So what compelling interest might you have to justify banning this?

I don't know that apathy is the same as defending.

Probably similar thing I was citing earlier, such as not wanting to normalize the drag lifestyle.

Look, I know your position. You are saying that drag queens should have the freedom to read to children, and that any attempt to restrict this is infringing on their freedom. But you need to know that we as a society already restrict a lot of freedoms. For example, we say people cannot rape. They cannot murder, and they cannot steal. If you hate these restrictive laws but other people want them, then the only sensible thing is for you to move to another country.

We do restrict freedoms, but simply saying "We do not like this" is not a compelling interest that is part of the ordered, lawful society in which we live. One can be the opinion that the "drag lifestyle should not be normalized", but there would need to be articulation for why there is an actual harm to children that would justify the restriction.

Over 200 families attended the Drag Story Hour in Canada that I linked. Do you feel that their children were harmed by Conni Smudge reading I Like Me, by Nancy Carlson, and Piranhas Don’t Eat Bananas, by Aaron Blabey?

This post was edited by Handcuffs on May 23 2023 07:01pm

Does psychological harm count? I think that the normalization of drag lifestyle harms kids, because they might grow up thinking perversions like homosexuality and drag are OK to partake in.



Physically harmed? No. Psychologically harmed? Yes.

You have to justify "psychological harm" with evidence. Otherwise you could ban women showing ankles because it causes "psychological harm".

Homosexuality and drag are okay to engage in, from a legal perspective. If there's harm you have to show with scientific evidence that there's real measurable harm.

This post was edited by NetflixAdaptationWidow on May 23 2023 07:04pm

If you normalize drag lifestyle to kids, such that they grow up to be such perverts themselves, then it can be argued that psychological harm has occurred. Of course, I know you disagree. But if enough people feel this way, then they can certainly pass laws that they think will make their society more wholesome. You just need to learn to live with it, or move to another state.

Psychological harm would need to be made clear via evidence, just like Thor pointed out. Children having a different perspective on things than you do is not, in and of itself, psychological harm. For instance, one could argue the opposite to your position that anti-drag/gay messaging is "psychologically harmful" not only in its own right but because of the possibility that those children may grow up to either be gay or have interest in drag--and that, subsequently, such messaging should be banned.

I don't hold that position because I think restrictions should be last-resorts and need to be highly justified.

Whether something is OK to engage in is not determined by whether it is legal.

This post was edited by JessiWan on May 23 2023 07:09pm

I am not sure if psychological harm should have to be made clear through something like evidence, because it is subjective by nature. And there are things that are clear that they cause psychological harm, such as when a young girl is raped. You are not going to say that her trauma has to be "made clear via evidence".