Don’t be distracted by the drag queens

And other advice from David Aaronovitch

I used to like David Aaronovitch’s columns, but I’ve been less impressed lately, and this one is a shocker. Don’t be distracted by the drag queens we’re told, but David Aaronovitch has clearly been taken in by them.

As an aside he tells us, astonishingly, that the bowdlerisation of the Roald Dahl back catalogue has some merit to it:

So of course you can worry about the editing of parts of Dahl’s work for children. But some of the changes are justified; sensibilities change, often rightly.

And JK Rowling needs attention to, apparently:

I am guilty of censoring JK Rowling. I was reading her first books to my (then) young children and found the constant slighting references to fat kids just too much. So I cut them. And I think if she were to write them again now, she’d probably cut them too.

This is extraordinary from someone who makes his living by writing. Not to mention the hubris of this unsought advice to the world’s most successful author.

But leaving aside those crumbs, the meat of this column is in defence of Drag Queen Story Hour. Mr Aaronovitch sees no harm in it and considers objectors to be exhibiting “the culture warrior’s hysterical schtick”.

Forgive me if I remain unimpressed by his justifications.

Objections to drag queen story hour are just a backlash imported from the US against some imagined “sexualisation” of children (scare quotes in the original)

Not so David, not so. DQSH is a US import, right enough, but our objections to it are all home-grown. DQSH has queer theory at its core and there is nothing imaginary about the academic paper “Drag pedagogy: The playful practice of queer imagination in early childhood”.

Following James Lindsay’s lead, I took a look at that paper. DQSH makes a lot more sense when you take a look under the covers. It’s not pretty, and it’s certainly not in the best interests of our children. The intent to sexualise, to break down boundaries and “to queer” children is explicit.

Asking the question “why do drag queens want to spend time with your children?” is a libel.

Really? Interestingly, no drag queens want to press libel charges. Perhaps because there are cases of drag queens who have been found guilty of child sexual abuse both in the US and the UK  such as Miss Rachael Rear?

More likely it’s because they recognise that the erosion of boundaries is itself a safeguarding issue and would not bear scrutiny.

Libraries and classrooms should be safe for children, but the insidious creep of queer theory into our organisations creates gaps that allow gender ideology to be pushed on to even very young children.

In the UK, Aida H Dee, the drag queen who is behind DQSH UK Ltd, freely admits that he is there “for the queer kids”. He speaks openly about children approaching him to “come out” about being gay. That sounds like a safeguarding fail to me.

It’s a great question though - why are these men so keen to perform for children? What do you think, David?

Drag queens are just like pantomime dames.

No, they are not. It’s one thing for a man to wear women’s clothes on a stage, as part of a bigger story for comedic effect. It’s quite another for them to dress like a pornified version of a prostitute and teach children how to twerk.

Interestingly, libraries were briefed by DQSH UK Ltd to say that drag queens are just like pantomime dames in response to objections. Wonder why the librarians didn’t think of it themselves?

That those who object are “silly” and “hysterical” and anyway it’s just not true that drag queens are sexualising our children which he knows because he is a “discerning person”.

Ad hominem attacks are a very weak argument, and generally indicate that there is no compelling rational case to be made. I certainly didn’t find one in this article.

David might think that I am silly and hysterical – he’s entitled to his opinion.

But I know that “Copper Topp” refers to more than the colour of that drag queen’s wig. Check out “copper-top” in the online Urban Dictionary and tell me who’s being naïve here.