Drag queens banned from Pride event 'because they may offend transgender people'

Isn't drag supposed to be obvious and exagerated? And trans try to blend in, right?

So it seems like different things.

My understanding is that drag is meant to poke fun at stereotypes: trans are, like Caitlyn Jenner, trying to incorporate into society in terms of their gender identity, so it's a gradual process, not something that should be rushed.

And I've personally crossdressed (technically it was crossplay, crossdressing in cosplay), but I don't think it had any real effect in terms of my gender identity, since I still identify as male and such. If anything, I've gotten more understanding of women, particularly in the trials of putting together an outfit (took probably a year or so just to get this crossplay together and it's still not done, because we have the pleated skirt and the fabric for it, but my friend still hasn't gotten to it, so the crossplay has been temporarily retired)

Tallguy88 said:

Isn't drag supposed to be obvious and exagerated? And trans try to blend in, right?

So it seems like different things.

Click to expand...

I agree.

A drag queen is an entertainer who thinks he can make money with this shtick. This has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the entertainer.

Cross-dressing at home in one kind of activity, again with no relationship to sexual orientation.
====
I suspect that drag queen performances are simply considered in bad taste at a rally of homosexuals and transvestites. Of course, for many, they are always in bad taste, but that is a different subject.

mark46 said:

I agree.

A drag queen is an entertainer who thinks he can make money with this shtick. This has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the entertainer.

Cross-dressing at home in one kind of activity, again with no relationship to sexual orientation.
====
I suspect that drag queen performances are simply considered in bad taste at a rally of homosexuals and transvestites. Of course, for many, they are always in bad taste, but that is a different subject.

Click to expand...

The idea is that drag isn't something that needs to be at a pride parade, because drag, like blackface and other satirical based performances, have been around for centuries in one form or another and pride isn't about some talent show thing that's self promoting, but rather self asserting that you aren't going to be suppressed by society's disapproval of something that has no reason to be disapproved of in itself.

Heck, you have males doing female roles in Victorian era plays because females were banned from performing. Drag is meant to satirize gender norms, while trans is an identity that doesn't mesh with those norms. The two complement each other in a way, but trans individuals vary as much as cis individuals do in regards to their performance of gender roles and the like.

Taste is only part of the reason for the ban, it's more that it's irrelevant to what the primary goal of a pride parade is: not to merely show off, but to stand up and not be ashamed of being gay or trans or bi, etc. There's not really strict shame on the same level with drag, because it's usually meant in jest to begin with. I remember a drag show at my Episcopalian college, albeit it was associated with Greek life, so I doubt the church authorities were really in on it. It was meant to be that kind of mocking female stereotypes through males. We had one at my high school graduation too, it was rather fun, even if I was a bit delirious at 3-4 in the morning at 18, having rarely stayed up that late

This thread is the first time I have ever heard of any drag events being banned because of the possibility of offending anyone. I know many trans people and nobody has had any issues with Drag Queens or their performances (outside of the more vulgar ones).

I really don't see how they are going to suddenly start to be universally banned as a PC measure because one incident exists.

LivingWordUnity said:

The U.S. military thought it was being open-minded by allowing homosexuals to have their drag shows (linked news article), but now, to be PC, they might have to ban it for the same reason that they first allowed it.

Click to expand...

Drag shows, at least on Naval vessels, had nothing to do with homosexuals or homosexuality and are part of a tradition predating the 20th century. Yes, there were unscrupulous homosexuals who lied to get into the military and who used their military service like it was a some-years long orgy, but most servicemen were not gay, even those who dressed in drag for shows. Back then, you had to be straight to act gay.

LivingWordUnity said:

The rules of political correctness are as convoluted and dizzying as the tea cup ride at Disneyland.

The U.S. military thought it was being open-minded by allowing homosexuals to have their drag shows (linked news article), but now, to be PC, they might have to ban it for the same reason that they first allowed it.

Click to expand...

The major issue here is assuming this is about political correctness so much as a context sensitive consideration of applicability. Drag isn't something that has the same stigma associated with it as homosexuality or transgender identity, so that could be one aspect of why the performances were banned, since it wasn't something relevant to pride.

Drag practitioners, same as straight people and others that aren't stigmatized, can still join. Pretty sure there's no ban on drag queens in themselves anymore than straight people, merely that the focus of the parade be maintained which is LGBT pride.

muichimotsu said:

The major issue here is assuming this is about political correctness so much as a context sensitive consideration of applicability. Drag isn't something that has the same stigma associated with it as homosexuality or transgender identity, so that could be one aspect of why the performances were banned, since it wasn't something relevant to pride.

Drag practitioners, same as straight people and others that aren't stigmatized, can still join. Pretty sure there's no ban on drag queens in themselves anymore than straight people, merely that the focus of the parade be maintained which is LGBT pride.

Click to expand...

*snort* think OP is interested in that level of nuance?

I'm not exactly free of guilt in calling people fools outside of forum posts and the like, but I do try to practice restraint.

LivingWordUnity said:

More...

Click to expand...

O the irony is sweet.

Methinks 1) you don't understand the concept of irony and 2)you didn't even gloss over the rest of the thread. They weren't banned outright, merely performances and it wasn't a universal agreement from everyone. Not to mention you may not even be aware of the basic differences between trans individuals and crossdressers and how they are under the LGBT umbrella, but aren't the same as homosexuals. And the most important thing: what pride means in the context of a pride parade.

LivingWordUnity said:

The Catholic Church has never taught that Scripture is something that is unknowable.

Click to expand...

Nobody stated otherwise. The humble man will address words spoken rather than immagined.

Shall we grow in humility together, vowing to always directly answer each other and never misconstrue each other's statements?

LivingWordUnity said:

My interpretation of Scripture is based on what Scripture says, what the Church teaches about Scripture, and what the saints have said about it. I believe that anyone can know what is in Scripture if they have the ability to read and are open to the Holy Spirit. So I don't know why you would see that as not having humility. And I don't use the word "fool" to describe others on here.

Click to expand...

That's very big of you, you're an inspiration. Now, I asked you a direct question....

The point I think that was being made was that you ought to be of a mindset where you could admit you are wrong about the story and the precise outcome or motivation you mistakenly ascribed to them.

It wasn't about political correctness so much as a general irrelevance to the parade's purpose. Offending people can be a legitimate concern if giving recognition to a group that isn't subject to the stigma of LGBT individuals would entail you're giving that status to them out of ignorance. They can attend, same as straight allies, but the principle was likely based on pragmatic consideration of what was appropriate to the event in question.

muichimotsu said:

The point I think that was being made was that you ought to be of a mindset where you could admit you are wrong about the story and the precise outcome or motivation you mistakenly ascribed to them.

It wasn't about political correctness so much as a general irrelevance to the parade's purpose. Offending people can be a legitimate concern if giving recognition to a group that isn't subject to the stigma of LGBT individuals would entail you're giving that status to them out of ignorance. They can attend, same as straight allies, but the principle was likely based on pragmatic consideration of what was appropriate to the event in question.

Click to expand...

You are correct, hence, the "*snort* think OP is interested in that level of nuance?" It grows tiring, it does.

LivingWordUnity said:

This started with you calling me a fool. So I said it's better to be humble. Then you said that I interpret Scripture wrong (a claim which is always unsupported whenever you make it). So I think my responses have been reasonable.

Click to expand...

I neither called you a fool not stated that you interpret Scripture wrong, these are false allegations and the Lord calls you to better.