Drag queens pose in bond age gear for calendar in aid of Mermaids

[JoanSummers]

I'm not sure if this has been posted?

"A local drag community in Newcastle have come together in style to create a one-of-a-kind 2019 calendar, with all proceeds going to charity to support transgender children and young people across the UK."

The February and March photos are attached.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6577301/Drag-queens-pose-glamorous-calendar.html

Wtaf?!?

This is so wrong!

Can’t see anything wrong with it to be honest.

Can you name another arena in which images like this would be used to raise money for a children's charity, and people would say 'can't see anything wrong with it to be honest'?

Susie Green is nuts. This is doubling down - if you remove one boundary they all have to go- falling like skittles. Where's the Charity Commission, the Children's Commissioner, the Children's Minister - why are they not challenging the Equalities Dept. The Mermaids logo on this must mean the beginning of the end at least.

This is really, really, really not in any way appropriate for a children's charity to be associated with. What are they thinking? It seriously raises questions on their ability to safeguard children.

It seriously raises questions on their ability to safeguard children.

The assumption here is that there is any safeguarding of any children going on whatsoever, or any plans to do so.

The fact that Mermaids is enthusiastically retweeting the Daily Mail article, completely unaware that the article is actually a Mermaids hatchet piece, tells you all that you need to know about them.

The whole point of the piece is to associate Mermaids, a children's charity, with BDSM in the minds of readers.

Ordinary people reading that will be appalled, and those that are into BDSM now know that Mermaids is welcoming and inclusive place.

I suspect that Mermaids will be crowing next week about how many men have applied to volunteer with them.

I mean, just how dim can you actually be?

I mean, just how dim can you actually be?

The arts it would appear to be catastrophically dim.

"The pair said they chose the charity because Mermaids supports a cause close to the hearts of so many people on the scene."

not arts! Answer.

I can just imagine them at Mermaids HQ.

"Oh look, Susie. The Daily Mail who have been slagging us off for years have written a really nice article about how images of BDSM will be used to fundraise for us. Isn't it just great to get such positive publicity from mainstream media at last? The article mentions Mermaids over and over again, which is like sooooo amazing. Stick it on Twitter, quick".

Thick as two planks.

Not a clue. Literally no comprehension at all. My flab is gasted at the level of total, profound ignorance of those involved with Mermaids that think this is in any way a positive story.

Do Mermaids keep a mailing list or anything? I'd be interested to know if they promoted this out privately also, to the children and parents using their "services".

If their logo is on it, they would have been involved in every step of the way.

This is difficult to believe. What is wrong with them?

"Susie, there's an email here from a guy who calls himself FreeWillyFetlife. Says he's always wanted to volunteer with kids and suddenly has some free time available. Shall I put him on the breast binding helpline? Brilliant to get so many volunteers, isn't it? That Daily Mail article has inspired so many new faces to get involved".

However thinks that raising money for a children's charity by selling sexualised images of adults involving BDSM has lost the plot.

Isn't it about time the NHS took a bit of responsibility for the charities and organisations they're referring children and young people to? They link to TranzWiki which provides links to Action for Trans Health (set up by Jess Bradley) as well as some other frankly questionable organisations. The U.K. charity sector really needs to get its house in order

... Especially after the Kids Company fiasco.

I noticed a few men on twitter (Stuart Lachlan, Skylar Baker-Jordan, Jonathan Kay) arguing there is nothing wrong with drag or the calendar and it's association with Mermaids. They insinuate that criticism of these things by gender critical women is based in homophobia, and handwave away the concerns about the connections to a children's charity by saying the calendar is aimed at adults.

1. there is a loooong history of feminists pointing out the gross misogyny of drag queens parodies of women.

2. there are several current news stories about pre-teen "drag kids" - dancing provocatively for a male audience, posing with naked drag queens, sitting dead eyed for interviews alongside murderer club kids in front of rohypnol posters - that show that young children are being actively recruited and encouraged into a clearly sexualised drag scene.

3. Mermaids are allegedly a children's charity and are followed and influential with children, parents, schools, girl guides and other children's orgs, have the ear of government on children's and sex and gender issues.. they are actively promoting this calendar - do these dudes really think that Mermaids is promoting this calendar solely to an adult audience? Do they think Mermaids care if kids also see them promoting this calendar and these sorts of images, and "role models" with totally non sexualised names such as "Miss Dixie Swallows"? We know that Mermaids reps have made homophobic and sexist statements on multiple occasions (their entire existence is based on both ffs), that they promote and see no issues with their brand being associated with this over sexualised offensive woman-parodying imagery is a further sign they have no real understanding of political analysis of gender, of feminism, or of safeguarding.

4. inevitably in comments on these posts someone is calling "gc" a "white womens movement". But these dudes making these arguments attacking feminists for having these criticisms all appear to be white. So do nearly all of the drag queens in the calendar (who have whitened their faces to an extreme level with face paint) and the two people who made it. So are all the "drag kids" I've seen yet. So are the Mermaids leadership, and while we are pointing out the whiteness here, so too are nearly all of the influential trans activists in the UK. And the one TRA here I can think of offhand who is not white is incredibly class privileged (Munroe). Wtf is it with accusing women critical of TRAs and drag of being part of a "white movement" when these arguments are always so completely dominated by the opinions of white males?

It seems to me that the guys having this particular twitter conversation are being completely reactionary, on the basis that gay men have a friendly relationship with men in drag. Have they ever listened at all to the lesbians who have criticisms of drag? They centre the discussion of men parodying women in an overly sexualised way and the inclusion of children in that around men and their own allegiances, and dont allow even a microbe of space for women to have our own ideas about it withoit categorising us as bigots. Total dickery.

My eyes. God. Not ok in any way. Makes me want to vomit quite frankly.

I also think most people have a different definition of "glamorous".

Section 28 was passed because of books like "Jenny Lives with Eric and Martin". wiki
I never realised, until now, that there was only a single copy of that book bought, and it was for discussion with parents etc. (As per the wiki) The impact of reporting on it has obviously changed my perception of it.
So "inappropriate" books are linked with Section 28 in people's minds as justification for a discriminatory and far reaching law, badly written and passed in haste (like too many laws).
In this instance, however, we have a clearly inappropriate calendar (I don't think it's pornographic, but it's suggestive enough to be completely inappropriate, plus some of the drag queens are made up to look quite frightening) and Green thinks this is brilliant?
The backlash will be wider than we realise. This kind of thing will be remembered and misremembered, like the book I mentioned earlier. The "gay community" should be smarter than to link itself, however tenuously, to a controversial children's charity with a very odd spokeswoman.
Green laughed at her son's genitalia on TV, because it had obviously atrophied due to the hormone intake (that she arranged from the US initially, IIRC). How ironic that he never got the chance to be a gay man or a drag queen - because his puberty was stifled and his genitals surgically altered.
The "gay men shouldn't be left around children" trope is still alive and kicking, both the calendar participants and Green are daft if they think we're post-homophobia now.

I'll just leave this here! Drag is not suitable for children, however fun it might be. Children don't need to know about any sexual, raunchy, suggestive, adult entertainment. It robs them of their freedom to be children.

Also the photos themselves are crap. I'm surprised any of the drag queens want to associate themselves with it, it's pretty far from glamorous and makes them and their "scene" look cheap, ugly, and sad.

"Thick as two planks."

Possibly. Or supremely confident that they are completely untouchable. I fear the latter.

When is the Lottery Funds likely to complete their review of the grant to this charity? The whole thing stinks.

handwave away the concerns about the connections to a children's charity by saying the calendar is aimed at adults.

Eh? Why the fuck is a children's charity promoting a sexually charged calendar aimed at adults?

Should the NSPCC promote Sylvia Payne's autobiography?

This ties in with, was it Kathleen stock? Who said none of these people are experts in the field they profess to be involved in.

Susie Green is an IT consultant.

JoanSummers the vast majority of UK movements could be described as white, 80% of the UK is white, and geographically speaking most non-white people live in major cities. So there are swathes of the UK that are very white indeed. It's a weird thing to throw at anyone, perhaps it's a US thing (61% white non-"latino", non- "white Hispanic", 77% if those groups are included, some self-include and some self-excluded as white - basically it's a lower percentage than here). I can't see being white as much of a criticism; I very much doubt this calendar will have much support from the African, Caribbean or Asian communities as they all tend to be more socially conservative than the rest of the population.
Personally I think they are trying to paint GC lesbians (in particular) as "humourless dykes". It's an old trope, gay men are fabulous and fun, lesbians are grumpy and boring, and oppose lots of fun things for boring, grown-up, man-hating reasons. It's the easiest, laziest and most tenacious mud to sling at us, and it happens all the time.

Believe it or not I think this is a good thing.

I think this could well be the point where people stop going " how wonderful" and start going wtf.

It's really showing the deviant thoughts behind it all.