Men in Dresses Shouldn't Donate to Charity? Piss Off.

[TSH]

While browsing "men in dresses" on Google's news filter, I came across this "well-informed opinion" by a rational, tolerant person: https://www.somdnews.com/opinion/letter ... 2b80e.html

Normally, I'd just ignore poorly-written, misinformed, bigoted articles such as this, but what was written in it was so ignorant and stupid that I felt it deserved attention, as it put me in an even more irritated mood than I already was. Since there's no comment section to respond to such idiocy, I thought I might as well make this thread to get this off my chest.

"This letter is concerning the story about the Clement Cuties annual softball charity game ("For the angels in the infield and outfield" in the Sept. 22 edition of Southern Maryland News) done to benefit childhood cancer. It needs to be said that grown men dressing like women are called drag queens, and calling their display as being for charity is ignoring that it is done for children and for the parents to groom the children into a homosexual acceptance ideology."

Right away, this shows what an absolute brain melt the fool who wrote this is. First of all, no, dickhead. "Grown" men who dress as women are simply known as crossdressers (which could likely be considered an offensive word). That's simply it. Drag queens are performers whose sole purpose is for ENTERTAINMENT — that's why they wear excessive amounts of make-up and dress and act feminine to an exaggerated degree. You're either too lazy or dumb to tell the difference, or you're just doing it deliberating to confuse those stupider than you are to believe in your tripe. Also, female drag queens exist, so it's not exclusive to just men.

And excuse me — "homosexual acceptance ideology"? No. There IS no ideology in accepting the fact that people have different sexual orientations and preferences. You're just another bigoted, religious asshole who wants to put negative connotations towards social progress which invalidates your outdated worldview. Hope you obnoxious bastards are gone by 2100. He follows this up with a shorter, but just as unintelligible, conclusion:

"As such to help charity is fine, but the ends do not justify the means, in that the men do not have to dress as drag queens in display to the children. That is not charitable."

In this case, it absolutely does. Again, you moron. Learn what a f***ing drag queen is instead of categorizing all men who dress feminine as drag queens. Christ. It's just clothes, and it has nothing to do with newer generations being more accepting towards gay people, so children aren't being harm by the "display"; makes your ridiculous "homosexual acceptance ideology" even more absurd. It's actually IS charitable because other children can join in the fun in playing dress-up — an activity CHILDREN engage in.

[Stu]

I think you need to take a chill pill - and argue your case with a bit more civility.

[Fred in Skirts]

I could not see the article as it was behind a paywall.
How ever I can see that it made you very angry and you should let the people at the paper know your feelings. BUT please do so in a more conversational voice. Otherwise they will not listen at all.

Just my 2 P.

[Ray]

TSH

I totally agree. Your emotional reaction to this is clear - and quite understandable.

In time, the anger will dissipate, but the incredulity at the asinine comments being made by what appears to be an idiot (I’m being polite) will - and should - remain. Thanks for calling it out.

Ray

[TSH]

I think you need to take a chill pill - and argue your case with a bit more civility.

I could be more calm and civil, but suffering the buffoonery of people gets tiring after a while. It wouldn't be an honest take, either, because I hold nothing but contempt for most people, anyway. Another thing: the Clement Cuties Foundation is a charity that originates as far back as the '70s. Any charity that involves helping sick children shouldn't be looked down on and accused of some "gay agenda" BS just because men in dresses and skirts are involved in it. They did (and still do to this day) engage in this because it's FUN and satisfies child curiosity. That's precisely why you can't be "civil" with people who want this to be halted. They're bigots that don't deserve it. They certainly don't care about children, either.

I could not see the article as it was behind a paywall.
How ever I can see that it made you very angry and you should let the people at the paper know your feelings. BUT please do so in a more conversational voice. Otherwise they will not listen at all.

Just my 2 P.

The article was just the two paragraphs that I quoted in the OP. If you read those, then you read the crappy opinion piece. They don't have a comment section, and I'm not gonna bother signing up telling them how annoyed I was when I read that s****y article they allowed on their site by email. They probably wouldn't listen regardless of how approachable I was.

I totally agree. Your emotional reaction to this is clear - and quite understandable.

In time, the anger will dissipate, but the incredulity at the asinine comments being made by what appears to be an idiot (I’m being polite) will - and should - remain. Thanks for calling it out.

And thanks for the response. I know some people might think this is pointless, but any push-back against dribble like this should be posted somewhere, here. Anger might be a "negative" emotion, but it should expressed, here. People who don't understand why we men wear skirts need to understand our anger — our frustration, with how we can and are regarded by the world at large as social defects that need to be purged, rather than people simply making a statement towards the double standards in fashion which is rooted purely by gender.

[Stu]

It wouldn't be an honest take, either, because I hold nothing but contempt for most people, anyway.

And there lies the problem.

Very few people are actually "bigots" - including those who might not agree with you. In fact, bigotry is manifested in a number of forms, one of which is to close your mind to the views of others and to abuse them when they do disagree with you.

Engage with people. Find out what they believe and why. If you think they are wrong, by all means challenge them - respectfully. And be willing to take on board their views if they have a point. Abusing them makes you the fanatic and them the reasonable ones.

[SkirtsDad]

Rather than angry I thought it was completely hilarious that anyone could get upset by a group of people doing good for suffering children. Given that the Clement Cuties have been doing this since the seventies I don't imagine they will be that bothered with someone throwing their toys out the pram. When you think about it, that letter advertised a presumably fairly local charity and brought it to a wider audience. I for one knew nothing about them before.

Btw. Here's a positive article about the event https://smnewsnet.com/archives/524820/2 ... e-success/

[TSH]

It wouldn't be an honest take, either, because I hold nothing but contempt for most people, anyway.

And there lies the problem.

Very few people are actually "bigots."

A claim that requires scrutiny.

In fact, bigotry is manifested in a number of forms, one of which is to close your mind to the views of others and to abuse them when they do disagree with you.

Exactly, which is why the assumption that people typically aren't bigoted (or more appropriately in this context, biased) needs to be challenged, because much of human history comprises of people being intolerant, spiteful, and violent towards each other, often for very petty reasons. It hasn't gone away in modern times — it just employs a bit more subtlety than it did before. I wouldn't act this way in public as it would contradict my own values, and I wouldn't want people doing the same to me, either. It's basically how we evolved to be "moral" beings.

Engage with people. Find out what they believe and why. If you think they are wrong, by all means challenge them - respectfully.

Ideally, every conversation would be a formal, articulate exchange between two or more parties. It doesn't happen that much for MiS; people find the very concept of men resembling anything perceived as "feminine" revolting, so it's not really worth it. People are more simple-minded than we give ourselves credit for, so I'm not interest in any, "Eww! Yuck!", "Sinful display!", or "Unmanly!" nonsense. This simple-mindedness is why we still place ourselves into rigid boxes and expectations are susceptible to toxic group-think. Other topics, such as science, philosophy, and careers are fair game, though. I don't engage with people much because I'm part of "the spectrum", so social interaction works better in screens than face-to-face for me. And honestly, rather it's through the excessive use of filler words in verbal speech, or the poorly-written posts online, it's typically just a waste of time, anyway.

And be willing to take on board their views if they have a point.

Most people simply aren't, though. It ends up being an endeavor which has a high risk of doing absolutely jack all to get people to just understand why individuals like ourselves would stand out from the crowd.

Abusing them makes you the fanatic and them the reasonable ones.

This is still about the article, right? And the not the broader context of different perspectives? I made this thread specifically because people who cry foul over men dressed as women trying to help suffering youth are a part of the problem. Taking care of ill children is noble, so there's no reason to halt that progress just because it involves something you don't like. Calling these types of people out for it isn't abuse; it's defending those from such backlash. There's nothing shameful about drag and being a drag queen, and grouping them both as if they're interchangeable demonstrations the author's ignorance, disingenuous confusion, or both.

Also, my hatred stems from how utterly flawed humanity is, rather than from humans themselves.

[Stu]

Very few people are actually "bigots."

A claim that requires scrutiny. [/quote]

I make that claim based on a deduction arising from using my eyes and ears


human history comprises of people being intolerant, spiteful, and violent towards each other, often for very petty reasons.

Yes, humans are imperfect. Who knew?

And honestly, rather it's through the excessive use of filler words in verbal speech, or the poorly-written posts online, it's typically just a waste of time, anyway.

Well, you've come here to engage, so why are you wasting your time?

Most people simply aren't, though. It ends up being an endeavor which has a high risk of doing absolutely jack all to get people to just understand why individuals like ourselves would stand out from the crowd.

Who says it's a problem to "stand out from the crowd"? Certainly, some people will weaponise a person's individuality against them and try to humiliate or belittle them, but we should have the fortitude and confidence to deal with them, either by ignoring them or challenging them. Then we win.

Calling these types of people out for it isn't abuse; it's defending those from such backlash. There's nothing shameful about drag and being a drag queen, and grouping them both as if they're interchangeable demonstrations the author's ignorance, disingenuous confusion, or both.

I respectfully disagree. If my child were confronted by her teacher, Mr Brown, who was choosing to wear a skirt or dress today, I would say yes, that's fine. Mr Brown can wear what he feels comfortable in. If Mr Brown was trans and turned up at school dressed head-to-toe as a woman, I would explain that, very rarely, someone might believe they were born the wrong sex and need to change to the opposite sex and we accept that. If Mr Brown took part in a comedy sketch or pantomime as a woman, I would say that's fine. However, the genre of the "drag act" is something else altogether. It is an allusion towards a sexual fetish and while that's perfectly fine in an adult context, I don't want my kids exposed to it. My views on that do not make me a bigot even if you hold the contrary opinion.

Also, my hatred stems from how utterly flawed humanity is, rather than from humans themselves.

Hatred is an emotion, and a negative one. I prefer to operate in life, form judgments and make decisions using rationality rather than allowing negative emotions to control my responses.

[TSH]

Very few people are actually "bigots."

A claim that requires scrutiny.

I make that claim based on a deduction arising from using my eyes and ears

Which still isn't enough. What you have is purely anecdotal at best.

Yes, humans are imperfect. Who knew?

Yes, and we should do what we can to identify those flaws and seek to correct them, instead of crassly hand-waving this fact sarcastically like this isn't still a huge problem with the world at large that desperately needs serious attention.

Well, you've come here to engage, so why are you wasting your time?

This is the only site out there that supports men being able to wear what they want without persecution. Also, I made this thread so I could vent my frustration at the profound idiocy of the drivel I came across. Also, it's natural for the original poster of a thread to respond to replies made in said thread. Also, this is actually an interesting exchange, all things considered. So, no. I don't think my time's being wasted. Again, if something catches my attention, I'm going create a discussion about it — be it in my own mind, or on the Internet. That, in of itself, isn't a waste of time. Maybe I should've worded my sentences a bit more coherently.

Who says it's a problem to "stand out from the crowd"? Certainly, some people will weaponise a person's individuality against them and try to humiliate or belittle them, but we should have the fortitude and confidence to deal with them, either by ignoring them or challenging them. Then we win.

Two traits not everyone's going to have. Even then, there'd still be bouts of vulnerability in their lives, and the type of scumbag that would prey on that individuality might be too confrontational to ignore, and they might perceive a challenge as a threat. It definitely can be a problem, because humans are still infants, even after they're fully developed.

I respectfully disagree.

Another instance of poor choice of words on my part. I also made a mistake earlier with my definition of drag, and will promptly edit the OP, again, to better reflect what I'm trying to convey, because at first, I didn't understand what you were disagreeing to. It's well-known that you're against drag when children are involved, and I honestly can't disagree with you, there (though I can't agree, either).

If my child were confronted by her teacher, Mr Brown, who was choosing to wear a skirt or dress today, I would say yes, that's fine. Mr Brown can wear what he feels comfortable in. If Mr Brown was trans and turned up at school dressed head-to-toe as a woman, I would explain that, very rarely, someone might believe they were born the wrong sex and need to change to the opposite sex and we accept that. If Mr Brown took part in a comedy sketch or pantomime as a woman, I would say that's fine. However, the genre of the "drag act" is something else altogether. It is an allusion towards a sexual fetish and while that's perfectly fine in an adult context, I don't want my kids exposed to it. My views on that do not make me a bigot even if you hold the contrary opinion.

Fair enough, but I think you're missing the point of what I meant when I said that we shouldn't suffer people who openly cry "gay" agenda over something that has NOTHING to do with homosexuality, like simply wearing clothes of the opposite sex. The irony here is that I lambasted the dim-witted buffoon who wrote this garbage article for comparing men who dress like women to drag queens — which are performers who exaggerate aspects of femininity, but I still incorrectly associated men wearing female clothing to men in drag, despite "drag" itself, being a performance, anyway.

I know that seemed like a tangent, but it's a way to contextualize the point I'm trying to make. The person who made the article falsely assumed these men, who are actually helping children in charities, are drag queens. And concocted an inane, baseless accusation that them wearing female clothing is all part of a grooming agenda to "force" kids to be "accepting" towards gay people, all because he was too stupid to look up what the term "drag queen" actually meant and realize that these men dressed as women don't meet that description because they AREN'T f***ing performing or wearing excessive amounts of make-up. They're f***in' playing softball, for Christ's sake.

This is what bigotry looks like; it's simply is, no matter how much you argue otherwise. This isn't someone simply stating a different opinion. This is some random jackass making ignorant and false statements about people actually making the world a better place for today's youth, and goes off on a homophobic non-sequitur about being more open towards people who are homosexual, as if not being a total s***head to those with a different sexual orientation is a "bad thing", somehow. This is some douchebag mischaracterizing these same people as being something they're obvious not because of his own abject ignorance and not fact-checking his own definition and BS claims of charity he knows f*** all about. Screw him, and any other bigot who thinks like this.

Hatred is an emotion, and a negative one. I prefer to operate in life, form judgments and make decisions using rationality rather than allowing negative emotions to control my responses.

It's still a valid emotion, regardless, and can actually be the driver for change. You can still have it both ways, too.

[moonshadow]

I'm with skirtsdad on this one... I hear this kind of rhetoric from time to time here in Appalachia.

It is indeed ridiculous to the point of being funny.

Frankly I feel somewhat sorry for a person who has such strongly negative opinion of the matter that they felt it necessary to pen a letter to the editor.

I bet the guy lost sleep over the issue and everything!

Bless his heart....