Are Drag Shows a "Learning Tool" For Children?
Spectrum Street Epistemology in San Juan, Puerto Rico
Peter Boghossian engaged one woman and two men in San Juan, Puerto Rico with the claim, “Drag queens should be allowed to perform for children.”
Two of the participants are parents. One man suggested that viewing a drag show is an important learning tool for pre-teens in their exploration of the world. The group considers whether sexual elements of drag performances can be removed to create an appropriate experience for children.
Peter inquired where the line should be drawn regarding overt sexualization, noting documented experiences of children at drag shows. One man is more concerned about “men dressing as women” as legitimate content for children than the sexual elements in drag performance.
One thing I think is worth considering on the matter is whether the drag performer doing the story hour also puts on performances that are also only appropriate for adults. If they do exclusively child-appropriate stuff, then it seems along the lines of Eddie Murphy playing female members of the Klump family in the Nutty Professor. If the drag artist does adult-only performances, then performs for children under the same stage name, it's going to make the kids who enjoyed the performance they saw want to go to the one that's not yet appropriate for them, which makes it tough for a parent trying to explain why they can't.
An analogy that comes to mind would be if they made another Hangover movie, but replaced Ken Jong's coked-up, dick-flashing character with Barney, the purple dinosaur behaving in a similar manner, it'd cause a lot of parents to not want their kids to watch Barney's next kid-appropriate performance, because they understandably don't want it to incline their kid to sneak and watch the Barney Hangover.
If a drag artist who does adult-only shows wants to do all-ages performances, doing it under a different stage name would offer a reasoned rebuttal to anyone trying to generate controversy about the issue. (Although controversy both sells tickets and earns support for those standing in opposition, so maybe it'd be foolish to expect anyone to contribute toward a resolution.)
I've nothing against drag shows for adults, but this (or any form of lewd cabaret) is just inappropriate for children.
Moreover, drag no longer carries the progressive meanings that it once did. In the past, drag queens and kings "performed gender" - revealing that gender essentialism is false. Now they do the opposite; they claim that performing gender is an expression of something deep and intrinsic in the person performing it, an interior 'identity' that is somehow coded in very stereotypically masculine or feminine forms. Essentialising gender undermines the importance of distinguishing between sex and gender which was so fundamental to the progress made by gender non-conformists of the late 20th century.
Biological sex is real and gender is an abstract concept that humans can nevertheless reify -- i.e.. adopt, internalise, perform and put on. The lie about gender essentialism is the achilles heel of the transgender ideology and I am surprised that it has not been thoroughly demolished.
Perhaps this failure to attack the most vulnerable tenet of transgenderism is owing to the fact that a lot of men still seem reluctant to admit that masculinity is separate to the physical differences that define biological male sex. This reluctance to accept how far culture shapes their own perception of their 'masculinity' leads a lot of otherwise smart men to cling to the idea that gender (like sex) is essential and innate, when it just isn't. Please ,please read Gina Rippon and Cordelia Fine. Both have thoroughly debunked the idea that gender is innate. Men, I know that admitting this will make life harder for you, but this is not a good reason to reject the truth. You're bigger than that.