Sigh.

I’m trying to find out the name of the guy (it is a guy) above, but not too hard, because his name doesn’t really matter. Like a good and concerned citizen, he signed up and testified before the Missouri House against HB1650, a bill that would ban drag shows for audiences of children. The worth of the bill isn’t what I’m interested in right now, nor are the arguments for or against it. My concern is the demeanor of the testifying citizen, who was, I’m sure you will not be shocked to learn, on hand to show his opposition to the bill. As far as that goes, good for him. He is participating in the democratic process. He is civically engaged. I listened to some of his remarks; they seemed sincere, articulate, and thought out, if, in my view, misguided, but again, that’s not the issue.

The issue, an ethics one, is this: what THE HELL did he think he was doing showing up to testify dressed like that?

First, this is another example of why the cognitive dissonance scale should be taught in high school. If you want your opinion to be taken seriously and to convince anyone, you need to present yourself in a minimally socially acceptable fashion. You gain nothing by grandstanding and intentionally shocking, annoying or offending your audience. Your message, however reasonable, will be dragged down in their estimation by the bizarre demeanor of the messenger. This is human nature. It is the way the world works, and always will. Call this Reason A why dressing like whatever that is supposed to be is unethical: it is incompetent.

Reason B is that it is disrespectful, and seemingly intentionally so. Everyone in the room is wearing business attire or close enough for horseshoes (if your business is horseshoes). They are showing respect for the process, the law and everyone else. To their eyes, the man testifying is showing his contempt for all of it and all of them. Why would they be favorably inclined to regard the comments of someone showing such evident contempt for them, and ever give due consideration to his arguments and opinions? The costume is self-sabotage, and worse, it undermines the mission the speaker hopes to accomplish. That is just stupid; there is no better word for it. He has come to persuade, and he is deliberately showing disrespect for the values of those whom he must persuade.

Reason C is simply this: such a foolish, narcissistic, defiant grandstanding gesture can only validate the reasoning behind the bill that this individual’s statement aims to oppose. If he were trying to support the bill, he hardly could have done a better job. For it is fear that the “grooming” and indoctrination of young children into whatever it is that drag shows are supposed to celebrate—I’m genuinely not quite sure myself—will turn the young into such misfits and pariahs as the speaker symbolizes that fuels the impetus for the bill.

This is not how one persuades in a democracy. The speaker’s appearance shows the sick societal slide into cultural warfare and hate, refusal to compromise or moderate, and the loss of basic, human acceptance of sincere differing views of life. We are making consensus impossible, and peaceful resolution extinct.