction. People are allowed to object to what is put in front of young children without needing to prove a secret motive.

Perhaps DQSH has fewer sexually explicit things going on that we've seen in some drag shows and Pride parades/events.  But that would be the "not as bad as" fallacy.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited 5 hours ago by smac97

[Calm]

I think you should drop the Rainbow Monkey as evidence of LGBT+ or Drag Queen.  It is as likely to be cisgender as lgbt and it’s not technically drag, I believe.  Might be, I am not a drag professional. It’s definitely not stylized female though.  
 

Could just use it as a generic ‘let’s keep the risqué adult stuff’ out of Children’s Story Hour.   

Nowhere in your links did I see the Monkey costume documented rather than just claimed as associated with either Drag Queen hour or LGBT+ history month celebrations. One (spiked iirc) mentioned another event that was, Monkey was in July, not June or February (cheated, used chat so could be wrong).  The Drag Queen examples were another event   How can they be used as evidence for Monkey?

Given the other costumes of the group’s carnival flavor, I don’t think just because it’s Rainbow that means it’s LGBT.  They all read much more harlequin/clown to me.  A number of costumes actually have a harlequin pattern to them.  I love me an intense harlequin design.  Quite beautiful imo (the harlequin fabric, I find the monkey even without the genital accessories on the tacky side).

Stylized overmasculinized, costumes including animals (especially lions, apes, and bulls) seem like a not uncommon carnival theme from what I can tell never having delved deeply into the subject for good reason.

“Rainbow” fits the full color scheme of the Mandinga carnival troupe.  Such colour schemes can be seen on obviously nonLGBT or Drag carnival costumes.  Carnival is all about intense colours.  Caribbean (they mention this as well) decor is often rainbow colors.  

Now as to that specific costume’s sexual nature…oh yeah, I would have been shocked and disgusted if I saw it, it’s an abuse of a rainbow. But that’s lots of carnival costumes I am guessing based on what I have seen unintentionally over the years   

The costume, whatever the color scheme, was totally inappropriate imo even if the guy was covered top to bottom (feet or butt) from the picture I saw.  No actual skin exposure, just a costume with an oversized fake butt and penis included, not unusual of hyper masculinized carnival costumes from the few times I have looked at them…btw, I have no intention of ever attending or watching a carnival parade.  It has never appealed to me even when I liked parades and the idea of being in a crowd (the idea was always better than the reality, so I figured out I actually don’t like crowds).  The various numerous exquisite costumes do not justify the graphic or tacky ones, imo.
 
Bottomline for me….I want to see documentation, not just claims it’s LGBT.  It seems to be one of those claims with enough people repeating it, that everyone assumes it is a fact.

Hypermasculine is not automatically LGBT.  Neither is Rainbow (seriously, every time I write this I am hearing ‘taste the rainbow’ and seeing a skittle shower). Lots of cisgendered behaviour falls in the category as well.  
 

According to Chat btw, the name was coined by journalists (especially someone called Janice Turner), Mandinga only referred to it as the monkey costume.  There were apparently two other animal costumes, one was a frog.  
 

The series was apparently called Monkey Business.  There’s a pdf I may try to find.

I took a screenshot off a site primarily full of ads, so no link.  The costume isn’t identical as far as I can tell, but similar. It shows the costume was based in the carnival genre though, imo.

Edited 4 hours ago by Calm