Cheryl Hole on LGBTQ representation

Normalisation of this and marginalisation of women has been a long-term desire as has men's implicit entitlement to ignore women's boundaries and rights as autonomous individuals. I saved this from a previous MN thread. The archive link will take you to the free download of the journal issue.

Gay Liberation Front journal - Come Together - issue 11: Lesbians Come Together. It's from a piece by the GLF Transvestite, Transsexual and Drag Queen group, originally published in 1972:

A more central question is how to relate to other women. When we talk about our hopes and fantasies, it becomes apparent that what we want above all is to be accepted as women, primarily by other women. But will we achieve this by looking for ways in which we share experience with regular women or by developing a unique transvestite consciousness?

Sometimes the second approach seems real militant and proud, at other times it seems a cop-out, accepting the prejudiced view that we're not women, that we're some freaky third sex (or fourth or fifth?). Possibly we can find some light by considering the situation of black women and gay women, who develop black pride and gay pride, but still explore their feelings as women. Think how much more inspiring and beautiful the women's revolution will be when it joyously includes all women. Think of a Holloway demo with transvestite, transsexual and drag-queen women, gay women and heterosexual women, black, yellow, brown and white women, working women, housewives and career women. Certainly, whatever course we take as transvestites, transsexuals and drag queens, we must first destroy the trap wherein regular women set up standards by which they accept or reject us .

Search archive for: Come together : the years of gay liberation 1970-73 and the above is pg 8.

Didn’t he appear in character on a show with Cheryl Cole and she just bared her teeth in an grimace and pretended to be amused?

Cheryl K Cole would've been a way better name (as suggested) but perhaps verging too closely to a sueing by Cheryl Cole/ Tweedy/ whatever she is now.

Off topic, but didn't the GA Cheryl punch a female toilet attendant once and call her a fucking bitch?

@lechiffre55

False equivalence on cancellation. Campaigning against or expressing strong opposition to a dq being on Celebrity MasterChef is not an attempt at cancellation - that is to say it is not an attempt to end a drag queen's career or prevent him from earning a living doing anything at all in the entertainment business. It is not an attempt to take MasterChef off the air and destroy the careers of the hosts and the production company. That is what cancellation means when applied to Glinner and countless others. Even when her/his career has nothing to do with the views that the MRAs find offensive. The gender zealots cancel people to frighten others with similar views into silence and compliance. It is like a punishment beating.

Opponents of DQST may campaign to get local councils to cancel or stop holding DQST for children. This restricts the freedom of the performer, but it is justified because the safeguarding of children is more important. It's cancelling a show in a particular context, not the performers.

Adults have the right to read or listen to or watch whatever they want, within the bounds of the law. Ditto free expression for performers. This does not apply to children. Drag is adult entertainment, always has been. The BBC thinks MasterChef is family entertainment. That means it can reasonably be assumed that some of the viewers will be children. As PPs have said, how would you explain to your child what is supposed to be funny about Cheryl Hole?

Opponents of DQST are attempting to safeguard children from content which is inappropriate for their age, either because it is sexual or because it is misogynistic. Promoting or performing sexual content to children could be classed as non-contact child sexual assault and is illegal. Not all drag queens go that far but some do. Additionally, it is accepted that we should not teach racism, antisemitism or homophobia to children, or make it seem acceptable. Same applies to misogyny. Safeguarding children is everybody’s duty.

Note that Cheryl Hole’s appearance on Graham Norton's show or at a nightclub would not be inappropriate for safeguarding reasons because children would not be expected to be present or watching.

However, I would still oppose drag because I think it is misogynistic. In a free society, I am allowed to express that opposition. I assume that the law circumscribes how I am permitted to protest, but I am permitted to. It would not be an attempt to destroy anyone’s life. As pps have said, the man calling himself Cheryl Hole could perfectly well appear on the show without being dressed up as a sexist parody of a woman. If he is talented and his comedy act is funny, he doesn’t need to rely on misogynistic tropes. (Paul O'Grady was genuinely talented.)
In a society where women were truly free and respect for us was normal, perhaps I could take a "joke". As things stand, I can't. Not from men, anyway.

Incidentally, antisemitism, racism, Nazism etc would not be protected beliefs.

And public opinion changes; what was previously acceptable becomes unacceptable. As well as vice versa.

Spot on, PPs, about the drip-drip normalisation of man in women's clothes = woman.

Perhaps I am wrong then! @WILTYjim Glad he peaked your H.

Cheryl’s behaviour PEAKED my husband. When you compared him to the actual women, it was starkly clear that it’s about attention and being flamboyant and being entitled. Clearly not used to criticism, the face when the two sycophants were judging the food was an absolute picture.

I’m soooooo bored with drag acts.
I always thought they were just smutty grown men taking an opportunity to have a go at women… now they they are used to sell me dry cleaning, chips, makeup, hair care products, and for some reason a local bin van has one plastered on the side (although I always thin in the bin - best place for it’).

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

Television people are not thinking about whether one person or another should use the word.

It is a matter of whether the word is mentionable or not in a show that is broadcast earlier in the day.

I think that ship has well and truly sailed. The kinds of things that are now considered ok language for general viewing includes quite a lot of very crass, vulgar, sexualized words, that have in many cases been removed from their contexts.

Weirdly, there has been at the same time a set of increasingly bizarre taboos applied to certain other words, even when the context is completely innocent. Perhaps which indicates a heck of a lot of people will just go along with whatever is on trend without thinking any deeper.

@lechiffre55 Part of the difference as I see it is that DQs have managed to become a cultural norm now. It's normal to see them on TV out of adult entertainment context. The whole point of it, and RuPaul's show, and of DQST is to erode boundaries, to get us all used to calling a man in a dress she, her, a woman. They've done an exceedingly good job (to be clear - a good job of something that is a bad thing). Majority of people happily call DQs she/her/woman now, and don't bat an eye at the inherent misogyny and blatant sexism and tired stereotypes.

The man in a dress who played the piano with his cock pushed it further than most people will (currently) allow. He over egged the pudding, so to speak, even for after the watershed. He's useful in peaking people, yes I agree.

DQs on every day TV is more of a drip drip of poison. I don't think they are peaking most people - I think they are extremely problematic because they are effective at what the end goal is - disbelieve the evidence of your eyes, call men women when they demand it, and while you're at it accept sexist slurs and tired stereotypes as fun entertainment.

I think it takes boring old GC women writing to the BBC to complain to keep the progress in check.

"Cheryl" is a man on the BBC. It's completely relevant to whether he should call himself "hole". Hole were a 90s rock band that many people today aren't aware of. It was meant to be shocking. Women reclaiming a slur isn't the same. Men calling women "holes" is pornsick, misogynistic language.

I don't think this is actually important to the normalization of language though.

It's like, what happens when Punk becomes popular. The cadence of it no longer has the same effect on the listener, the language.

I'm not suggesting that for anyone who stops and thinks the word doesn't still have negative connotations. I'm suggesting that it no longer has the kind of shock factor that means you wouldn't hear it on an early evening tv show. Just like you might see the band talked about on an early evening entertainment show, and no one would really think much about it at all, and probably wouldn't really be even thinking about what it meant.

I don't think that's realistic as to how language works. If you take a word, and use it in regular speech so everyone hears it, in a pretty mundane context, (name of a band,) it just becomes part of the social landscape. Theories about appropriation notwithstanding.

It's vulgar, and crazy that whomever wrote that letter from the BBC seems to be weirdly unaware that it is referring to a vagina, but at this point it's not post-watershed language.

Maybe Sam will come in topless or singing (god forbid - she didn’t have a voice)?

Why can’t he come on in his civvies as ‘Joe Bloggs character act’. ? Or is he just a(n?) one trick pony?

Virtually all these men are.

It is offensive and misogynistic and appearing on a family oriented show.

It is the shows audience that is the issue for me in this instance. Why normalise it for children?

I despair. This sort of thing really gets me down.

I am so glad I don't have a BBC licence or a TV. Not funding adult grooming, misogyny and gaslighting. They'll never get my cash ever again.

👏👏👏👏

This is the most brilliantly satisfying response. Absolutely nailed it. @LoobiJee if you don't send this to the BBC, I will. (All credit to you!).

Why can’t he come on in his civvies as ‘Joe Bloggs character act’. ? Or is he just a(n?) one trick pony?

The Slits didn’t have any men in the band (to my knowledge).

I’m old enough to remember when the Q word was an insult - nothing less - usually hurled along with violence.

It turns my stomach to see silly wee kiddies dressed like kids tv presenters/anime dollies proudly announce that they are ‘oooooh soooo Q’ when they are more than likely straight, ‘camping it up’, acting like attention starved toddlers, and haven’t a flipping clue about Q theory, whilst merrily pretending* that they are happy to share female only spaces with everyone who demands access.

rant over.

*refers to the females - the males aren’t pretending…

This is well expressed, but apart from being clear and well put I don't see how this is any different from people justifying the cancellation of Graham Linehan.

I understand what you're saying, and you're right that people try to justify it in all sorts of reasonable-sounding ways. "He isn't being cancelled, he's just not being given a platform." "The venue has the right to decide who it allows to perform". And so on.

One of the problems we have when talking about the cancellation of people like Linehan, Kathleen Stock etc, is that we tend to frame it as a free speech issue, which immediately then throws up difficult questions about where we draw the line. Would we object if Leith Arches had refused to host someone with explicitly anti-Semitic views, for example? I'm not sure we all would.

So why shouldn't they have the right to refuse to host Glinner, in that case? I think we should frame it less as a free speech issue ("anyone has the right to express offensive views") and more as what it really is: we defend Glinner because he is highlighting the abuse of children and the assault on women's rights. And the people who want to shut him down are the people defending the abuse of children and the assault on women's rights. This is what this comes down to, ultimately: people who are intent on doing harm are trying to silence those who draw attention to that harm. We should be absolutely explicit about this.

😂