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

What generalisations would they be then? The fact that drag is an outdated and misogynistic, grotesque representation of women by men stands up perfectly to scrutiny - much like the Black and White Minstrel show back in the 70s.

Fine. But don’t be surprised if your generalisations (and they are almost always generalisations) don’t stand up to scrutiny.

I don't personally plan to engage with it or permit my children to engage with it. However, I don't accept that I don't have the right to say why. I'm going to avoid it like the misogynistic plague it is, I'm going to keep my kids away from it and I'm going to feel free to discuss exactly what I think is wrong with it.

‘Art form’ 🤣🤣🤣

What do you mean what does it 'entail'?

Also the premise of your 'how do they benefit?' question is wrong. Once there is no active harm from a particular art form, that is where public policy interests end. It is then up to their parents to decide if they want to expose them to that art form or not.

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.

I'm willing to bet that I understand drag and what it entails far better than you.

Great, so you can enlighten me.

What does it entail for the children and how do they benefit?

On the contrary - I'm willing to bet that I understand drag and what it entails far better than you.

When you ignored my post which said that sexualised drag should remain for adults, but non-sexualised drag should be open to anyone. If the drag is not sexualised, it is entirely a matter for the child and their parents to decide if it is an art form they want to enjoy or not.

When you're relying on guilt by association and ad hominems, you've already lost the argument... I'm sure that Megyn Kelly and I, a left wing woman, also both agree that the sky is blue. Doesn't make it wrong if she says it, any more than all vegetarians being "literally Hitler."

Children don't have the choice of whether they "engage" or not with adult drag. What is the inherent benefit and inclusivity of presenting small girls with grotesque, and yes, often sexualised caricatures of adult women, exactly please? (And no, many of us aren't the biggest fan of panto dames either, before you go down that road. Although panto dames aren't specifically being promoted as a "diversity and inclusion" initiative for children, are they?)

I suspect you haven't actually thought about this very deeply or understood the issue.

When you're relying on Megyn Kelly, you're losing the argument.

Drag is not inherently sexualised. End of.

Drag which is sexualised belongs in an adult context. Drag which is not-sexualised is fine in any context. Don't like it? Don't engage with it. Simple.