I know it’s unlikely that I’d find someone who shares this opinion here, but I’m really curious as to why. I don’t mean the underlying psychological or sociological reasons - it’s almost always going to boil down to misogyny. I mean their internal justification for it.
I mean, if it is advocating conformity to social norms, then what do they think k you should do when norms change? The founders of the US wore wigs, lace, stockings, and heels. European fashion was even more elaborate. The Puritans, of course, were the ones violating the norms with their deliberately conservative dress. So do they favor rebellion against the status quo because the fashions once considered masculine are now considered feminine?
As much as I disagree with them, I just don’t understand the thought process. I don’t want to dismiss it as a lack of thought (although that’s probably what we’re seeing here).
That said, I do recognize that the reason they tweet hot takes is so they’ll get shared and hopefully pull in traffic. What I’m asking is for someone who actually believes this to talk me through their reasoning.
The founders of the US wore wigs, lace, stockings, and heels.
Makeup too. And whenever I bring this up to some “men should dress like men and women should dress like women because that’s the way things are supposed to be” asshole, they don’t have a good response. Unsurprisingly.
The thought process is: “I’m a factory for laundering Republicans. I take current “issues” fabricated by other Right wing media and “legitimize” them by discussing them with my “university” label, giving them an air of authenticity & gravitas. My sole purpose for existing is to give cover to Right wing talking points and to help Fossil Fuel industry. This is the only real lense to view me through.”
The whole trans/cross dressing thing is just another tool to keep “conservatives” on your side. Discuss some current event as bad. Pin “bad” thing to your political opposition. Brainwash sympathetic population with repeated messaging about how dumb and bad “thing” is and that political opposition is the root cause of this issue and their involvement is inauthentic, projecting that their oppositions only reason for involvement is for political gain.
Some people have, let’s say, idiosyncratic understandings of the Bible. They may sincerely but afactually believe any number of things. Like a lot of people think Paradise Lost or Dante’s Inferno are canon christian texts, not just fan fiction. But the point remains they may sincerely believe some things are coming from an omnipotent force. If God says don’t wear a skirt , who are you to argue? That’s probably the most common answer for this stuff that’s not grift.
Some people are just using these hot takes to grift.
Some people are damaged and hurt. Channeling that through the Bible as they read it is easier than coming to grips with, like , abusive upbringing , or being a little queer, or having doubts. Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.
Related, it firms up (no gay pun intended) in group solidarity. They don’t care about the other stuff as much, Like the bit about mixed materials, or having a certain kind of roof, or paying for your neighbors health care. That all sounds hard. Hating an out group makes people feel closer to their in group. The reasons given are post hoc justifications. The actual reason, for some people, is the comfort and high of being part of a strong group.
See Deuteronomy 22:5. From what I can tell, Dennis Prager treats the bible as a foundational document in his life. The thought process probably comes from that verse.
Honestly I don’t think they think of “old traditional man heels” and “new woman heels” as the same thing. Something along the lines, "It is not timely to wear man heels and woman heels are all you can buy now anyway and wearing those is unmanly "
Heels versus no heels was not the point I was raising. The point is that fashion changes. So let’s say in ten years RuPaul leads a violent revolution. Everyone must now wear drag. Or let’s say it’s a gentler slope, and Christian Siriano transforms global fashion so that the majority of men wear dresses and carry purses.
When they say “men should dress like men” they’re not acknowledging that fashion is a thing that changes radically over time and between cultures. These are not the type of people who say “everything is relative and you should do whatever the majority is doing” consciously. They’re the opposite of that. But that’s exactly what they’re saying here - that people should conform to whatever the current thing is.
It’s about fear of change and the desire to oppress and has fuck-all to do with what kinds of clothes are unchanging appropriate for people whose genders they wish to define.
I meant that you are looking at the dresses that a drag queen wears today and the future of your example as the same but they probably don’t. I understand your question. I don’t think they have the same issue as you because they just don’t acknowledge that the dresses are the same thing. You know, a kilt is not a skirt, kind of mentality. So when the future comes, and fashion changes, they don’t acknowledge the things to be the same thing again. For them, it is probably about social norms and the illusion of stability in it.
You’re trying to rationalize bigotry, and that never goes well. You will never “make it make sense.” That’s not how it works, because it’s visibly not the brain activity they are engaged it.
Fortunately (citation needed) it is extremely simple:
All of their stated ideals are ad-hoc justifications.
The only thing that has ever mattered is ingroup loyalty.
They think that’s all you’re doing, because they think that’s all there is.
You will never get “their reasoning” because there isn’t any. They don’t understand the concept. In the conservative worldview, reasons are things you make up to maintain your conclusion. That conclusion is handed down from The Hierarchy™ and accepted or rejected based entirely on interpersonal trust. They do not evaluate claims. In this tribalist mindset, that is not what claims are for. That’s why nobody can just be wrong - either they’re fundamentally evil and irredeemably stupid, or they must be proved right by alternative facts.
In this specific case - they’ve made queer people the outgroup, so any defense or allegiance is an attack on the ingroup. The rest is whatever series of mouth noises forms an argument-shaped sentence to praise and exonerate their tribe over your tribe.
Nothing they do makes sense until you understand this. No other model has predictive utility. This is all they’re ever doing. The only exceptions are complete morons who sincerely bought some past excuses (and will inevitably be drummed out as traitors to the cause) and knowing grifters (who are far less numerous than you would hope).
I know it’s unlikely that I’d find someone who shares this opinion here, but I’m really curious as to why. I don’t mean the underlying psychological or sociological reasons - it’s almost always going to boil down to misogyny. I mean their internal justification for it.
I mean, if it is advocating conformity to social norms, then what do they think k you should do when norms change? The founders of the US wore wigs, lace, stockings, and heels. European fashion was even more elaborate. The Puritans, of course, were the ones violating the norms with their deliberately conservative dress. So do they favor rebellion against the status quo because the fashions once considered masculine are now considered feminine?
As much as I disagree with them, I just don’t understand the thought process. I don’t want to dismiss it as a lack of thought (although that’s probably what we’re seeing here).
That said, I do recognize that the reason they tweet hot takes is so they’ll get shared and hopefully pull in traffic. What I’m asking is for someone who actually believes this to talk me through their reasoning.
Makeup too. And whenever I bring this up to some “men should dress like men and women should dress like women because that’s the way things are supposed to be” asshole, they don’t have a good response. Unsurprisingly.
The thought process is: “I’m a factory for laundering Republicans. I take current “issues” fabricated by other Right wing media and “legitimize” them by discussing them with my “university” label, giving them an air of authenticity & gravitas. My sole purpose for existing is to give cover to Right wing talking points and to help Fossil Fuel industry. This is the only real lense to view me through.”
The whole trans/cross dressing thing is just another tool to keep “conservatives” on your side. Discuss some current event as bad. Pin “bad” thing to your political opposition. Brainwash sympathetic population with repeated messaging about how dumb and bad “thing” is and that political opposition is the root cause of this issue and their involvement is inauthentic, projecting that their oppositions only reason for involvement is for political gain.
deleted by creator
Some people have, let’s say, idiosyncratic understandings of the Bible. They may sincerely but afactually believe any number of things. Like a lot of people think Paradise Lost or Dante’s Inferno are canon christian texts, not just fan fiction. But the point remains they may sincerely believe some things are coming from an omnipotent force. If God says don’t wear a skirt , who are you to argue? That’s probably the most common answer for this stuff that’s not grift.
Some people are just using these hot takes to grift.
Some people are damaged and hurt. Channeling that through the Bible as they read it is easier than coming to grips with, like , abusive upbringing , or being a little queer, or having doubts. Cognitive dissonance is a hell of a drug.
Related, it firms up (no gay pun intended) in group solidarity. They don’t care about the other stuff as much, Like the bit about mixed materials, or having a certain kind of roof, or paying for your neighbors health care. That all sounds hard. Hating an out group makes people feel closer to their in group. The reasons given are post hoc justifications. The actual reason, for some people, is the comfort and high of being part of a strong group.
See Deuteronomy 22:5. From what I can tell, Dennis Prager treats the bible as a foundational document in his life. The thought process probably comes from that verse.
While almost certainly ignoring Deuteronomy 22:11
That would require reason…
Honestly I don’t think they think of “old traditional man heels” and “new woman heels” as the same thing. Something along the lines, "It is not timely to wear man heels and woman heels are all you can buy now anyway and wearing those is unmanly "
Heels versus no heels was not the point I was raising. The point is that fashion changes. So let’s say in ten years RuPaul leads a violent revolution. Everyone must now wear drag. Or let’s say it’s a gentler slope, and Christian Siriano transforms global fashion so that the majority of men wear dresses and carry purses.
When they say “men should dress like men” they’re not acknowledging that fashion is a thing that changes radically over time and between cultures. These are not the type of people who say “everything is relative and you should do whatever the majority is doing” consciously. They’re the opposite of that. But that’s exactly what they’re saying here - that people should conform to whatever the current thing is.
It’s about fear of change and the desire to oppress and has fuck-all to do with what kinds of clothes are unchanging appropriate for people whose genders they wish to define.
I meant that you are looking at the dresses that a drag queen wears today and the future of your example as the same but they probably don’t. I understand your question. I don’t think they have the same issue as you because they just don’t acknowledge that the dresses are the same thing. You know, a kilt is not a skirt, kind of mentality. So when the future comes, and fashion changes, they don’t acknowledge the things to be the same thing again. For them, it is probably about social norms and the illusion of stability in it.
You’re trying to rationalize bigotry, and that never goes well. You will never “make it make sense.” That’s not how it works, because it’s visibly not the brain activity they are engaged it.
Fortunately (citation needed) it is extremely simple:
All of their stated ideals are ad-hoc justifications.
The only thing that has ever mattered is ingroup loyalty.
They think that’s all you’re doing, because they think that’s all there is.
You will never get “their reasoning” because there isn’t any. They don’t understand the concept. In the conservative worldview, reasons are things you make up to maintain your conclusion. That conclusion is handed down from The Hierarchy™ and accepted or rejected based entirely on interpersonal trust. They do not evaluate claims. In this tribalist mindset, that is not what claims are for. That’s why nobody can just be wrong - either they’re fundamentally evil and irredeemably stupid, or they must be proved right by alternative facts.
In this specific case - they’ve made queer people the outgroup, so any defense or allegiance is an attack on the ingroup. The rest is whatever series of mouth noises forms an argument-shaped sentence to praise and exonerate their tribe over your tribe.
Nothing they do makes sense until you understand this. No other model has predictive utility. This is all they’re ever doing. The only exceptions are complete morons who sincerely bought some past excuses (and will inevitably be drummed out as traitors to the cause) and knowing grifters (who are far less numerous than you would hope).