Clear distinction between DQ performances for consenting adults and inappropriate sexualised performances in front of children.

SinnerBoy I know. Bit of an own goal that article - let us near your kids or we'll end you.

Er, no thanks.

Yes, quite 🤔

I don't have to demonstrate benefit to children from going to see the Super Mario movie - all that is needed is to establish that the film is not harmful to children (established via the rating system) and anything after that is a decision for parents.

Interesting example, because there is no rating system in place for these men and their performances.

If there was, and the rating board did their job, and somehow it was possible to compel them to not vary their performances, then I suspect the problem would be largely solved.

But what we have here is letting any random man turn up with his homemade production and stick it on, with glib reassurances of "oh yes, this is family-friendly!"

So it's weird for you to try to justify an uncontrolled system by showing a well-working controlled one. In the film analogy you need to be defending the right to show groups of child any unrated movie if you want to, not your right to take them along to a PG one.

Funnily enough, TW who want to express dissatisfaction at women do so through violent threats, too.

So, drag queens wish brutal deaths upon people who don't want them twerking in front of their children. Well, that's me convinced that they are great and the best thing since microwave ovens!

So, people that disagree are 'mouthbreathers' and 'cry after masturbation' ( nice bit of casual sexualisation there).

And will incur 'razor sharp glitter and deadly death drops'.

What happened to rational discussion?

Oh FFS!

I don’t want to exaggerate, but I believe that is braver and tougher than fighting in one of those trench wars from the past.

So, knowing all this, I can only watch in bafflement, in pitying bemusement, as a loose coalition of bed wetters, mouth breathers, and people who cry after masturbation have decided to attack drag queens all around the world. You poor fools, you tiny gormless dickheads, you do not know the storm of razor-sharp glitter and deadly death-drops you have called down upon yourselves.

This really is a catastrophising ideology for which no hyperbole is too much. "Tougher and braver than fighting in the trenches" my arse!

Yes please!!!

Should we ban Daniel Radcliffe?

Yes, he can fuck off too.

Hiding in plain sight, always the most cunning move.
Not to mention I bet they are never asked for any kind of police clearance because too special and discrimination.

It’s really odd - it’s almost like they’re purposely seeking out places specifically for children and then trying to normalise their behaviour. ‘Come along children, nothing to be frightened of, see what a lovely man I am, just wanting to play games with you and have some fun…’

We’ve seen it all before.

Woman in Black is fucking scary. No child should see it. It's called parenting.
Don't expose your child to mind mangling terror. Don't expose your kid to blokes who dress up as sexualised parodies of women.

Agree these men are not any kind of role model for girls, in particular.

Drag queens are parodying what being an adult female human being might be. Nobody is parodying, at this level, or to children, what parodying being an adult male human being might be.

This is the difference, whatever other benefits some believe drag queen performances might have. Yet it is now the progressives who promote the ridiculing of the female sex, one half of all human beings, and those who oppose this are seen as right-wingers.

I think the progressives and trans activists who promote drag queen performances for children should own up to this.

Should we ban Daniel Radcliffe?

Fine by me!

Christ, that's just absolutely idiotic. You know you don't have to say such ridiculous things. If you agree that what was shown in the picture is wrong, say so. It's free! But silly misdirection only makes you look completely disingenuous.

Well,since you asked so nicely.........

Lots of parents gave their kids nightmares by letting their children see The Woman in Black because it had Daniel Radcliffe in it. Should we ban Daniel Radcliffe?

How come drag performers aren't clamouring to perform in care homes and retirement villages? Always places with children, oddly enough...

And honestly, those would be kind of lame programs. Kids don't care and probably won't remember that they had a male nurse read them a story.

I asked a friend of mine who was into this kind of thing how he would feel about something promoted as "Jewish Story Time" or "Male story time" or even "black person story time" - He said no, of course not.

The underlying problem is this bizarre idea that somehow it is the job of libraries to be pushing certain social justice causes in their programming, rather than giving access and exposure to literature and information in a fairly politically and socially neutral way.

Or that children need to be artificially introduced to all these groups of people, and have it pointed out to them in some way that these individuals belong to specific groups. Rather than meeting all kinds of people just be going about life, and meeting them as themselves rather than representatives of some identity group.

If DQSH were truly about the positives of "being different" and "providing imaginative role models" then we'd also have Male Nurse Story Hour, Female Firefighter Story Hour, Woman in STEM Story Hour, Wheelchair User Story Hour, Visually Impaired Person Story Hour (read in Braille), Out Butch Lesbian Story Hour and so on. But we never do, do we? It's always fucking drag.

Fucking hell - grooming in plain sight 🤬

Holy mackerel.

That is not good. Not good, I tell you.

I'm sure @TeaKlaxon will be able to explain why that's fine if you understand it properly.