Cheryl Hole on LGBTQ representation

Is Cheryl Cole happy with this person?

Put it this way, if any t-shirt manufacturer had this as a design, her lawyers would be all over them.

This? Gets a bye in the oh so inclusive new age.

She's really happy with this?

That is the response I received. I am going to look at the log for complaints to the BBC which should be available on the 20th.

I emailed earlier and have got the same response. Wondering whether to ask why they won't be investigating further.

Thank you @Catsanfan I'm not aware of that show

"I find what you are doing deeply offensive, derisive and belittling to me and to other women, and I can explain in depth why."

"You telling me you find what I am doing offensive and derisory/belittling is hating at me. You are a hater. I don't care, I ignore hate. Go me." <sings large chunks of The Greatest Showman>

.... yeah.

Wondering how whining "You're hating at me" would work on someone screaming 'you're a transphobe that I want to <insert extreme sexual violence and death threats here>'

As per usual it's a case of 'I make the rules, and you do what I say, and you dont get to have any feelings, role, needs, humanity of your own, you are an NPC in my life who either is useful or is trash to me'.

Lovely view of the world. Really healthy. Not FUBAR at all.

He can't 'reclaim' an insult that's been levelled at women.

And he's leveled it at the womanhood of a specific woman who is most certainly not a drag artist or transwoman. He feels entitled to do that. It's not just a general word like "The Slits" talking about themselves - that's crass but putting the word into someone else's name is more than crass. I'm wondering what other words he'd be allowed to put iunto someone else's name on the BBC - vicious words for their disability, vicious words for their race, or what?

In the context of a small nightclub with an audience limited to like-minded people a performer can get away with it but they shouldn't get away with it on a popular national TV show.

Though having said that, maybe it's not that popular any more and it might as well be some tiny dive only known to a few.

My point is that nobody is trying to cancel Cheryl Hole, ie do to him what you tell me was done to Vanity van Glow. I don't understand how you can't see the difference between saying a) this performer is not suitable for this situation involving children, and b) this performer must never work again.

You say it was leftists who tried to cancel VVG. So why did that specific example lead you to fear that GC people will do the same? I was indicating that I would find it hard to believe that a GC mob had tried to administer a punishment beating and it turns out I was right. It wasn't a GC mob.

You also said you'd be fine with some DQs reading to children, and my question is why. Why would we use children to break down misconceptions of drag queens? Do children even have prior conceptions of drag queens? I doubt it. It's not about a specific dq. I'm not accusing VVG or even Cheryl Hole for that matter of being inappropriate with or around kids. But the whole territory is unsuitable for children. For consenting adults, yes.

I'm so sick of constant sexual innuendo.

Dylan from Project Icon

Missing the point entirely, but have we ever seen a female to male trans contestant on a BBC show?

If you want to stop funding what's going on at the BBC you can, but you have to follow these rules. It's eaiser than you might think. We've been doing this about 3 years now.

You can't :
Watch or record on any device ANY live TV.
You can't watch non BBC channels live, you can't watch live broadcasts online.
Bascially nothing live.
You can't use the BBC iPlayer at all.

You can :
Watch on demand TV on non BBC services. e.g. All4 and ITV Hub, Netflix, Amazon Prime Video ( as long as it's not live ).
Browse the BBC website for whatever you want e.g. news and weather.
Listen to any radio live including BBC stations.
Watch on demand BBC content on other iPlayer like services e.g. Now TV ( as long as it's not live )

I thought it was almost impossible to avoid TV licence fee now. If you watch a 5 second clip of BBC/ITV/C4 anywhere you are liable for thaf year.

I do like a few things on iplayer and was weaned from the teat onto R4.

But much of it has a drip drip of gender ideology and bending social norms woven in that my kids can do without. Even a decade ago there was some wierd stuff on ceebeebies.

Hi Snowy.
Given I'm GC myself on these boards, while I'll engage in good faith, I'd appreciate a friendly tone.

I don't know the answer to your question why there needs to be drag queen story hour. I can only guess : where people see ( rightly or wrongly ) a need to break down misconceptions about different groups of people then introducing them to those people is often a good way for people to find out what the truth is like. A way to defuse tensions.
It's really important you read my next words carefully please. I don't have an objection in theory to anyone who is not a threat to kids reading stories to kids. It's good for kids to meet al sorts of people. I'm happy, in theory, for drag queens, firemen, feminists, priests from religions, spacemen and spacewomen, accountants, lawyers, doctors, whatever.... to read stories to kids. Given some provisos. The provisos being they present no danger to the kids, the story is suitable for kids, etc.....
In practice it seems some DQST is being used to groom and/or indoctrinate kids. I do have an issue with, and object to this.

On the cancel thing, as I've said before I'm pro free speech and against cancel culture. I don't want to see GC people of which I consider myself one to adopt cancel culture, because I believe it's a terrible way to try to resolve a conflict. I think trying to shut other people up and "no debate" makes things worse not better.

On the Vanity von Glow thing you admit you don't know what happened, speculate as to what might have happened, and then make an argument against your own speculation. That's called a straw man. You could have just asked What happened to Vanity?
"Vanity is free to work anywhere that doesn't involve children. Is anyone ringing up nightclubs, or cabaret agents or gay venues and threatening the owner/manager with the destruction of their business if they book him?"
That happened to VvG, and not from conservatives or GC people, but from the extermists leftists that objected to VvG speaking and appearing at a free speech rally in 2018. VvG didn't know much beyond it was a free speech rally, and just turned up to support free speech and have a nice day out. As with many of these things they can be land mines if you don't know all of the behind the scenes details. But that's never an acceptable defense. After appearing at the event Vanity got cancelled. All her existing bookings got cancelled by the mob and Vanity's income went to nothing overnight. Vanity didn't even understand why.
A friend of Vanity had to put up a crowd fundraiser just for Vanity to cover day to day living expenses. ( Disclosure I put £25 into that fundraiser )
Some of what Vanity does is very adult work, very not safe for kids. But Vanity never involves kids or partakes in the grooming we are currently seeing. What Vanity does is not my cup of tea, but what other consenting adults do is none of my concern. I put some money into the fund when Vanity got cancelled because Vanity got cancelled for attending a free speech rally.
I'm using Vanity as an example of :
A drag queen who is for and about adults not kids. Supports free speech. Got cancelled for supporting free speech. Got caught up in a war they didn't even know existed until it came for them.
Most importantly a drag queen who is nothing to do with what the current wave of drag queens is about. I'm trying to highlight a distinction between behaviours.
Yes you can argue you don't like womanface and that argument is valid, I'm just trying to make a single point.

If you'd like to find out what actually happened to Vanity von Glow you can read about it here. https://www.spiked-online.com/2018/06/06/vanity-von-glow-the-left-eats-its-own/
Note Comedy Unleashed, the free speech comedy group mentioned in the article that gave VvG work after she was cancelled is the same Comedy Unleashed who are hosting the show that just got cancelled for having Graham Linehan as the surprise comedian.

@lechiffre55
Hi again

Why are drag queens reading to kids at all? Why is a performer connected to sexualised adult entertainment anywhere near kids while in costume? However age-appropriate the story. Do we want kids thinking "she" was fun, I'll be her friend. I'll google her. No. There has to be a line. No drag queens, strippers, sex workers, or even comedians known for very risque adult content. Not for kids. That's leaving aside the womanface aspect. Why? Thousands of other types of worker and councils insist on that one.

Also, I'm going to have to go back to your use of the word cancel. No-one was attempting to cancel Cheryl Hole. Cancelling him would not be the same thing as opposing him being on MasterChef, just a bit worse. Cancelling someone is punishing them, destroying them. I'd love to know what you meant by the "cancellation grinder" in relation to Vanity Van Glow. Was it a cancelled DQST performance contract and an accompanying press furore? If so, that is not cancellation. That is contract cancelled for a valid reason. It's not personal. Vanity is free to work anywhere that doesn't involve children. Is anyone ringing up nightclubs, or cabaret agents or gay venues and threatening the owner/manager with the destruction of their business if they book him? Does Vanity van Glow still have a bank account? Please don't conflate the two situations. Cancellation is punishing a person because you don't like what they say or think. It's not the same.

The BBC seems to call all drag queens 'she', BTW.There is an article on the BBC news website today and the drag queen quoted is called 'she ' throughout.
At this point I just want to scream!

He says under the original tweet.

People can continue to hurl abuse at me, liken my work to “woman face” but at the end of the day. This has all stemmed from me speaking up and using my platform on the hate that is directed to our community. And you’ve proved everyone right.

"LIKEN"?
It is bloody woman face.
If he doesn't like the phrase he can keep his man face showing.

Thank you for all the replies. Too many to address individually, so I'll try and pick out some points and reply to those. Also thank you for the way in which you have disagreed respectfully putting your arguments forth in good faith. Mumsnet is amazing :)

To the point it's an inappropriate place/setting. I think there is some merit to this argument. People have to buy tickets to go and see a comedy show. Whilst Linehan's name wasn't public knowledge, the type of show, and Comedy Unleashed and what they represent was. The BBC does have a greater onus to make sure content is appropriate to the audience. e.g. the watershed for swearing and adult content. I think I have to conceed to this point, with my best argument being that I doubt a kid would know what Cheryl Hole meant or know about the context of bonus holes.

One point that got touched on I think is the wider context of what's going on in society. The erasure of women especially in the language, e.g. again bonus hole. When you look at this wider context it makes things that would otherwise seem small beans larger through the incessant daily flow of this garbage. When people are already upset small things can have a large effect. The wider context is an absurd Mad Max style shitshow out there right now.

One point that I don't think got mentioned was balance. I think there's a strong argument to be made against the BBC on balance. Are the same rules being applied equally to everyone? I seem to remember a never ending litany of the BBC rejecting anything that a certain group or groups might possibly be offended by before any offense has even been taken. If this is offensive to women and the rules apply equally, then this should be treated the same. It does not feel to me like the rules are applied equally which is the very definition of discrimination.

Drag queens in general I don't have an issue with, I do however have a big issue with drag queen story hour because it never seems to be about reading to kids, it's always about involving them in sex or throwing tampons at them or someother fetishistic paedophillic grooming behaviour. Just fukking sit everyone down and read them a child appropriate book without effing your cock out. I think this progressive movement has soured what used to be a great thing, drag queens have been dragged into sexualising kids whether or not they want too. The danger is in lumping everyone together in the same boat. There are drag queens out there who have been through the cancellation grinder for standing up for free speech e.g. Vanity von Glow, and there are drag queens who want to sexualise and groom kids. These are two different groups of people. While the label drag queen applies to them both it doesn't describe the differences between them. So saying, using drag queens as a method of grooming kids and paedophile acceptance does seem to be a trend currently. I note that Peter Tatchell's pro paedophile stance was quickly brushed under the carpet on the Glinner interview. "Let's not talk about anything that challenges the narrative."
In EVERY group of people there's good and bad, at the moment the bad ones within the drag queen movement do seem to command more attention, but that does not reflect on all drag queens in my opinion.

I'm pretty strongly pro free speech. One reason is the attempts by the TRAs to shut down any discussion, but in general in any conflict talking things through seems the most effective way to arrive at peace. How about if I refined my original stance from "Don't try and cancel" to "Instead of trying to cancel, let the BBC know how offensive you find the Hole gag is the context of bonus holes, and Is the BBC's policy on offending people be applied equally to all groups or does Orwell's ‘All Animals Are Equal but Some Animals Are More Equal Than Others’ apply? Also please consider this more suited to an adult audience after the watershed."

why do I still pay my tv licence again? (Oh yes, Radcliffe and Maconie, the end)
Increasingly, me too.
@CurlewKate , I've just complained on the same grounds. Look forward to having the 'history of drag' mansplained to me (it's in sneer quotes because, as someone else points out here, the Tudor practice of boys playing women is really not drag at all).
I also look forward to asking them to spell out what the word 'hole' is being 'cheeky' about in this context.

Chilling that that's from 1972.

we must first destroy the trap wherein regular women set up standards by which they accept or reject us

We must first destroy women's abilities to set boundaries against men who want to transgress them.

Fuck off to the far side of fuck and then fuck off some more with that.

I don't think you are understanding what I'm saying.

I am, I just disagree.