Previous  1 ... 83  84  85  86  87  88  89 ... 97  Next

Shakespeare used men dressed up as women, in the roles of women.

Drag is definitely not new, and although some trans people may be drag performers, drag performers are more likely to be heterosexual.

   

There's a massive difference between female impersonators and drag performers.

   

No, there isn't. They are exactly the same (but more fabulous) . We just call them 'drag' now. Same as if they are male impersonators. They are just personas people adopt to let them be someone they are not.

Dame Edna is a perfect example.

   

No, that's just manipulation of language and blurring the boundaries between old terms and their new interpretation. Mrs. Doubtfire or an "actress" in an old Shakespearean play/Japanese kabuki (both from back when females weren't even allowed to act") have as much in common with what happens in the drag scene as daylight does with night-time.

You forget that I'm quite well aware of how successful the left has been over the last hundred years in language portion of the culture wars, and at outright inventing terms out of thin air to justify their reeking ideological positions. It's an old revolutionary tactic that hasn't gone away. If anything it's more successful now due to the overall moron-ification of society over the last thirty years thanks to the full scale collapse of the education. Even the best critical thinking skills, and the basic education system certainly never taught any of those, really doesn't stand a chance when the revolution takes on the disguise of a popular trend that the desperate-to-be-needed bandwagon jumpers flock to like flies to a dead rat.

   

There is no blurring. It's exactly the same line. Barrie Humprhires put on the 'Dame Edna' persona so he had an excuse to be rude and politically incorrect without consequences. The things he said and did would have had consequences for a man. Robin Williams said he took the part of Mrs. Doubtfire because it was a character he would not have been able to play otherwise. The entire point of RuPaul's Drag Race is to let people be their flamboyant playful selves.

Nothing has changed, except what you've been told Drag shows are about. Have you gone to one or seen a episode of one? How are you going to really know unless you do? Because what you seem to think they are about, you can't actually prove any of it. If nothing else, that should concern you.



I'm aware that you only call me 'left' because you don't like the left and it gives you a reason not to regard what I write. That's how you've been taught to argue by the same groups that feed you this nonsense.

The language most people use hasn't changed. Only the far right and the far left can't agree on the meaning of words, usually the words they redefine. The rest of us still have dictionaries.

   

Barrie Humphreys and Robin Williams, and all the hetero actors from the Priscilla movies, would have all been cancelled today for not being trans. "How dare they, how DARE they, appropriate and co-opt our lives & experiences!", would be the nonstop whine from the woke if that sort of casting occurred these days. I doubt even someone like Nathan Lane would get away unscathed because as a run-of-the-mill generic "cis" homosexual he & other gay men like him certainly aren't on the movement's approved list.

That's how much the goalposts have been moved, when plain old ordinary & boring non-kink G just isn't really wanted anymore in alphabet-land. Too bad for you that you just don't want to acknowledge it.

   

I can't acknowledge things that didn't happen to people who are now dead. I don't do faith, remember?

You also can't assume any of that is even possible in the fantasy world you have adopted considering the giant chasm of missing evidence for it.

   

*ahem* fucking with language *ahem* "Lesbians are not-men attracted only to other not-men - "woman" is no longer an acceptable term".



"Hey, that's not evidence! There's no police report or lab paper attached to it!" - you

   

"Has nothing to do with Royal Story Time." - me.

   

Except for the comments from people at the Pride events saying that drag isn't something kids should be around. The lesbians and women identifying as men saying that all of this is beyond stupid, incredibly insulting to women, and has all gone way too far should be listened to, but of course they won't be.

   

And there you go again, assuming that the comments of a few apply to everyone. I don't care how anyone identifies, I don't care who they love or how they love. The only thing I agreed with Trudeau the Elder is that the state has no business in the bedrooms of the people. What goes on between consenting adults is none of my business either.

But you are here casting shade on people by saying, without any attempt at proof, that they are doing inappropriate things to children. That makes some people angry enough to go all stabby and shooty. That does concern me a great deal.

So don't go changing the subject. Don't go casting your net so wide it doesn't catch anything. Show us this abuse of children. Directly. Incontrovertibly. Show us video. Show us the result of police investigations. Show us the news reports of the trials.

   

You just know that if there was abuse, it would be all over the news.

   

I know that, but do they? That's what I'm trying to get across. How can they continue the narrative in the face of a total lack of evidence.

   

   

There are plenty of ways...

See: climate change deniers, flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theorists, religious nuts.

   

Previous  1 ... 83  84  85  86  87  88  89 ... 97  Next