Cheryl Hole on LGBTQ representation

[ArabeIIaKarenScott]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-66513419

'Cheryl has promised to "bring the glamour" to the kitchen but has also been "cooking my little Essex bum off" in preparation.
She added like every Essex girl she is a lover of a chippy at the end of a night out and always had a hankering for a battered sausage or saveloy.'

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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.

"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.

@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.

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.

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’).

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.

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

@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.

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?

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?

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.

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

I am, I just disagree.

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.

Chilling that that's from 1972.

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.

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."

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.

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!

Schrodinger's Drag Queen. They're not 'trans', but pronouns should be 'she'.

@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.