Cheryl Hole on LGBTQ representation

And also I think it's outrageous that Samantha Fox - a woman who was groomed by the entire nation and used to groom an entire generation of girls and young women should have to share airtime with a bloke who parodies women's bodies / body parts including their breasts.

The grim irony of that takes both grimness and irony to a level that the BBC should be slaughtered for.

There was a poster upthread who said they didn't have an issue with drag queens reading to children as long as the book and behaviour of the drag queen was appropriate. The poster (apologies I don't remember their name) then seemed to be saying that they didn't have an issue with drag queens reading just as they wouldn't with firefighters, doctors, lawyers, etc.

I understand that being a drag queen can be a job / way of earning money but I object to it being considered equivalent to doctoring, lawyering, etc when it comes to contact with children.

Being a doctor or a lawyer does not involve a person from a dominate group in society parodying the class of people subjugated by said dominant group.

What is "drag queen storytime" for our girl children exactly?
It's a man dressed as a (usually sexualised) parody of the those girls' future selves. It's a man having a good old time with the markers that are used in male dominated society to communicate that girls and women are the inferior sex class.

By markers I mean the stuff used in society to signify that girls and women are not boys and men, not as important as boys and men, not as valuable as boys and men and are vastly inferior and less human than boys and men (make up, high heels, sexualised clothing, focus on isolated body parts, etc).

Drag queen storytime (with it's innocuous innocent twee name) is antifemale propaganda. In our schools, libraries, etc. And I guarantee you that it does not impact boys in the same way it impacts girls. It's sexist so how can it?

This misogynisticly named attention seeker on Master Chef is exactly the same. It's more eroding of boundaries and it's sexist antifemale propaganda. On prime time BBC.

And if we women complain about it we are regressive bigots (who can't take a joke). And that Cheryl Cole is obviously a stupid bitch if she doesn't grimly smile at the joke / celebration (always thought she was a talentless tramp anyway and now she's probably turned into a right old Karen now she's getting old er and saggier. Cow.) <sarcasm>

There is nothing progressive about this bullshit. Unless you think sexism is progressive.

When will the BBC have a white man parodying a black man sporting hammed up shackles / chains as part of their hilarious costume complete with a name that includes a racist slur as a celebration of African culture on Master Chef?

Fucking never that's when. But girls and women are fair game for this utterly outrageous treatment.

Very similar kind thinking to how Robin Ince has behaved all Fringe. Framing perfectly reasonable questions from women disagreeing with him as 'hate'. He's really gone for broke on it all the last few weeks. It's so disappointing.

Oh how I agree!!! I am so utterly,utterly fed up with men gaslighting women about this. Can they not see that it really is men sticking together and telling women to shut up!!??

This 100%. Can you imagine how much a woman would be pilloried if they wore a similar amount of obvious makeup to the photo above. I'm sure there would be multiple articles decrying any actual woman who had so obviously tried to contour their nose away to nothing

Even if it did refer to a 'male hole' (ugh!), that still wouldn't fit the claim that it's 'family friendly'.

Gaslighting is bad enough, but they could at least make it coherent gaslighting. This gishgalloping mess is just adding insult to injury more insult.

I am absolutely over male people telling women that drag is a ‘celebration’ of women. It most assuredly is not in general.

And if ‘hole’ referred to a male hole, then that person would have a male first name they adopted. It is ludicrous to argue it is not referring to women as holes. The person is dressed as a woman with a woman’s name. There is no ‘nuance’ here. That is gaslighting.

The Metro page also recommended this article:

metro.co.uk/2023/08/11/im-abrosexual-it-took-me-30-years-to-realise-19298652/

"When I tell people that I'm abrosexual, I'm often greeted by a blank expression"

jesus christ

women saying 'err, I don't like this much' really does drive some men into an irrational fury doesn't it? I practically had to wipe his frothy spittle off the page so I could read his words

Once again, homophobia is being disguised as a defence of women.

once again? the hyperlink leads to a fairly generic article about homophobia

Drag is in itself a celebration of the women adored by the LGBTQ+ community

apart from the several lesbians on here who have said they don't like it much

Drag queens love women.

by calling them 'fish', and implying they're stupid and promiscuous

what a doofus. there is real homophobia, I believe it. Women saying 'we're more than just holes thanks', isn't it
'

Maybe women should start dressing up as drag queens and see how that does down.

'twisted bigots'?
There's some sort of reversal going on there.

Well they can't say women didn't speak. It's just no one is listening.
The sound, in their head, of self righteousness is so loud it is drowning everything else out...

TV Editor for the Metro, Adam Miller, has condemned “twisted bigots needlessly outraged” by Cheryl Hole's appearance on MasterChef. Miller's focus isn’t on people who did express hate, but on women who said the name “Cheryl Hole” was offensive to them.

His only example of this bigotry is a tweet explaining that 'Cheryl Hole knows exactly what he’s doing and exactly how offensive that is to women. Women have been referred to as “holes” by abusive misogynist men for centuries' and refers to that tweet as “spouting hate”. He then mansplains that this parody of supposedly promiscuous and unintelligent working class women was in fact named after a man hole. “Quite literally nothing to do with a vagina”.

In a further example of Mr Miller’s upside-down world, he says these women are ‘punching down on’ a harmless man. He goes on to link these ‘twisted bigots’ to the attack outside a Clapham gay club.

Having read the rest of that article, I think it would be better to take the discussion to the Tatchell thread.

With apologies for prolonging the diversion away from the misogynist who’s the subject of this thread onto another misogynist, it’s worth having a browse through Tatchell’s website.

Here, for example, are his pearls of wisdom on pornography.

“Porn Can Be Good For You
^^
Sexually-explicit imagery can be empowering, liberating and fulfilling
^^
While pornography can be dehumanising and exploitative, it can also be educative, liberating, empowering, fulfilling and immensely socially beneficial. It all depends on how it is made, who makes it, what it depicts and why it is being used.
^^
The puritanical right-wing feminist claim that porn is always anti-women is simplistic, untrue, insensitive, uncaring and, dare l say it, sometimes misogynistic and homophobic. Using sexually-explicit imagery can be egalitarian, health-promoting, emotionally fulfilling and life-saving.”

“uncaring”. What an absolute joke.

I’d be interested in seeing the evidence and analysis of these immense social benefits that he asserts exist.

Also has anyone told Julie Bindel that Tatchell thinks the only feminists who object to the commercial sexual exploitation of women, via pornography, are right wing feminists? (I’m guessing she’s well aware of his views.)

What harm can result from kids not having sex with adults?
Absolutely none. It's a non-issue - unless you are the adult for whom the extreme youth of the child is the turn-on. Then it's vitally important to be able to have sex with kids before they get less attractive to you. Nauseating framing of the prohibition of paedophilia as a restriction on children's rights. It's all for the adults.

“Disagree with Peter Tatchell's demands that the age of consent for children should be lowered - bigots”

The words Peter Tatchell uses to insult and undermine those who disagree with his decades-long campaign to lower the age of consent to 14 is “puritans and sex haters”.

https://www.petertatchell.net/lgbt_rights/age_of_consent/an-age-of-consent-of-14/

Because of course, the only possible motivation mothers could have for wanting to protect their children from predators is their own lack of a satisfying sex life. I mean what else could it be?

Interesting to note the similarities between the arguments he deploys in support of his campaign to decriminalise sex with 14yo children and the arguments deployed by men arguing that pimping and brothel keeping shouldn’t be criminalised. ie That the legal framework prevents victims from seeking help.

”Criminalisation is dangerous because it can inhibit young people from seeking safer sex advice and condoms. It makes some youngsters afraid to report sexually abusive relationships. They fear getting into trouble because they have broken the law. Reducing the age of consent to 14 would remedy these problems, at least for those aged 14 and older.”

And on that last sentence….anyone care to place a bet on what the next phase of his personal crusade would be if he did succeed in lowering the age of consent to 14?

Don't you get it yet? You've seen the mansplainers and manspreaders...taking up space on the Tube, making complicated stuff so much more understandable to the little laydees.

Now we have transplaining and transpreading...except now you women have to budge up, squash your freedoms, rights.

And unlike telling a guy on the Tube what his problem is, with transplaining you have to realise that any dissent or objection is phobic, prejudice, and instils total fear, and the impulse for the put upon trans to kill themselves.

So women and girls of the Western world, budge up, and shut up. They want your rights, space...and silence.

I think we can see what this all means in Iran and Afghanistan, previously the ISIS state.