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.'

'In this instance we won’t be investigating the issue in more detail but we would like to assure you that we value your feedback and have shared it with the right people at the BBC.'

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.

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.

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 )

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

Dylan from Project Icon

I'm so sick of constant sexual innuendo.

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.

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.

"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.

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

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

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.

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?

If you look up 'weaksauce' in the dictionary, you get that response verbatim.

Well, even if she's not, what could she do?

Mary Rose, presumably 😉

What can she possibly do?

He identifies as a(n) homage to her, so she will be torn apart if she makes a peep of protest. PR disaster for her if she does anything stronger than a graceful silence

I always mentally recall this man's performer name (alongside some other examples) when people claim there isn't a misogynist element to drag. I'm totally shocked to find out he's going to be on Celebrity MasterChef; I had presumed his choice of name would restrict him to tv programmes specifically about drag.

Yes, quite 😄

Perhaps they are taking refuge in the fact that sausages seem to be the height of his culinary achievements, so he won’t be gracing our screens any further

‘However, Cheryl's ambitious martini pudding backfired after the passionfruit coulis failed to set, leaving her dessert to become curdled.
"I'm ready for a cry in the corner. I never want to see a passionfruit martini ever again," she said after presenting the dish. Gregg later admitted the dessert was "a disaster in a glass".’

( There is something approaching innuendo there…)

What I can’t work out is why he ( that’s the right pronoun btw HQ because he is NoT NB or trans) is a celebrity in any real sense. The other contestants were persons of distinction* in some other way than just being ‘famous ‘ for dressing up on another Tv show. It’s s create-your-own -celebrity and then promote it on the BEEB.

Or maybe if I stopped a random passer by and asked if they had heard of CH I might find that I am, unsurprisingly, behind the curve. I’m not going to try it out, though.

Looking at the BBC article, a representation of "LGBTQ+ people" that's somewhere between insensitive to women and on a level with using the n-word for race, breaks the BBC's obligations under the Equality Act not to fuel conflict between different groups.

Cheryl Cole doesn't need to complain. If a drag artist is free to turn her name into a hate insult on a popular show then that represents how free "LGBTQ+ people" are to insult all and any women in public. And if it represents how "LGBTQ+ people" really feel about women, well it's not a wonder that transphobia and homophobia are on the rise, is it?

I think the webiste lets you make a follow-up complaint - there's a box to tick if it's new or not.

'In this instance we won’t be investigating the issue in more detail but we would like to assure you that we value your feedback and have shared it with the right people at the BBC.'

I wonder who the 'right people' at the BBC are...

PS I am sure the name doesn't represent how most LGBTQ+ people feel about women (though a minority might) but the BBC need to be careful about how they represent "LGBTQ+ people" and their attitudes to the public. The BBC needs to take a lead on what's acceptable and Celebrity MasterChef isn't the place to push the envelope towards sexual insults. Innuendo yes, insults, no. If the performer doesn't know the different the BBC should.

I wonder who the 'right people' at the BBC are...

You could point out that the "right people" are capable of an apology and you're looking forward to it.

And people have a fear of clowns , I'd say that seeing that picture is much worse !