Conservatism

Don't Destroy the Constitution To Fight Drag Queen Reading Hour

Putting up with some drag-queen storytelling seems like a small price to pay to live in a relatively free society.

|

The Sacramento public library featured a drag-queen story hour, in which men dressed as women read stories to children. It seems bizarre and agenda-driven, given that a stated goal was to provide kids with "glamorous, positive and unabashedly queer role models." I've seen drag queens and glamorous isn't the first thing that jumps to mind.

But who really cares? I avoided the library that day and shrugged it off as something that takes place in a big, diverse, largely free and slightly crazy society. No one was forced to attend. Few people around here were upset. But this local event sparked an intense national debate that highlighted the "battle for the future of conservatism," as the New Yorker put it.

The New York Post's op-ed editor, Sohrab Ahmari, learned about the story-telling queens and penned a screed against David French, a writer for the conservative National Review. French has nothing to do with the story hour or drag queens, but epitomizes an older Christian ethic that Ahmari, a young Catholic convert, apparently finds as objectionable as men with names such as Claire Voyance, Adda Miration and Allison Wonder.

In Ahmari's view, social conservatives need "to fight the culture war with the aim of defeating the enemy and enjoying the spoils in the form of a public square re-ordered to the common good and ultimately the Highest Good." French, he notes, is too civil and "believes that the institutions of a technocratic market society are neutral zones that should, in theory, accommodate both traditional Christianity and the libertine ways and paganized ideology of the other side."

Ahmari is a Trump supporter, which is ironic given that the president is known for his libertine ways – and the president's worldview seems more pagan (i.e., its celebration of power) than Christian. Most significantly, Ahmari embraces an emergent brand of conservatism that's hostile to markets and individualism. French believes that defending the constitutional order is the best means to defend the rights of everyone, including Christians.

The fracas filled the pages of right-leaning publications and even some liberal ones. Recently, the two faced off at Catholic University of America, where a columnist for the venerable New York Times moderated the figurative fisticuffs before a packed crowd.

Drag queens and religious absolutists might not be your cup of tea, but this debate should get your attention for an eye-popping reason: Many conservatives now believe the country is facing such a dire cultural threat that the nation should essentially jettison some long-standing constitutional restraints and protections.

They want an empowered government to intervene on behalf of their religious values. They might not be theocrats, but they are too close for this libertarian's comfort. They're amazingly naïve. What happens to them in a world with few government limits if they can't grab its levers of power? One need only think about California … and shudder.

Ahmari picked the wrong target, and not just because French was a far more skilled debater. French is a conservative warrior, who has fought numerous legal battles to protect the right of Christians to participate in the public square. He's not a squish by any definition. "I'm going to fight for the rights of others that I would like to exercise for myself because I also know that my rights are fragile," he said.

The problems with Ahmari's view are legion, but French made hay with Ahmari's lack of specificity. What public policies would he embrace to deal with the "threat" posed by drag queens in libraries? Ahmari offered only lame answers – pass local ordinances and hold congressional hearings.

Local ordinances won't pass in places such as Sacramento, where these reading hours are culturally acceptable. Congress has little business in local library matters and could only posture. In Ahmari's world, who gets to decide the public good? One need only look at the endless differences among religious denominations and sects to realize the kind of grudge matches that would ensue if government abandoned its pretense of neutrality.

The government, which abuses its power daily, cannot force people to be moral. An acquaintance, from fundamentalist Iran, told me about the common house parties there, where the burkas come off, booze flows – and where the apartment doormen give a heads up when the religious police are on patrol.

"What this is really about is cultural imperialism, taking America as it is and replacing it with something it's never been," opined The American Conservative's Matt Purple. Sure, the Left is all about cultural imperialism, as it seeks to force its values on us all. But the antidote is protecting everyone's liberties and winning people's hearts and minds by persuasion, not force.

I understand the frustrations of religious conservatives, who have watched the culture head off in disturbing directions. But putting up with some drag-queen storytelling seems like a small price to pay to live in a relatively free society.

This column was first published in the Orange County Register.

Advertisement

NEXT: Reviews: Ad Astra and One Cut of the Dead

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Sure, the Left is all about cultural imperialism, as it seeks to force its values on us all. But the antidote is protecting everyone’s liberties and winning people’s hearts and minds by persuasion, not force.”

    The problem is the Left wants to use force to force its values.

    1. So what is the proper response?

        1. Shoo! Go away! The grownups are talking!

          1. Yes we are, so take your shit breath and your support for incest elsewhere.

            1. And it’s so weird how chemjeff and SQRAZY bleat the exact same phrase at me when they get mocked…

              1. Mockery is never okay as a response to anything, and in this regard it should be said that the “drag queen reading” might be permissible, as long as it contains no hint of any sort of inappropriately ironic speech-conduct or “parody” that might impinge on anyone’s reputation, or that might be criminally embarrassing to any member of the academic community, in particular to any faculty member teaching here at NYU. Let us measure the appropriateness of this ceremony in light of our nation’s leading criminal “satire” case, documented at:

                https://raphaelgolbtrial.wordpress.com/

      1. Close down publicly funded libraries and publicly funded schools so that our tax monies aren’t wasted on anyone’s agenda. If your agenda is worthwhile, you should be able to support it on your own.

    2. No one was forced to attend. I see no evidence that this event was falsely advertised, either. Conservative prudes are SUCH snowflakes! If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!

      1. The parents of the 11 year Desmond freely let their kid perform sexual dances in front of men at bars and clubs while having dollar bills thrown at him. Sometimes it is about more than force. Sometimes there needs to be parental responsibility. you wouldn’t argue nobody forced the parents to leave their 2 year old home alone while they drank all night as a valid response. Youd say it was child negligence. Stop with the sophomoric arguments.

        1. What does Desmond have to do with Drag Queen Story Hour?

          Sometimes there needs to be parental responsibility.

          I agree that parents ought to be responsible for the well-being of their kids.

          I don’t agree that, excluding actual child abuse, it is the role of the state to be enforcing what constitutes responsible behavior on the part of the parents.

          Do you?

          1. What does Desmond have to do with Drag Queen Story Hour?

            Because it’s part of a continuum. Just as the gun-grabbers deny they’re gun-grabbers and just want “reasonable, common-sense” gun laws but we all know that no matter how much you give them they’re going to want more, we know where this is headed. Just as the “tolerance” people demand not to be merely tolerated but to be embraced, they push the fringes of what is to be tolerated and pedophilia is what’s next. Necrophilia, bestiality, cannibalism and human sacrifice won’t be far behind.

            1. WHOA!

              The coefficient of friction just dramatically decreased on the m.

        2. Yes, parent’s shouldn’t abuse or neglect their children.

          But I see no way in which bringing your children to hear some drag queens read stories is neglectful or abusive. So I’m not sure what your comment has to do with the discussion at hand.

          1. Don’t you understand, Zeb. The only thing keeping all the kids from turning gay is seeing drag queens read stories at a library. If you support this insane event, you are literally threatening the future of the human race!

          2. considering many of the Drag queens in question are pedofiles and have publicly admitted to doing the story hour as a recruiting tool. These people are sick. “Its voluntary to attend” but don’t be surprise when they decide to go to your local school and it becomes required participation

            1. Yeah, right. Citation needed.

              1. Um, it’s like 2 or 3 posts down guy. I mean, come on…

        3. I always found this story amazing they all though this was great but what would they say if a young girl was dancing on a bar top around a group of men? We know what the screaming would be from all segments

        4. Ever been to a gay bar? It doesn’t matter what you do. If you do a comedy bit, sing karaoke, or weave a basket they will throw dollar bills at you. Handing dollar bills at someone doesn’t equate to strippers like you think it does. The event you are talking about was 100% legal. Since there is no smoking minors are allowed in if accompanied by an adult. Wasn’t it also at like 8pm? How many people are at a bar at 8pm? Should 11 year-olds being taken to a Madonna concert where much more mature themes are being displayed be considered negligence? Rhianna? Lady Gaga? Beyonce?
          Taylor Swift dresses in revealing outfits in front of 6 year-olds.
          If the kid wants to fucking dress up like a woman and prance around like a bitch then who the fuck cares? The kid seems pretty happy to me. Now, if the kid wants to slam crystal and do bareback then the parents definitely need to step in. I don’t think we’re there yet.

      2. Ok, let’s sat aside “outrage” and look at this spectacle from strictly a curiosity standpoint…..

        Why do we need drag queen story hour? To provide yet another virtue signaling opportunity? If you wanna pat yourself on the back for being so tolerant, have at it, they’re not my kids.

        I’m sure the kiddies have plenty of time to figure out if they wanna pretend to be something they’re not. And they’ll surely thank you for your heroic courage. Haha.

      3. The big problem is having it a Public Library that is funded by tax payers…If they want to have their perverted brain-washing of little tykes in a private space & funded by some people or a group, then OK!

        And make no mistake this abnormal insanity is fueled by homosexual pedophilia & more of more these readers are being outed as big time Pedos!

    3. Name a law “the left” has passed that forces other people how to think.

      1. You really are that clueless, aren’t you?
        Thoughts can’t be forced but the actions that people exhibit are the manifestations of those thoughts and everything on the “anti-discrimination” spectrum is punishment for actions with the intent of altering how people think.

        1. So are anti-murder laws. Do better or I might start to think you’re full of shit.

  2. Another terrible article. No mention of the multiple arrested sexual deviants that have been part of Drag Happy Hour? Look into houston. 2 of the queens were shown to have molested minors. The event organizers failed or did limited background checks on the deviants. That is the main crux of the outrage. When Portland did their happy hour they had photos of the queens rolling around with the kids. Various drag queens have admitted to these events as helping groom the next generation. Where is the journalistic effort on this story?

    Link to video:
    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/29/watch-drag-queen-admits-hes-grooming-next-generation-in-story-hours/

    1. Are you equally outraged that straight folks and non-cross-dressers are “grooming” their kids to grow up exactly like them? If not, why not? Is force, coercion, or deception involved here? If not, why get your panties all bunched up?

      If you want to make the argument that gay folks get more AIDS, then make it… The facts are OK with me. It is known that people who get sex-change surgeries have a higher rate of suicides. Make that argument is an EXCELLENT point in my book! But just accusing them of “grooming”, alone, is just an emotional appeal.

      While I’m at it… Well, next post here…

      1. You think pedophilia is the same as sending your kid to school. Holy fuck are you stupid.

        1. Define pedophilia. I love kids, am I a “pedophiliac”? Sex acts with minors, by adults, gross, should be a crime. “Grooming”? If no force, coercion, or deception (of kids or their parents) is involved, what business is it of yours, or of the voters, the cops, etc.?

          Kids aren’t the snowflakes we often make them out to be. They grow up to be what they want to be, not what we tell them to be! Good parents know this!!! Kids born hermaphrodite but leaning one way or the other, who get surgery as infants, to “fix” them, WAY often then go the other way when they are teenagers!!! And resent their parents for “fixing” them as infants! This clearly shows that we’d be better off letting them be themselves… Surgery for hermaphrodite babies isn’t a smart thing to do… Let them figure it out for themselves! And cross-dresser exposing a child whose genes and free will steer them towards being straight, aren’t going to be changed in the long run. Sex abuse! Fuck that! Getting all snowflakey about “grooming”? Fuck that too!

          1. “This clearly shows that we’d be better off letting them be themselves”

            Yes, let teenagers — who we do not trust enough to drink alcohol or vote (for good reason) — decide what surgery mutilating themselves is best with no option to undo it if they made a mistake.

            Good plan.

          2. Conservatives like Jesse still believe in the German child rearing practices promoted during the first half of the 20th century and later by the cruel behaviorists. They probably also think the best way to train a dog is by beating it. All these authoritarian and negative feedback training methods have been discredited by science, but we know how they feel about science.

            1. “All these authoritarian and negative feedback training methods have been discredited by science”

              Ahahahah OPERANT CONDITIONING HAS BEEN DISCREDITED HE BLEATS!!

              It’s easily the most well supported part of behavioral psychology you sad fucking ignoramus.

              Nothing you said there was science, you ignorant dolt.

              1. Ahahahahaha HE THINKS OPERANT CONDITIONING HAS BEEN DISCREDITED HE OBVIOUSLY HAS NO EXPERIENCE IN THIS AREA AT ALL HAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

            2. “All these authoritarian and negative feedback training methods have been discredited by science, but we know how they feel about science.”

              Tell me more about how one can change from male to female by feelings, oh overlord of science.

              And given the snowflakes generated…”science” has sucked cock on how to raise kids.

              1. The particular type of science he is getting wrong also has a shockingly low rate of reproducibility.

                Except Operant Conditioning.

          3. Holy shit you eat shit and are a pedophile…

          4. “Grooming” is a very specific term in the sex offender process. You don’t remember that from your treatment?

      2. “Are you equally outraged that straight folks and non-cross-dressers are “grooming” their kids to grow up exactly like them?”

        Is he outraged by BIOLOGY?

        I’d imagine not.

        Truth and reality aren’t the enemy.

        1. “Is he outraged by BIOLOGY?”

          Gay sex behavior has been observed among many species in the wild. It’s NOT a primordial “sin” against nature. Beyond that, nature and morality or ethics have little to do with one another. “Is” is not = to “ought to be”. Male lions (and other species as well) will kill youngsters that THEY didn’t father, to free up the females to make THEIR genetic offspring. Should we humans aspire to, and glorify, doing the same thing?

          1. you can’t compare humans to animals we may have evolved from them but we are evolved beyond them and just because a few act like animals doesn’t mean we all are animals.

          2. “Gay sex behavior has been observed among many species in the wild”

            So has incest.

            Did you think you had a point, guy who eats shit?

            1. most animals use sex to show dominance over others besides the fact that most animals will f anything they find. When a dog screws the leg of a chair does it love the chair? NO but i’m sure some one will come up with a gender for that

          3. “Gay sex behavior has been observed among many species in the wild.”

            Grand. Also utterly flies in the face of evolution. As thoroughly as humanly possible, given the whole impossibility of procreation thing.

            But, please, tell me how society “grooms” kids to be heterosexual — you know, the default for 96% of the population.

            1. https://www.livescience.com/44464-bonobo-homosexuality-natural.html
              Being Gay Is Natural: Just Ask Bonobos (Op-Ed)

              damikesc, I hear opportunity calling you… Get your proselytizing ass on over there, and offer “conversion therapy” to the apes! Maybe you can get your church to fund it, if you can’t get tax money! Don’t those dirty apes KNOW that they are abhorrent to God and Nature?!?! SOMEONE should let them know, and it could be YOU! Godspeed!

              1. You’re confusing me with somebody who gives two fucks about whom one fucks.

                I’m not the one criticizing society for “grooming” kids to be heterosexual.

                1. But you’re self-righteous enough to want to “butt in” about so-called “grooming”, when neither the kids or their parents are being forced, coerced, or lied to. Why is it your business?

                  1. “But you’re self-righteous enough to want to “butt in” about so-called “grooming”, when neither the kids or their parents are being forced, coerced, or lied to. Why is it your business?”

                    That some parents are negligent is obvious (I mean, some actually think that “puberty blockers” are reversible, which is quite incorrect). Society has to protect those that cannot protect themselves.

                    If a parent beat their child, I’d oppose that too. Even if he parent wasn’t forced, coerced, or lied into beating their child.

              2. Bonobo monkeys using the enjoyment felt when sex organs are stimulated, for dominance or reward is NOTHING like the behavior of homosexual humans, who claim that they are “loving” their partners in the same manner as the natural bonding of opposite sexes, intended by nature to propagate the species.
                To equate the process nature provided for our survival with the aberrant behavior of one species of primates is sophistry, at best.

      3. These kids need to be in church! Especially the Catholic Church!

      4. “If you want to make the argument that gay folks get more AIDS, then make it”

        Nothing to make up, they do & LGBTQXZ sickos as a whole have much higher rates of mental illness, suicides, drug abuse, alcoholism, domestic violence & STDs…..& the thing is that these rates have not gone down even though over the decades they are more & more accepted & even glorified by society!…These are some sick puppy dogs!!!

      5. If you want to make the argument that gay folks get more AIDS, then make it…

        In Ukraine, the number one way that AIDS is spread in heterosexual sex so I guess the AIDS argument wouldn’t work here? And I wonder how many other countries where that’s true especially in Africa. Does that skew the numbers overall for the argument?

    2. That is the main crux of the outrage.

      Oh bullshit. Yes, a couple of the drag queens in Houston did some bad things in the past. The vast majority have not. Nobody seriously claims that these drag queens are going to start feeling up the kids at the library.

      Various drag queens have admitted to these events as helping groom the next generation.

      THAT’s the source of the right-wing outrage. That these dastardly drag queens will promote this “unhealthy” and “immoral” lifestyle onto impressionable kids and that the state has a duty to prevent that from happening, “for the sake of the children”.

      1. Don’t Destroy the Constitution To Fight Pedophilia Reading Hour

      2. “Oh bullshit. Yes, a couple of the drag queens in Houston did some bad things in the past. The vast majority have not.”

        The Catholic Church makes similar arguments. Yet, they still were heaped with scorn by the public. And far fewer Catholic priests molest kids than the drag queens involved did.

        1. It’s literally the argument of cops too.

        2. But the Catholic Church does not ask to recruit in Public Libraries!

      3. “chemjeff radical individualist
        September.20.2019 at 8:50 am
        That is the main crux of the outrage.

        Oh bullshit”

        This is why everyone hates you. You insist everyone else is lying and you can read their minds.

    3. No mention of the multiple arrested sexual deviants that have been part of Drag Happy Hour?

      So what is your point? That nobody in a community gets to enjoy freedom because someone in that community is a criminal or deviant?

      I’m sure there are plenty of sex offenders that look like you. Maybe you should stay away from children?

      1. So what is your point? That nobody in a community gets to enjoy freedom because someone in that community is a criminal or deviant?

        That we don’t facilitate criminals and deviants access to our children. That’s all. Do some research into sexually deviant volunteers.

        And that guy who looks like Bigfoot in a cocktail dress IS a sexual deviant.

      2. “Nobody……. gets to enjoy freedom”?

        Huh? Who is curtailing anyone’s freedom?

        If the government doesn’t fund it, is that an automatic infringement on my freedom?

        1. Yeah, the drags can offer story book time in their homes or be invited into others homes if so desired.

    4. By that logic, the Catholic church needs to be destroyed by the state. They knowingly allowed molesters to interact with kids, they didn’t just fail to check on the priest, they knew. They also explicitly told us that the sacraments were stagger in a way to keep young people involved in the Church; so grooming. I am just guessing that Ahmari would not be in favor of that outcome.

      1. You really think anyone other than Eddy would be sad to see the Catholic Church destroyed?

        Francis is a commie piece of shit himself, and American Catholic universities have increasingly towed the progressive political line. Blowing up the church would be doing the country a favor.

        1. Not a member of a church, but they do provide a great deal of charitable work, and also are one of the last orgs to promote community involvement.

        2. “You really think anyone other than Eddy would be sad to see the Catholic Church destroyed?”

          It’s close to destroyed already, and frankly I’m sitting this one out, waiting to see if any divine intervention will be forthcoming, in accordance with Biblical prophecy, to make sure the Church *isn’t* destroyed. For the moment, I’m just emotionally distancing myself from it.

      2. Good point!

        You can add the Southern Baptist persuasion / church as well, and who knows how many others?

        https://www.newsweek.com/southern-baptist-sexual-abuse-rape-predators-scandal-church-christian-leaders-1325750
        SOUTHERN BAPTIST CHURCH SEXUAL ABUSE DATABASE REVEALS HUNDREDS OF CONVICTED PREDATORS AMONG LEADERS

        “Wolves in sheep’s clothing” lurk in many-many organizations…

        1. wolves may wear sheeps clothing but even sheep know to stay away from a wolf not dresses as a sheep. Drag queens are the wolf not dressed as a sheep unlike priest who should be punished

        2. Right but you eat shit and support incest.

      3. By that logic, the State needs to be destroyed by the state. They knowingly allowed molesters to interact with kids, they didn’t just fail to check on the teachers, they knew. They also hid them away, still at full pay whenever their molestations got to be too obvious.

        FTFY

        Ooh–and now they want to station drag queens in places where the kids go when they’re not in state custody.

    5. “No mention of the multiple arrested sexual deviants that have been part of Drag Happy Hour?”

      Yeah. So next time you screen them. Problem solved.
      Teachers, boy scout leaders, pastors, and babysitters have been arrested for being sexual deviants. Should we cancel school, weekend activities, Sunday church, and babysitting? No. It just means when you invite the birthday clown or the magician you should check to see if he or she is a diddler first.

      1. Yes, good job, agreed!

        Gay diddler or straight diddler, child abuse is child abuse. Gay-haters want to go all ballistic on the gays and forget the straights. Yet I have never seen any credible science study saying that gays are more likely to offend here…

    6. Hmmm… maybe he was using the word “grooming” in a different way you interpreted it. Also, the article you linked was about Louisiana so I wasn’t able to verify your claims about Houston.

  3. If parents want their kids to experience something like that, it’s weird and off-putting to me but it’s none of my business.

    Provided, of course, that it isn’t made mandatory for all kids. And I can easily see the Left insisting at some point that it be so.

    1. I think that is the source of a lot of th eblowback on this

    2. How many schools bring kids to these events? Some schools are now hosting them.

      It is a tough question on where freedom of speech ends and what publicly funded institutions should facilitate. I, for one, am tied of seeing my local library promote q&a sessions with gay authors -not that I want them restricted, but that it’s 90% of the authors they bring in, and I want some variety. Do these same libraries seek to have a bible story hour to offer as an alternative?

    3. Because it is being held in a public library, taxpayers, who don’t want their money used to expose children to this aberrant behavior, are being forced to fund such.
      Private events to highlight this sickness to impressionable children should not be banned, unless actual abuse occurs, but having it done in taxpayer funded facilities makes doing so be forced upon those who disagree.

  4. I try to be fair all around, most of the time, if people aren’t being assholes… So here’s some associated stuff…

    https://reason.com/blog/2017/10/03/brickbat-dont-ask-dont-tell#comment
    I am utterly SHOCKED to learn that NOT offending the “tranny brigade” of PC people is WAY more important than the actual happiness of trannies and potential trannies!!!

    Speaking of such things, there are biochemical, often off-label, solutions to your urges towards becoming a tranny, which MIGHT actually lead to better results! To MORE happiness, for many potential trannies! To becoming happy with your body, as it already is! Imagine that!

    1. See http://www.drugs.com/condition/gender-dysphoria.html for “Off Label” uses of drugs for suppressing “gender dysphoria”… 6 drugs listed in web link above, to include (pretty obviously) testosterone…

      Also use below as search-string…
      “Transgender woman, who claims pills for male hair-loss sparked gender change, opens up about ‘life and death struggle’”

      Concerns male-hair-loss “…drug Propecia, called finasteride, to halt the onset of hereditary baldness”, which feminized his / her body, and brought around the desire for a sex change, according to him-now-her.

      So then Propecia AKA (generic) finasteride sounds like a darned-good choice for an off-label drug use, if you are female, contemplating sex-change to male, and worrying that your marriage might not survive such a sex change… Which is a strong possibility! Try this first, to see if maybe you’d like to stay female, before you make drastic changes…

      1. There is no successful treatment for gender dysphoria dumbfuck, see literally everyone term study. Suicide rates actually go up with treatment. It is a mental illness. Would you encourage people who are ablists to cut off their party parts intentionally allow them to paralyze their lower limbs? They show the exact same issues as those with gender dysphoria, they just believe they should be crippled instead of being the wrong sex. Do you tell anorexic kids to continue their diets? Stop enabling them asshole.

        Sometimes you need to treat the actual mental disorder rather than enable it. Just like we dont pretend imaginary people exist for schizophrenia patients.

        1. Every long term study*

          1. I think the only somewhat conclusive long-term study was the Swiss one. The rest have horrible data because once most transition they moved away and didn’t report back so you only got some of the results and then discovered that others died. The % of suicides among the trans community that the activists on both sides tout is incorrect as well. It’s no where near 41%. I know a lot of trans people and not even 1% has offed themselves. 41% attempt before transitioning? That may be more likely.
            Just think about it. If 41% of trans people kill themselves then tranny pornstars are going to be pretty hard to find. They’re not. There is an abundance of them.

        2. “There is no successful treatment for gender dysphoria dumbfuck…”

          I just posted evidence to the contrary. Can you read? Or are you an expert on these things, without even studying it?

          I just argued against people willy-nilly cutting off their peckers, etc., and you accuse me of the exact opposite! You can’t even read 2 or 3 paragraphs with an open mind! Your affliction is ARROGANCE!

          Arrogance is a vital ingredient in a thing called “evil”. I suggest that you read this book: M. Scott Peck, “The People of the Lie”.
          https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0684848597/reasonfoundation-20/

        3. There is no successful treatment for gender dysphoria

          So maybe the correct solution is to just leave these people alone.
          There is no cure, and trying to fix them doesn’t help much either.
          Just let them live their lives as best as they can, being who they were born to be.

          Check out this podcast:
          https://www.npr.org/programs/invisibilia/483855073/the-problem-with-the-solution

          It is an interesting look at how to deal with mental illness.

          1. Just let them live their lives as best as they can, being who they were born to be.

            If they harass a cake maker, though, they get the rope.

            1. Only if it is by forcing them to make a cake that they don’t want to. I harass cake makers all the time. Not over not making cakes. Just because I don’t like them.

          2. You think these people are doing this in a vacuum. Many are being coerced by predatory people in forums or shitty psycho-therapists looking for an easy out.

            1. And Munchausen by proxy.

          3. “So maybe the correct solution is to just leave these people alone.”

            We did. Then they started passing laws.

            1. Yeah, the whole “They won’t harm you” line is no longer believable.

              Gay marriage killed that dead with their demands that people make art for them under the penalty of law.

              1. We should have learned when we saw them constantly doing the same with gun laws, but we didn’t.

          4. “Being who they were born to be”.

            Interesting choice of words. I would replace “being” with “denying”, but whatever.

  5. The Drag Queen Storytime is not mandatory, fine. Why is it something the public library is involved in and is exposing prepubescents to “unabashedly queer” role models a public good that a government institution should be supporting.

    Ahmari does have a point, that conservatives should not leave the culture to the progressives, but he has no good idea how to do that and his ideas only work if conservatives have a working majority to control government, which the lack of such a majority is the main problem in the first place.

    1. A good conservative response here would be to have a “straight man’s reading hour” at the public library. Dress in manly-man flannel lumberjack clothes, etc., but make sure you say NOTHING slamming the gays and trannies, etc. (Don’t feed ammo to the liberal snowflakes). If you get shut down for your “reading hour” here, NOW you have a clear cause to take to court!

      Love the kids, read for them, take the fighting OUT of the equation! But LOTS of folks would rather fight then love the kids! And that criticism is valid for both the red reading team AND the blue reading team alike!

      1. You realize antifa or some SJW would protest such an act as an agresive masculine act and as an example that I’m right facebook blocked a pro female homemaker group even though they said nothing agains feminism they were classified as anti feminist

        1. Well that sucks big-time, and I’m sorry to hear it! Facebook sucks!

          1. Right but you eat shit and support incest.

          2. it also proves a point that its not just facebook

        2. Since Facistbook now claims they are a publisher to get around censorship complaints, a few of us have created a Facebook Content Creators Union page on it. Just waiting for Cuckerberg to shut it down so we can charge him with union busting.

          Live by the proggie law, die by the proggie law.

      2. “Straight man’s reading hour” comes off like a child pouting because he had to eat his veggies before having ice cream. Why not just have a married couple read books to the kids? Call it Travis and his wife Shanequea read Frog and Toad are Friends. Everyone will be stunned when they discover Shanequea is white.

      3. The problem with that is that normal parents aren’t going to attend because they are not into the virtue signalling that the parents, who want to expose their children to a lifestyle which, if taken to the extreme, will mean extinction of the human race.
        The parents, who bring their offspring to these events are almost as fucked up as the drag queens, hoping for recruits to their humanity-ending lifestyle.

  6. Next up, reason defends Heroin User Reading hour where heroin users teach kids about chemical euphoria and proper techniques to shoot up drugs. After all, nobody forced the parents to attend.

    Why someone would support the indoctrination of a lifestyle with higher rates of suicide than slavery had is beyond me. Teaching kids about drug use would most likely have less harm to the kids than the drag lifestyle. Look at the comprehensive Johns Hopkins study at the rates. It also leads to the use of chemically altering drugs in youth that permanently changes their bodies for life. Over 95% of kids who Express dysphoria revert back to their original sex after puberty completed, yet some of you assholes support convincing kids to make life changing chemical decisions, often against the will of the parents, at the first expression of dysphoria.

    Stop calling yourselves libertarians. Libertarians dont require being fucking retarded in the name of freedom. Libertarians still believe in responsibility, especially parental responsibility.

    1. “…yet some of you assholes support convincing kids to make life changing chemical decisions…”

      Who? Such people exist, but no one is arguing for that here!

      Also consider this idea in the name of being fair and open-minded: Some of the excessively high rate of suicides among trannies MIGHT be due to bigots like you, who dump on them, while they are NOT hurting you!

      1. “Also consider this idea in the name of being fair and open-minded: Some of the excessively high rate of suicides among trannies MIGHT be due to bigots like you, who dump on them, while they are NOT hurting you!”

        Mentally ill people killing themselves because people aren’t suitably accomodating of their illness is the fault of others?

        Interesting.

        So, unless I say “Yes, Caitlyn Jenner is, in fact, a woman. In fact, I want to plow her right now”, I am to be blamed if a tranny kills themselves.

        You’re aware that they also bitch that people don’t want to date them. We need to fix that problem, huh?

        When somebody wishes to lie to themselves, that’s fine. When they demand I lie as well, they can go happily fuck off.

        1. No one is asking you to date them. Some of us would DARE to ask you to treat them tolerantly… To treat them the way you want to be treated. As equals, not freaks of nature. That’s all. Are we asking too much?

          1. The medical community is performing atrocious and harmful acts on children. The children are being misled. If you’re not calling it out then YOU are complicit.

          2. “Some of us would DARE to ask you to treat them tolerantly”

            YOU should define “tolerant”.

            Not killing them is tolerant.

            You frequently confuse “tolerant” and “approval”.

            “To treat them the way you want to be treated. As equals, not freaks of nature. That’s all. Are we asking too much?”

            and my point is proven.

            Like it or not, by ANY definition, trannies are freaks of nature. Sorry. And, no, I will not call a man a woman because he “feels” like one.

            You need to look up what TOLERANCE means because youre requesting far more than that.

          3. Um… but they ARE freaks of nature.
            Nature’s design was that male and female combine to create more males and females, and for that to continue.
            What is being embraced and forced on society is completely contrary to that design.

    2. “Why someone would support the indoctrination of a lifestyle with higher rates of suicide than slavery”

      You realize that cross dressers and transgender are two different things, right?

    3. “Next up, reason defends Heroin User Reading hour where heroin users teach kids about chemical euphoria and proper techniques to shoot up drugs.”

      C’mon. What kid does heroin? Glue Sniffer Reading Hour is less of a stretch.

  7. If you think something is dumb, what’s wrong with telling people that and trying to persuade them to agree with you? In what way is that remotely problematic?

    1. Nothing. But people like Sobram Ahmari want to go further, and want towns to pass local ordinances to use state force to prevent events like Drag Queen Story Hour, which would undermine free speech rights for all.

        1. OIC = ? (Not trying to be snarky). Google says “Officer In Charge”… Can’t find anything else vaguely plausible, I am trying to stay up on my internet lingo…

          1. Read it out loud.

            1. OIC! Thanks! (It was so simple, it slipped right on by me).

      1. So what’s wrong with voters telling local governments they don’t want public institutions, such as libraries, to promote drag queens?

        1. You mean, what’s wrong with the majority demanding that the state use force to silence the minority? I think you answered your own question.

          1. Who’s silencing them? My god, how dependent on government are you? Not much of a “radical individualist” are ya?

        2. Nothing, but if we’re going to get rid of what we don’t like then we’re going to have trouble keeping books in the libraries because voters will tell local governments that they don’t want the library to have books by certain authors or about certain subjects. This will result in John Stossel hiding in the bushes outside of the library saying “Psst! Hey! You want to read my book? They’re not allowed to loan it out!” Then parents will usher their children away from the man that looks like Geraldo hiding in the bushes.

      2. as long as the Drag Queen Hour is done on private property no one would care but for years the library has been advertising to leave your kids with the library since it was a safe space. but now who knows what will take place there. I wouldn’t leave my kid there just like ai wouldn’t leave my kid with a catholic priest

      3. So if the government doesn’t fund it, your rights are restricted? That seems to be the way a lot of resentful people think these days. They feel they have a right to have the government force other people to pay for their basic needs, and of course, their silly woke spectacles.

      4. No, he wants local ordinances that say “YOU CAN’T HAVE THIS IN PUBLICLY FUNDED LIBRARIES” so that it not portray the obvious impression that government encourages such aberrant behavior.
        I am sure the Founders didn’t have this type of “speech” in mind when they included the Bill of Rights into the Constitution.

        1. “No, he wants local ordinances that say “YOU CAN’T HAVE THIS IN PUBLICLY FUNDED LIBRARIES” so that it not portray the obvious impression that government encourages such aberrant behavior.”

          Which is obviously viewpoint-based discrimination. Which is obviously unconstitutional.

          “I am sure the Founders didn’t have this type of “speech” in mind when they included the Bill of Rights into the Constitution.”

          Who cares? Unlike morons like you, the founders understood the obvious dangers inherent in allowing the government to choose who gets to speak and what they get to say.

  8. How is it that even the libertarians in this argument are missing the point? The problem is the PUBLIC in public library.

    Take that away and whichever libraries can fund themselves can run whatever programs they want, or not. It would be nobody’s business but the donors.

    1. I for one agree with you. Ditto public schools and the ever-increasing involvement of Government Almighty in health care.

      Getting there is a million miles away, sad to say. We have to deal with what we’ve got now. Deal with it in increments. Else we are crying for the moon. In this analogy, the moon is so far away, we don’t even discuss the moon hardly at all.

    2. How is it that even the libertarians in this argument are missing the point? The problem is the PUBLIC in public library.

      Take that away and whichever libraries can fund themselves can run whatever programs they want, or not. It would be nobody’s business but the donors.

      Disagreed. Public library funding is the root of the problem but it’s not the whole problem.

      There are specifically designated purposes for tax dollars collected. Drag queens by name are not one of those purposes. Libraries *may* be one of those purposes, but drag queen story hours aren’t essential to the function of a library.

      The whole tree is rotten and tearing it out at the root will kill it. However, the odds of tearing it out at the root are slim and there may be the possibility to fix the problem with severe pruning.

    3. If the government doesn’t fund it, then it never happened, and all rights are destroyed.

      How can you not know this? Haha.

  9. I’m not really seeing the “destroying the Constitution” part here. You have two groups arguing over the direction of the culture, one wants to push it in one way and the other is being condemned for trying to resist it being pushed in that direction. “But who really cares?” Well, the drag queens apparently care, they care a lot – but anybody else is just being silly for caring as much as they do. Look, there’s two people involved in a mugging and if the mugger doesn’t think it’s a big deal, why is the mugee trying to make a big deal of it?

    1. You have to understand the New Reason.

      It’s not censorship when we say we’re going to use government force to stop you from saying things we don’t like.

      It is censorship when we say we’re going to use government force to protect our right to free speech.

      Got it?

      1. “It’s not censorship when we say we’re going to use government force to stop you from saying things we don’t like.”

        When have the writers at Reason.com EVER said ANYTHING like this? Other than in your fevered mind?

        Citations please!

        1. Dalmia specifically has.

          Welch was QUITE bitchy that the debate commission didn’t put Gary Johnson in the debate. Wouldn’t shut up about the outrage of a private institution not doing what he wants.

        2. They say it all the time, SQLSY, you just can’t see it because you agree with the things they want to use government force to censor.

          1. Such as? Name me one? Where Reason.com isn’t just bitching about what someone is saying or writing, but is REALLY calling for literal “government force” in response to words and words alone (excluding the usual words of conspiring for private violence, as in, “lets me and you get together tonight and beat up so-and-so”, clear lies of defamation, of slander, and these commonly agreed-upon transgressions).

            I still have yet to see a link to Reason.com doing this… It’s not asking much, please cough up one of these links…

    2. “But everyone else is just being silly”….,.,,, Haha.

      I’m pretty sure they use much nastier words than “silly”. They do not like being disagreed with.

  10. Libertinism. Not once, ever.

    1. Expressing yourself in a clear and coherent manner. Not once, ever.

      1. There’s a difference between libertarian and libertine. Libertine is “do as you please”, libertarian is “do as you please, but don’t come whining to me when what you did turns out to have been a really bad idea”.

        1. To me, “libertine” basically means “sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll.” Libertarian means maximum practical freedom in all aspects of life, including economic freedom.

          1. “Sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll” = “wine, women, and song” = “beer, the old lady, and TV”. Roughly equivalent at least… Yet the cultural connotations are WAY different!

            Well, I for one find it funny…

            1. Roughly equivalent at least…

              Hit in the head with an orange, hit in the head with a bowling ball, dropped on your head as a child… roughly equivalent.

          2. Libertine means freedom from responsibility for your choices. They tend to see consequences of their actions that they do not like as some sort of unfair judgment and punishment and wish to be alleviated of them.

  11. Last comment for the “nobody is forcing” them idiots…

    We actually are seeing force used in the transgender debate. Parents haven been cut off of parental rights by the state from doctors and educators deciding they support transgenderism and file restraining orders against the parents. That is literal state force intruding on the lives of parents. I have never seen one article from reason decrying that use of force.

      1. C-16 debacle in Canada.

      2. You seem to be pulling all of chemjeff moves today shit eater. Especially the “ask for citations that you’re too fucking lazy to educate yourself on” thing he does.

        So weird.

        1. Sheesh. You all really must think The Federalist is a credible source of information, don’t you?

    1. That is absolutely awful, but not the subject being discussed here. The subject is people who want to stop certain innocuous activities based on their cultural preferences.

      1. It actually is part of the larger set of issues Ahmari is up 8n arms over

      2. Mmmm, no Zeb. The issues are comingled inseparably, I’m afraid.

      3. Who decides the activity is innocuous?

  12. Trying to normalize drag queens seems to kind of miss the point. Aren’t they supposed to be over-the-top and shocking or surprising?

    In any case, this is weird, but as long as no one has to attend and it isn’t being funded by tax money, I don’t see the problem.

    1. Public libraries ARE funded by tax money.

      1. “Public libraries ARE funded by tax money.”

        How much tax money goes to the story-reading drag queens?

        1. Irrelevant.

          The LIBRARY is getting money. The drag queens can go to the houses of parents who want them to read to their kids if they so choose.

          1. “The LIBRARY is getting money.”

            And the library is dressed in the correct clothing for its gender.

            “The drag queens can go to the houses of parents who want them to read to their kids if they so choose.”

            Nobody is disagreeing with you. The issue is unpaid drag queens reading in a public library. How are you going to stop this?

            1. “And the library is dressed in the correct clothing for its gender.”

              It’s almost tragic that you think this is a cogent point.

              The library takes PUBLIC money. Ergo, the PUBLIC has a right to decide what is and what is not permitted there.

              Want your kids to be groped by drag queens? Do it at your house.

              1. “Ergo, the PUBLIC has a right to decide what is and what is not permitted there.”

                Let me know when the public decides to stop drag queens from reading books at the public library.

                1. This article is bitching about that exact thing happening you realize.

                  1. “This article is bitching about that exact thing happening you realize.”

                    This article defends and celebrates drag queens reading books at libraries. Maybe you had another article in mind. Maybe you should have a parent or guardian edit your comments before posting.

                    1. And it says people opposing it are “destroying the constitution”.

                      I mean, it’s in the fucking headline.

                    2. No, the fucking headline says “Don’t Destroy the Constitution to Fight Drag Queen Reading Hour.” It’s right there in bold type. It’s cautioning conservatives not to damage the constitution by arguing that the government should be able to discriminate against people based on the political and social beliefs just to combat the drag queen reading hours.

              2. “The library takes PUBLIC money. Ergo, the PUBLIC has a right to decide what is and what is not permitted there.”

                That’s not how it works. That’s not how any of this works.

                1. It very much is. Sorry to burst your bubble.

                  1. No, it really isn’t. But if it was, there would still be Drag Queen Story Hours in most of the places where they are being hosted right now.

                  2. No it isn’t. The outraged public can’t use the power of the purse to curtail fundamental liberties.

                    1. The fundamental liberty being curtailed is…what?

            2. “The issue is unpaid drag queens reading in a public library. How are you going to stop this?”

              By paying the drag queens and then jailing them when they don’t file their taxes.

            3. The issue is unpaid drag queens reading in a public library. How are you going to stop this?
              By making rules that prevent any kind of extraneous messages being sent by someone conducting a reading session in public libraries.
              The fact that they are “drag queens” is not necessary for there to be a reading hour. Clearly, there is an attempt for something else to be signaled by the event.

          2. No, it’s pretty relevant. It’s generally accepted that the government can’t discriminate when allowing access to its facilities.

            1. You will find that most libraries discriminate about who can use their facilities as a public forum.

              1. Then the people who are discriminated against should sue.

            2. I’ve seen a lack of “nudist story time” for kids. Wonder why.

              1. Is public nudity legal in your jurisdiction?

                1. It’s just how the feel like expressing themselves.

                  1. Is public nudity legal in your jurisdiction?

              2. I guess jph12 would be OK with Nazi Reading Hour.
                Can’t “discriminate” now, can we?

                1. No, we can’t. And we’re better off for it. You might want to emulate the Eurotrash, but I have no desire to.

                  Seriously, conservatives thinking they’ll come out on top if local libraries start banning disfavored groups is adorable.

    2. You have WAY too much common sense and sense of balance! Prepare to defend yourself!

    3. “as long as . . . it isn’t being funded by tax money”

      LOL, didn’t even read the article at all there hot shot?

  13. Libertopians will gladly allow parents to fuck up their kids mental health then complain about the taxes required to deal with it later.

    “Exposing children to sexual abuse is a small price to pay for liberty” – people who will never win elections

    1. Cross-dressing has what to do with sex abuse? Isn’t the definition of which kind of clothes, which sex should wear, an arbitrary cultural assumption? Shall we forbid Scottish men from wearing their kilts in front of the kids? You want YOUR tax money spent on deciding which sex should wear what kinds of clothes? Does this kind of attitude have ANYTHING to do with individual freedom, on minimizing the size of the State?

      1. Feel free to continue to play dumb, people on the right will fight libertinism while you pretend this isn’t inherently sexualized behavior.

        This shouldn’t require any law forbidding it. Pretending it’s not a problem only allows authoritarians to control the narrative.

        1. This shouldn’t require any law forbidding it.

          Right, because in Conservatopia, the drag queens would be so humiliated, depressed, and self-loathing that they wouldn’t even think of going out in public like that. There might even be a little bit of casual violence against those trannies who insist on breaking cultural taboos, to keep the rest in line.

          1. “Self loathing”?

            Yeah, pretty sure they check that box without any help from the haters.

      2. “Shall we forbid Scottish men from wearing their kilts in front of the kids?”

        Only if they wear them with fishnets and heels.

  14. I question parents who would take their children to queer story hours. Why? Must be the Democrat politicians that infect Sacramento. Or maybe SJW parents driving in from Davis. Because Sacramento is a very conservative place. It’s in the middle of an agricultural heartland. If not for all the lawyers and politicians and hangers on infesting it due to it also being the state capital, it would be barely indistinguishable from Bakersfield.

    Not to mention the fact that the drag queens are an affront to Social Justice! They are males appropriating femininity from females. White males, nonetheless. They call themselves queer but they’re just hetero men in dresses. On the intersectionality hierarchy they rank somewhere around a 0.3.

    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalking_Cat

      On the intersectionality hierarchy, WHERE does a male (negative points) Native American (positive points) trans-species (positive points) deceased (??? points) individual rank?

      Inquiring minds want to KNOW, dammit!

    2. They are males appropriating femininity from females.

      Which is a form of appropriate which is in fact a bit insulting. “Hey, being a woman is merely dressing up in something and acting bitchy!”

      Although I wouldn’t go so far as to accuse the “drag queens” of appropriating womanhood. Because at least from my experience, that is an overtly performative act meant to entertain.

    3. Oh, serious question about the drag queen culture… when it the… sorry, clown makeup start to become a thing? I remember when their makeup was quite well done a-la Rue Paul. Now there’s this weird trend where they look like Juggalos. Inquiring minds want to know.

      1. What planet have you been on? John Leguizamo looked more like a garish clown from hell in the Julie Newmar movie than he did playing the part of an actual clown from hell in Spawn.

        Some can pull it off but for most others the makeup hast to be garish to distract from pores, massive cheekbones, and square jawlines. Your average woman can put on a little bit of blush and maybe some eye shadow to bring out her feminine features. The majority of dudes just look like dudes wearing a little bit of blush and eyeshadow.

        1. See my response below, but while John Leguizamo looked the… most clownish in the cast, he’s nothing compared to this.

      2. Oh, serious question about the drag queen culture… when it the… sorry, clown makeup start to become a thing? I remember when their makeup was quite well done a-la Rue Paul. Now there’s this weird trend where they look like Juggalos. Inquiring minds want to know.

        It’s actually the other way around.

        The ‘clown makeup’ is the drag norm–RuPaul incorporated a more classic female impersonation angle to his drag form and, due to his popularity, it spread for a while. But standard drag is re-asserting itself.

        And just what IS standard drag?

        It’s a type of clowning.

        It’s men, dressed up as overdone sexualized versions of women that engage in campy sexual humor, banter, and physical comedy.

        Part of the reason the makeup is so garish is to hide the identity of the performer.

        1. It’s a type of clowning.

          It’s men, dressed up as overdone sexualized versions of women that engage in campy sexual humor, banter, and physical comedy.

          Part of the reason the makeup is so garish is to hide the identity of the performer.

          See Rocky Horror.

        2. I guess I’m less tapped into the drag queen scene than I thought. Thanks for the insight. You to mad.casual.

          1. When you do makeup and special effects work you can’t help but find out.

    4. “They are males appropriating femininity from females. ”

      It’s not appropriation, it’s caricature. It’s not serious and not meant to be taken seriously.

        1. Blackface is taken seriously. Drag queens are a joke.

          1. Well, wait a second. Blackface isn’t meant to be “taken seriously”. It’s also meant as a joke or an act, just one that treads on dangerously insensitive grounds.

            1. ” It’s also meant as a joke ”

              It’s not taken as a joke for the most part. That’s why there are calls for apologies.

              1. So if people start asking drag queens to apologize then doing drag is wrong?
                The more you know.

                1. “So if people start asking drag queens to apologize then doing drag is wrong?”

                  No. Asking is not enough. If people listen and take heed to what the askers are asking, then you might be getting somewhere. Disapprove of drag queens? Find yourself one and ask for an apology.

                  1. “Disapprove of drag queens? Find yourself one and ask for an apology.”

                    I did and he/she asked me out on a date. Said she would wear blackface. I’m feeling adventurous. Never tried interracial before. Thanks for your advice.

                    “If people listen and take heed to what the askers are asking”
                    This doesn’t mean that something is right or wrong or even deserving of an apology. It just simply means you’re trying to please another group. Blackface is taken as seriously as someone in drag. It just depends on who is taking it seriously. You don’t have to listen to them.

                    1. Is it wrong for a drag queen to read at a library? If so why?

                    2. “Is it wrong for a drag queen to read at a library? If so why?”

                      It’s not wrong at all. Just like it wouldn’t be wrong for someone to paint their face to be like that of other races. Neither is hurting anyone. Are there people going to be upset over both? Almost definitely. Fuck ’em. Do both. I say be like Shirley Q Liquor and do them both at the same time.

        2. Blackface is clowning, too.

          In fact, if you take some of the most popular clown face styles and change the white to black, it becomes blatantly obvious.

          Additionally, most of the routines are adapted from classic ones–reworked to fit an American southern location.

          The most popular ones are those that show the clown letting the air out of the ego of some overinflated snob.

          1. Is there a good venue you are aware of where Americans of all stripes can enjoy a good clean blackface show?

            1. No. It was killed.

              And now black clowns must wear whiteface or do ‘hobo’ style clowns to do the same routines.

              There is something to be daid for having all clowns as their own unique category, but black performers who do hobo clowns look a helluvalot like blackface.

      1. It’s not appropriation, it’s caricature.

        So, not appreciating for it’s worth but openly deriding? Understood.

        1. Caricature is exaggerating for comic effect. Derision is something different again. Understand?

          1. That suggests that everyone who dressed in blackface was doing it for the sole purpose of derision. There’s no evidence, for instance, that Justin “Zoolander” Trudeau meant his blackface brownface face darkening bronzing to deride Arab culture. It was a costume– he was playing a part.

            But enough about him pretending to be Prime Minister.

            1. ” That suggests that everyone who dressed in blackface was doing it for the sole purpose of derision. ”

              I haven’t really followed the story. But times change. It’s the cruelest law of the universe. As a young man, Trudeau seems to have worn Arab costumes with impunity. These days, it’s not kosher.

              1. That’s not all he’s done with impunity.

          2. Caricature – n.
            a picture, description, or imitation of a person in which certain striking characteristics are exaggerated in order to create a comic or grotesque effect.

            Derision – n.
            contemptuous ridicule or mockery.

            Caricature is never intended to be flattering and there is otherwise plenty of overlap between caricature and derision.

          3. Caricature is never intended to be flattering

            Whereas appropriation can be and absolutely is done for reasons that support or celebrate the appropriated people/class/characteristic.

            1. Are you in favor of drag queens appropriating femininity while reading books in a public library? But oppose those who merely caricature femininity?

              1. That’s a false choice. There are lots of other options and I could easily support a female caricature of femininity such as Betty Boop or Helen Kane while still objecting to the appropriation. I could object to some forms of appropriation in a given context and not in others. Or I could oppose all of the above.

                In any event, none require me or anyone else to stunt my intelligence and idiotically cling to the patent falseness of ‘appropriation = bad, caricature = good’.

                1. “Or I could oppose all of the above. ”

                  You do oppose drag queens reading books in public libraries, don’t you? Are there any underlying motives of drag queens that would make you support these some drag queens?

                  “In any event, none require me or anyone else to stunt my intelligence and idiotically cling to the patent falseness of ‘appropriation = bad, caricature = good’.”

                  Let me know when a library holds a blackface reading hour. I’ll be surprised if there were because society has recently looked negatively on blackface, while crossing dressing is seen with more tolerance. When Trudeau was cavorting about as an Arab, I doubt there was a single library on the planet which featured a drag queen reading books. This is what I meant by time changes, and it being the cruelest law of the universe.

    5. Right but you want to censor people who make you look bad so, really, who cares what you think.

  15. I look forward to Reason’s defense of cannibal story hour.

    What? They’re already dead, who cares right? It’s not hurting anyone…

    something something Recycling
    something something libertopia

    1. Are you really comparing Men wearing Dresses to Cannibalism?

  16. From Catholic priests to joining boy scout troops — fuckers LOVE to go after the children. Evil …

  17. “glamorous, positive and unabashedly queer role models.”

    I guess Douglas Murray and Peter Thiel are out.

  18. If I were to follow the links, would I find out how this has something to do with the US Constitution? Because Steven Greenhut sure didn’t explain it.

  19. I eagerly await the NRA reading hour, if you don’t want to attend you don’t have to

    relevant: https://youtu.be/oi40GHHnlro?t=34

    1. LOL, I wish somebody would do that just so I can laugh when the lefties start shitting gold bricks.

      1. I eagerly await the NRA reading hour, if you don’t want to attend you don’t have to

        Following The Constitution, back-to-back readings of Mein Kampf and The Turner Diaries by Alex Jones and members of Stormfront should be completely uncontroversial. I’m sure all the Reason contributors on board with drag queen story hour would be totally alright with public libraries as explicit platforms for white supremacy.

        I can only assume they support a Koran story hour (complete with tales endorsing radical Islam and Jihad) too, as long as they aren’t actually calling for specific acts of violence or threatening specific people or groups directly.

        1. Above was meant in reply to lap83.

        2. Aren’t libraries prevented from carrying political material like the Constitution, Mien Kampy, Koran, and the Turner Diaries? If not, why not? Doesn’t the mere existence of these books encourage others, including drag queens, visit the library and read them?

          1. No, not prohibited. Up to the individual libraries to decide what to purchase. Lot of misinformation out there.

            1. “Up to the individual libraries to decide what to purchase.”

              An attitude like that leads to drag queens reading books at public libraries. Don’t you agree that it’s the public who should decide who reads what books and where they are read?

            2. He’s yammering.

              You don’t have to believe the totality of the Bible to believe that it’s both difficult and stupid to defend a house built on a foundation of sand.

              Stocking the books isn’t prohibited but plenty of behaviors are and I bet when you drill down into what behaviors are allowed and what aren’t the 1A gets invoked (on behalf of a public institution) selectively in defense of non-constitutional rights and ignored (again on behalf of a public institution) with regard to constitutionally protected rights and behaviors.

              I’m dubious that lots of librarians and program directors consult their lawyers before enacting and/or enforcing any/every given policy. They’d toss my wife out for going topless completely ignorant of the 7th Circuit’s decision one way or the other.

              1. “Stocking the books isn’t prohibited but plenty of behaviors are and I bet when you drill down into what behaviors are allowed and what aren’t the 1A gets invoked (on behalf of a public institution) selectively in defense of non-constitutional rights and ignored (again on behalf of a public institution) with regard to constitutionally protected rights and behaviors.”

                The First Amendment protects individuals against discrimination by the public institution.

                “I’m dubious that lots of librarians and program directors consult their lawyers before enacting and/or enforcing any/every given policy. They’d toss my wife out for going topless completely ignorant of the 7th Circuit’s decision one way or the other.”

                The 7th Circuit upheld topless bans. You are thinking of the 10th Circuit.

                1. The First Amendment protects individuals against discrimination by the public institution.
                  Has to be one of the stupidest things ever posted on the internet.

                  1. Little too much smoke inhalation, hunh?

  20. Congress has little business in local library matters and could only posture.

    Maybe. Maybe not. I’m not saying I’m in favor of Congress pushing around local libraries, but…

    United States v. American Library Association, a case brought by the ACLU and others on behalf of librarians, library users, and Web site operators. The Supreme Court said that it was constitutional in theory for Congress to require some sort of blocking technology as a condition for receiving federal funds.

    If they can require blocking technology, why can’t they make requirements on story hour?

    1. “why can’t they make requirements on story hour?”

      Or at least spell out exactly what kind of clothes the government wants its library story readers to wear.

    2. From Oyez: “Yes. In a 6-3 judgment delivered by Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist, the Court held that, because public libraries’ use of Internet filtering software does not violate their patrons’ First Amendment rights, CIPA does not induce libraries to violate the Constitution and is a valid exercise of Congress’s spending power. Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Antonin Scalia, and Clarence Thomas joined the Chief Justice’s opinion. Justices Anthony M. Kennedy and Stephen G. Breyer filed opinions concurring in the judgment. Both noted that CIPA imposed a comparatively small burden on library Internet users that was not disproportionate to any potential speech-related harm, especially in light of the libraries’ ability to unblock sites.”

      Discrimination in access to library facilities would violate the First Amendment. Also, I’m assuming the funding at issue was to allow libraries to increase access to the internet, which is directly related to the condition. I don’t think there is any federal funding for local libraries to provide meeting rooms/story hours, and restrictions based on the Spending Clause generally require a fairly strong connection to the spending at issue.

  21. Interesting way to rework the same previous Ahmari-French gibberish. Where is the part where somebody proposed destroying the constitution, and how, exactly?

    Local libraries should be local matters. Some would even argue that the federal government has no say in the matter. But only a few actually comprehend what that means. It would mean that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to state and local governments, because it is not the job of the federal government to secure and enforce all manner of rights against the states (instead look to the state constitutions). To be clear, this is contrary to how SCOTUS has ruled in the 150 years since the 14th amendment was passed, but arguably this was the original meaning of the 14th amendment.

    Regardless, as a matter of free speech, I agree that drag queen story hours might need to be permitted in public libraries, depending on the details, and provided that a Christian Bible story hour would also be permitted (spoiler: it wouldn’t).

    It seems like Ahmari did not call for drag queen story hours to be banned under force of federal law, and instead Reason is getting carried away again with its own fanciful narrative and dogmatic myopia. Maybe I just missed it, though.

    Or maybe, was this the Ahmari guy in this video? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UO-OiGdR2Yg

    1. “and provided that a Christian Bible story hour would also be permitted ”

      I’m holding out for nude lady story hours, any and all denominations welcomed.

      1. It should be illegal for the drag queens to be “dressed like a whore” in front of the kids though. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UO-OiGdR2Yg

    2. It would mean that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to state and local governments, because it is not the job of the federal government to secure and enforce all manner of rights against the states (instead look to the state constitutions).
      Article 6, US Constitution: This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

  22. So pre-teen stripper hour at the local library is cool so long as nobody is forcing the girls to partake, right?

    It’s got fuck all to do with books, informing and enlightening the electorate, and is somewhat objectively performing a disservice to the public but, you know, rights and forefathers and shit means it’s pro-liberty and therefore OK.

    1. “So pre-teen stripper hour at the local library is cool so long as nobody is forcing the girls to partake, right?”

      The cross-dressers were “performing” (reading) for the kids, not vice versa. No nudity or stripping involved, either. BIG differences there! Your dishonesty is showing.

      1. The cross-dressers were “performing” (reading) for the kids, not vice versa. No nudity or stripping involved, either. BIG differences there! Your dishonesty is showing.

        “Sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll” = “wine, women, and song” = “beer, the old lady, and TV”. Roughly equivalent at least…

        Choke on your own precepts fuckwad.

        1. “Sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll” = “wine, women, and song” = “beer, the old lady, and TV”.

          Please educate us on which of these are God-blessed, God-ordained, Government-Almighty-Blessed, and which are abominations in the Holy Face of God, and why. Please?

          1. Please educate us on which of these are God-blessed, God-ordained, Government-Almighty-Blessed, and which are abominations in the Holy Face of God, and why. Please?

            They aren’t my words and I’ve made no invocation or implication of God.

            You claim to be able to distinguish between drag queen story hour as protected art or speech and pre-teen stripper hour as a sin or intolerable non-speech while, *at the same time*, equivocating on the above.

            God or not your actions will speak for themselves and how you distinguish drag queen story hour from pre-teen stripper hour from sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll from beer, the old lady, and TV will either show you to be the truly enlightened genius you think your are or the utter moron that the rest of us see you as.

            The floor is yours to enlighten us all with your wisdom. Good luck.

            1. “You claim to be able to distinguish between drag queen story hour as protected art or speech and pre-teen stripper hour as a sin or intolerable non-speech while, *at the same time*, equivocating on the above.”

              Can you READ, moron, or are you too lazy? Repeat of what I wrote earlier…

              “The cross-dressers were “performing” (reading) for the kids, not vice versa. No nudity or stripping involved, either. BIG differences there! Your dishonesty is showing.”

              Your “logic” is all emotional. It’s like me being a cow-worshipping Hindu, and telling you I’m going to jail you for eating hamburger or any other form of beef, because, well, you know, next thing you know, you’ll be slaughtering humans and eating people-meat!

              Laws are VERY often arbitrary cultural conventions, not based on logic. Is there a logical reason why I can’t poop or fuck in public sight, on my own front yard? I’m not in favor of that, I’m just saying it is NOT based in logic. No “facts” are involved, other than the “facts” of what the vast, overwhelming majority of people find offensive.

              Also, I can’t let you drink that cup of water… Next thing you know, you’ll be drinking our oceans dry! This is “mad.casual logic”, and sane people with a sense of balance, can make NO sense of it!

              1. Thanks for blessing us with your wisdom. I know I don’t see and can’t understand your guiding light but I’m sure your well-considered and infinitely more informed words will illuminate the minds, hearts, and souls of all the others who read it. You truly are a visionary who can effortlessly reach into the very core of problems and conflicts and pull out the simplest and most obvious of resolutions, best accommodating parties on all sides.

                Were but we all so well blessed with your wisdom, drag queen story hour wouldn’t be a thing, or it would be a thing but it wouldn’t be a publicly funded thing. Or rather, it would be a thing and be publicly funded but no one would take offense to it. Wait, no… it would be a thing, would be publicly funded, and lots of people would rightly and accurately take offense entirely within their own purview logically, emotionally, or not.

                You know what, I’m beginning to think that you have no actual wisdom to impart.

                1. “Thanks for blessing us with your wisdom.”

                  “I’m beginning to think that you have no actual wisdom to impart.”

                  All within the space of 3 paragraphs. Do you have schizophrenia? Get integrated! You can do it!

        1. The president of the United States threatened a country if it didn’t give him help in his reelection.

          1. As ususal, you don’t know what you are talking about.
            Meanwhile we have, on tape, a former vice-president relating how he threatened a sovereign nation to withhold a billion dollars in government money, unless they fired the prosecutor investigating his son.

            1. Citation needed.

              And fuck Biden. Fuck them both.

    2. Reading a book aloud in library.

      “you know, rights and forefathers and shit means it’s pro-liberty and therefore OK.”

      Forefathers not only invented libraries but dressed in wigs and Indian costumes while reading books.

      1. “Forefathers not only invented libraries”

        Lol

      2. Forefathers not only invented libraries but dressed in wigs and Indian costumes while reading books.

        I gave you a few minutes in case this was a typo. Did you read what you wrote? Because I’m pretty sure you didn’t.

        1. I’ll get back to you in a few minutes. I think I hear a drag queen reading a book.

  23. In case the readership here is out of touch with these modern times, you should know that drag queen story hours are so yesterday. Such a milquetoast event barely raises an eyebrow now. The new hotness is kids with downs’ syndrome prancing around in stripper outfits. No I’m not joking, they call it “disability drag.”

    1. ” No I’m not joking, they call it “disability drag.”

      I liked it better when they called it ‘fake news.’

        1. Slate.com? The outfit behind the monkey fishing scandal?

        2. There is nothing in your link about “kids” with Down’s Syndrome performing in drag. Try again.

  24. OT: “Darkening your face, regardless of the context or the circumstances, is always unacceptable because of the racist history of black face,” – Justin Trudeau

    Apparently, we’ve all been missing the racist dog whistles from camouflaged soldiers, pro quarterbacks, and George Hamilton all this time.

    1. “Apparently, we’ve all been missing…”

      The cruelest law of the universe: Times change. Old farts tend to get left behind.

      1. Old farts?

        He was under 30 when he wore blackface and under 50 when he apologized for everyone who’s ever darkened their face for any reason.

        The cruelest law of the universe is that time and intelligence don’t appear to converge going forward.

        1. “He was under 30 when he wore blackface ”

          Times change and people age. But if you like wearing blackface, go for it. You have nothing to lose but your livelihood and social standing.

          1. I’ve done it without issue but it’s good to see that you’re on crusty old fart Trudeau’s side in the “Wearing blackface = darkening your face under any circumstances” debate.

            1. I didn’t know there was such a debate. The drag queens in the library is more my style.

            2. The upshot of your comments here seems to be “I get to decide what’s socially acceptable, fuck you.”

      2. Point of order: Old farts are very much in vogue with the young people. Never has a generation had less of a sense of humor, and been more full of moral scolding than the current one. Our children are the Church Lady. But in drag.

        1. “and been more full of moral scolding than the current one”

          Moral scolding. For the things money won’t buy.

  25. Way back when I worked in a library (in the children’s section), we had these things called Librarians that personally handled story hours.

    They wore dresses, but they weren’t men.

    1. If the library were large enough, like infinitely large, it would have everything.

      1. You mean it would be Amazon?

    2. That you’re aware of.
      I once saw a documentary called Tranny Librarians #4 and you’d be amazed.

  26. Putting up with some drag-queen storytelling seems like a small price to pay to live in a relatively free society.

    What about the drag queen pedophiles?

    1. The price is slightly higher if the drag queens are also pedophiles.

    2. “relatively free society”?

      In California???

      1. Is striking an inanimate object, like an anvil, a violation of the NAP? What about something that’s as dumb as an anvil? It’s just a property rights issue then, right?

  27. So much fragile masculinity going on here. Get a grip, losers.

    If you struggle to understand the point of “Drag Queens Reading Hour,” reflect on how you’d think about it if the “drag queens” were in fact just “clowns.”

    Because that’s all what most of these local drag queens are – clowns. They wear makeup, fake hair, and costumes; they seek to entertain their audience through humor.

    The one and only reason any of you stupid cunts have any issue at all with “drag queen reading hour” is the fact that these clowns aren’t conforming to some arbitrary gender norms you decided was for some reason applicable to clowns. Have a heart attack already, you pathetic assholes.

    1. Would you like a balloon?

    2. What kind of child, consulted about what his or her entertainment preferences would be, answers “I’d like to watch creepy, nightmare-inducing, antics from characters so frightening that they inspire some of the most popular movies in the horror genre?”

      Saying “drag queens are just a kind of clown” is unfair to drag queens, who have their own problems and shouldn’t be saddled with the baggage of these…clowns.

    3. Sheltering children from the fact of homosexuality will help them… in some way. I’m sure they can explain what that is.

      1. We really should be more trusting of government bodies to know more about children’s educational needs and maturity levels than their backward clinger parents think they know. After all, it takes a village.

        1. Did the government force any children to go to a drag queen book reading?

          If so, I highly object!

          1. Ah, the misunderstood government is merely acting in loco parentis for those kids whose parents are already woke. I’m sorry I doubted.

  28. numerous legal battles to protect the right of Christians to participate in the public square

    That’s like spending your life fighting for the right of flour to be in cake, but sure whatever.

    I remember Prayer at the Flagpole day or whatever in high school. It was like crossing a religiously judgmental picket line just to go to class. That’s one public fucking religion.

    1. I remember one student in my elementary classes. A Jehovah’s Witness with a note to the teacher letting her sit out the prayer and anthem ceremonies that kicked off the school day. Dealing with such a minefield of tensions so young must give them a leg up on the rest of us in terms of courage and principles.

      1. Yeah everyone thought the JWers were weirdos. But they weren’t the ones engaging in ritual worship of a piece of cloth, were they?

  29. I don’t know how blackface got into this discussion, but I’m sure it was a desperate attempt at false equivalency that somehow absolves the theocratic assholes.

    Black people in my experience have pretty thick skin (not literally, oh dear). But if something is likely to make an average black woman or black gay man to say “Umm NUH UH!” and wag their finger, or an average straight black man to say “That shit’s fucked up,” then you have your answer. Sheesh.

  30. Wake me when we start having a debate on the First Amendment implications of “Traditional Family Story Hour” at the public libraries.

    “But the public libraries don’t have a Traditional Family Story Hour!”

    Yes, that’s my point.

  31. The article says “putting up with some drag-queen storytelling seems like a small price to pay to live in a relatively free society.”

    All right, but this sounds like one-way tolerance to me.

    If a public library somewhere in Nebraska held an “Uncle Remus Story Hour” with stories read by a white guy in black face-paint and a stereotypical black accent, do you suppose for an instant that this would be shrugged off as the price to be paid for living in a relatively free society?

    1. The idea that there might actually be people who would be equally offended by a Drag Queen Story Hour *and* an Uncle Remus Story Hour – that idea is beyond the comprehension of your typical “intellectual.”

      1. Or that there might actually be people who wouldn’t give a shit about either.

  32. Huh, funny how the “libertines” at Reason support drag queen story hour on First Amendment grounds, but hate Confederate monuments out of pure opinion and party principles.
    And then to do so by quoting charlatan extraordinaire David French who runs the tabloid news source the National Review.

    Half of these men are convicted sex offenders and pederasts!
    Let this be clear : reason.com’s support of this has nothing to do with actual logic and everything to do with defending “allies” across a political landscape.

    1. Half of these men are convicted sex offenders and pederasts!

      Gonna need a citation on that.

      What’s really funny is when people who want to tell complete strangers how to dress, who they can have sex with, where they can go, and who they can talk to, think they get to claim to be the freedom people.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.