11 yr/old drag kid worshiped within LGBTQ community (Mod warning op)

seamus · 15-04-2019 9:36am

BattleCorp wrote: »

Drag is sexualised. I've yet to see a sexualised pantomime performance.

That is not in any way relevant to what I posted.

Like I say, if one believes that the plan was for a drag act to appear in the library with a sexually explicit performance for kids, then one is a moron. No other way to put it.

suicide_circus · 15-04-2019 9:40am

Patty Hearst wrote: »

'Gay Witches for Abortion AKA 'Fianna Fellatio'

thats either some biting satire or some end of days , fall of the roman empire shit

BattleCorp · 15-04-2019 9:46am

seamus wrote: »

That is not in any way relevant to what I posted.

Like I say, if one believes that the plan was for a drag act to appear in the library with a sexually explicit performance for kids, then one is a moron. No other way to put it.

Neither of us are psychic so we don't know what kind of performance was planned for the kids. We can both surmise but that's it.

I wonder were the parents in the clip that was posted expecting yer man to get down on all fours and twerk?

I'm not saying that would have happened in the library but if the drag artists are used to performing risqué performances for adults, it would be hard for them to make it 100% child friendly.

seamus · 15-04-2019 9:49am

BattleCorp wrote: »

Neither of us are psychic so we don't know what kind of performance was planned for the kids. We can both surmise but that's it.

I wonder were the parents in the clip that was posted expecting yer man to get down on all fours and twerk?

I'm not saying that would have happened in the library but if the drag artists are used to performing risqué performances for adults, it would be hard for them to make it 100% child friendly.

Gotcha.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 15-04-2019 9:59am

BattleCorp wrote: »

Drag is sexualised. I've yet to see a sexualised pantomime performance.

Have a look at this.

https://imgur.com/a/mjuhThk

Again: is that what you actually believe is going to happen at the library? Yes or no?

If your answer is "yes" then it contradicts your first sentence: you accept that non-sexualised pantomime exists., and I'd agree with Seamus - you'd be an idiot.

If your answer is "no" then it contradicts your claim that "it would be hard for them to make it 100% child friendly."

If your answer is "I don't know" then wouldn't it be wise to hold off judgement until you DID know?

silverharp · 15-04-2019 10:06am

you wouldnt really want pole dancers giving pole dancing fitness classes to young girls, why would you want adult entertainers doing similar?

Zorya · 15-04-2019 10:13am

People calling other posters idiots.

I suppose they are the same people who also run to moderators regarding ''attack the poster'' posts?

:rolleyes:

I offer no counter-argument as my previous statement stands on its merits, and likewise other people's posts will display their opinions clearly.
(Though I had to look up Helen Lovejoy - I found the Simpsons irritating the few times I saw it so didn't know the name. It sounded like a reformed porn star name. :pac:)

suicide_circus · 15-04-2019 10:23am

silverharp wrote: »

why would you want adult entertainers doing similar?

because it is progressive and inclusive.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 15-04-2019 10:35am

Zorya wrote: »

People calling other posters idiots.

I suppose they are the same people who also run to moderators regarding ''attack the poster'' posts?

:rolleyes:

Except that's not what happened, is it?

I offer no counter-argument as my previous statement stands on its merits, and likewise other people's posts will display their opinions clearly.
(Though I had to look up Helen Lovejoy - I found the Simpsons irritating the few times I saw it so didn't know the name. It sounded like a reformed porn star name. :pac:)

You said, "The problem is the inevitable sexualised element" which has failed to stand, as I asked if said element was in your head or the kids heads.

Roger Hassenforder · 15-04-2019 10:36am

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Ok. Is the content going to be the same for the kids and will the kids get the innuendo?

seamus wrote: »

Inevitable for whom?
Drag is in effect just pantomime for adults. Anyone who believed that a drag act was going to read stories to kids in a sexually charged way and sprinkled with innuendo, is an idiot.

Wait... would there be innuendo or not?
If drag is "just pantomime for adults", why is there a need for it at a book reading for 3-7 yr old kids...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 15-04-2019 10:44am

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Wait... would there be innuendo or not?
If drag is "just pantomime for adults", why is there a need for it at a book reading for 3-7 yr old kids...

I'm guessing not.

Why? Why not? Kids like pantomine, kids like costumes. Why dress up for Halloween? Why dress up for a Paddy's Day parade? Why get dressed up at all? Why have cosrtume parties? Why have fancy dress?

Because it's (non-sexual, because the point apparently needs to be made) fun.

BattleCorp · 15-04-2019 10:49am

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Again: is that what you actually believe is going to happen at the library? Yes or no?

If your answer is "yes" then it contradicts your first sentence: you accept that non-sexualised pantomime exists., and I'd agree with Seamus - you'd be an idiot.

If your answer is "no" then it contradicts your claim that "it would be hard for them to make it 100% child friendly."

If your answer is "I don't know" then wouldn't it be wise to hold off judgement until you DID know?

Eh yeah, I wouldn't consider myself an idiot but hey, that's at least one person who doesn't consider me an idiot.

I see nothing contradictory in my statement. I've seen non-sexualised pantomime but haven't seen non-sexualised drag shows. I think that is clear enough.

Do I think that the drag artists would behave in an age appropriate way, I don't know. I have my doubts that everything they would do would be age appropriate. Have I proof of that, no. Have I proof that they won't, no.

I'm not saying that the drag artists are going to start dry humping 3 year olds in the library, not at all. But it's very hard to behave in a way suitable for a 3 - 7 year old audience when you are used to behaving erotically with adults.

I'll use myself as an example. I tend to swear sometimes and I know it's not appropriate to swear in front of children, but I sometimes do.

It's very hard to not behave in some way sexual if you are used to behaving in that way. It's difficult to change habits.

GinAndBitter · 15-04-2019 10:56am

https://twitter.com/GlitterHoleDub/status/1117702595240501248?s=19

It's homophobic to not want drag queens in the same room as your 5 year old child, apparently.

Sick people.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 15-04-2019 10:58am

BattleCorp wrote: »

Eh yeah, I wouldn't consider myself an idiot but hey, that's at least one person who doesn't consider me an idiot.

I see nothing contradictory in my statement. I've seen non-sexualised pantomime but haven't seen non-sexualised drag shows. I think that is clear enough.

Do I think that the drag artists would behave in an age appropriate way, I don't know. I have my doubts that everything they would do would be age appropriate. Have I proof of that, no. Have I proof that they won't, no.

I'm not saying that the drag artists are going to start dry humping 3 year olds in the library, not at all. But it's very hard to behave in a way suitable for a 3 - 7 year old audience when you are used to behaving erotically with adults.

It's very hard to not behave in some way sexual if you are used to behaving in that way. It's difficult to change habits.

I'll use myself as an example. I tend to swear sometimes and I know it's not appropriate to swear in front of children, but I sometimes do.

Swearing is different because it's an impulsive act, whereas acting sexually is an act.

I just find absolutely no basis on which to assume that someone who performs drag is suddenly not going to be able to act in a non-sexual way in front of kids. Most actors/performers can and do tailor their performances to their audience.

Shirley Temple-Bar did telly-bingo for years on daytime RTE both in and out of drag for years without any problems.

Roger Hassenforder · 15-04-2019 12:12pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'm guessing not.

Why? Why not? Kids like pantomine, kids like costumes. Why dress up for Halloween? Why dress up for a Paddy's Day parade? Why get dressed up at all? Why have cosrtume parties? Why have fancy dress?

Because it's (non-sexual, because the point apparently needs to be made) fun.

Earlier you said there would be innuendo..anyway...

Ah heor, bit of a difference between a green hat and a shamrock, or a princess dress, or a witches outfit for kids dressing up to adult men in dresses reading books to kids in a public library.
Unless of course you cant see the difference, and dont get how some might find it uncomfortable, intolerant of others "intolerance"

So If its to be "non sexual" whats the point of it at a kids bok reading?
Isnt the whole point of drag, voluntary dressing up for adult "fun", for risgué titillation and sexual innuendo? Hillarious and fabulous. Fun. If its your thing?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 15-04-2019 12:15pm

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Earlier you said there would be innuendo..anyway...

Think your confusing me with someone slse.

Ah heor, bit of a difference between a green hat and a shamrock, or a princess dress, or a witches outfit for kids dressing up to adult men in dresses reading books to kids in a public library.

i.e. pantomime?

Unless of course you cant see the difference, and dont get how some might find it uncomfortable, intolerant of others "intolerance"

If you're not comfortable, then don't go. I'm okay with that. How is this intolerence on my part? What am I intolerant of?

So If its to be "non sexual" whats the point of it at a kids bok reading?
Isnt the whole point of drag, voluntary dressing up for adult "fun", for risgué titillation and sexual innuendo? Hillarious and fabulous. Fun. If its your thing?

Not nessecraily.

Roger Hassenforder · 15-04-2019 12:25pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Think your confusing me with someone slse.

i.e. pantomime?

If you're not comfortable, then don't go. I'm okay with that. How is this intolerence on my part? What am I intolerant of? The idea that something isn't sexual?

Not nessecraily.

Nope.
Quoted you earlier.

You dont seem to get why people would be uncomfortable exposing their kids to this.
Decrying their intolerance, intolerant of their view. Hypocrisy.

Even reading some of the glitter hole twitter commemts "bigots.. homophobic...denying LGBT agency" trying to "dress" this up as an attack on the LGBT community. Its not.
This wasnt gay people banned from reading a book.

Theres nothing homophobic in not wanting grown men in wigs, make up and dresses (or whatever) reading books to kids in a library.

Charles Ingles · 15-04-2019 12:29pm

GinAndBitter wrote: »

https://twitter.com/GlitterHoleDub/status/1117702595240501248?s=19

It's homophobic to not want drag queens in the same room as your 5 year old child, apparently.

Sick people.

I'm glad I've no children still in school absolutely shocking this was even considered to allowed in schools

BattleCorp · 15-04-2019 12:39pm

Once again I'm not saying that this is what would have happened in the library but who thinks this is appropriate for kids?

https://imgur.com/a/mjuhThk

GinAndBitter · 15-04-2019 12:42pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Once again I'm not saying that this is what would have happened in the library but who thinks this is appropriate for kids?

https://imgur.com/a/mjuhThk

Depraved behaviour, any parent allowing their kids to take part in that should be locked up.

Zorya · 15-04-2019 12:49pm

Look sideways at Desmond is Amazing and you are agin the gays!

Look sideways at Drag Queen Story time and you are agin the gays!

Look sideways at the hormonal interference with 8 years old children and you are agin the gays!

Yawn. The argument is moronic and boring at the stage.

Sardonicat · 15-04-2019 12:52pm

Charles Ingles wrote: »

GinAndBitter wrote: »

https://twitter.com/GlitterHoleDub/status/1117702595240501248?s=19

It's homophobic to not want drag queens in the same room as your 5 year old child, apparently.

Sick people.

I'm glad I've no children still in school absolutely shocking this was even considered to allowed in schools

It wasn't.

AllForIt · 15-04-2019 1:19pm

Never heard of this Glitter HOLE group, not surprisingly cause I've never been into Drag as a form of entertainment having seen quite a few drag acts myself in gay bars over the years. I'd prefer karaoke if trashy is the theme for the evening. As far as what they do in ADULT bars I can't imagine what they do is high-level "filthy" or "disgusting" as some twitter commentators describe them, it's not like they are performing live sex acts on stage or anything on that level, so I think some are being a bit prudish and judgmental in respect of their act.

However I do think that THEY as a group ARE the reason that makes THEM inappropriate to do the library show for the only reason that they are associated with their adult act. Not that they would do anything age inappropriate at the reading itself i'm sure.

Irish Praetorian · 15-04-2019 1:41pm

Zorya wrote: »

Look sideways at Desmond is Amazing and you are agin the gays!

Look sideways at Drag Queen Story time and you are agin the gays!

Look sideways at the hormonal interference with 8 years old children and you are agin the gays!

Yawn. The argument is moronic and boring at the stage.

Be fair, from what I've seen of the comment sections of various gay websites, support for this 'act' is fractured at best. Now don't get me wrong, I think there might be stronger case for this being troublesome if it wasn't coming from the land of gaudy beauty pageants and child stars, but this is hardly a case of 'de geys' v 'de rest'.

Zorya · 15-04-2019 1:47pm

Irish Praetorian wrote: »

Be fair, from what I've seen of the comment sections of various gay websites, support for this 'act' is fractured at best. Now don't get me wrong, I think there might be stronger case for this being troublesome if it wasn't coming from the land of gaudy beauty pageants and child stars, but this is hardly a case of 'de geys' v 'de rest'.

Must admit I have not looked any where else about this story, so I don't know. It's the general thrust that I am referencing. I don't see the ladies from burlesque troupes rushing to libraries to tell stories, promising that they will keep their cardigans buttoned. It would be silly and inappropriate and they are far too sensible for that.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 15-04-2019 1:52pm

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Nope.
Quoted you earlier.

If you're going to quote me, quote me in context: pretty obvious I was refering to the name of the group.

Kenna Fresh Teflon wrote: »

Yes when it's an adult (as in its performances are for adults at bars and nightclubs) drag act called Glitter Hole.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Ok. Is the content going to be the same for the kids and will the kids get the innuendo?

You dont seem to get why people would be uncomfortable exposing their kids to this.
Decrying their intolerance, intolerant of their view. Hypocrisy.
[/QUOTE]
YOu seem to oblivious to the difference between disagreement and intolerance.

I disagree that this reading would be sexualised and inapporriate. How is this intolerant?

Even reading some of the glitter hole twitter commemts "bigots.. homophobic...denying LGBT agency" trying to "dress" this up as an attack on the LGBT community. Its not.
This wasnt gay people banned from reading a book.

Theres nothing homophobic in not wanting grown men in wigs, make up and dresses (or whatever) reading books to kids in a library.

Never said there was.

Roger Hassenforder · 15-04-2019 2:20pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

If you're going to quote me, quote me in context: pretty obvious I was refering to the name of the group.

Quoted your entire post. There's nothing obvious, or something I missed, especially context. You just failed to make whatever point you were trying to make.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

YOu seem to oblivious to the difference between disagreement and intolerance.

I disagree that this reading would be sexualised and inapporriate. How is this intolerant?

Never said there was, and I agree with you here. If you're not comfortable, don't go.

You're condescending tone towards those with whom you disagree with, smacks of intolerance of their position. An unwillingness to see things from the others side. (Thats the intolerance bit- you keep missing it)

This isnt a case of prudish greys staying away from a risqué event. Its parents concerned as to what their kids are being exposed to, by a troupe of drag performers not renowned for children's entertainment.

Whether its sexualized or not is moot, no one knows. It might be laden with innuendo, or the most chaste reading ever. Probably somewhere in between.

Its either going to be sexualized or not.
If yes, theres a self evident problem.
If not, why have drag artists from ""glitter hole". Fcuk it, they could even do it under a different name if it was actually about reading kids stories while dressed up, having fun etc as you would have us believe. Set up a kids specific group, get Garda vetted etc. But no, we have a rather outre group of adult entertainers, reading kids books, bereft of a modicum of Garda vetting. And the people who have an issue with this are somehow out of order...

In fairness, going by your early work in this thread, you're consistent.

Will I Am Not · 15-04-2019 2:29pm

AllForIt wrote: »

However I do think that THEY as a group ARE the reason that makes THEM inappropriate to do the library show for the only reason that they are associated with their adult act. Not that they would do anything age inappropriate at the reading itself i'm sure.

Exactly. You wouldn’t want Ron Jeremy and Jenna Jameson giving your kids sex ed...

Roger Hassenforder · 15-04-2019 2:32pm

Will I Am Not wrote: »

Exactly. You wouldn’t want Ron Jeremy and Jenna Jameson giving your kids sex ed...

Im sure they could do it in a non sexualized way...

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 15-04-2019 2:33pm

(For the sake of brevity, I'm not replying to the points that are not relevant to arguments I've made, apart from the opening one, which, I agree was a bit unclear. But to clarify: I was refer only to innunendo only in the name of the group)

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

You're condescending tone towards those with whom you disagree with, smacks of intolerance of their position. An unwillingness to see things from the others side. (Thats the intolerance bit- you keep missing it)

Ah, my tone. Of course. You're not actually reading the words then, or is this just an attempt at the moral highground?

As I said, I find the idea that it's automatically going to sexualised because their only association of it is in risque nightclubs ignorant. You say yourself below, no one knows. That's not intolerance, that's just pointing out ignorance based on assumption.

Whether its sexualized or not is moot, no one knows. It might be laden with innuendo, or the most chaste reading ever. Probably somewhere in between.

I've addressed this.

mcmoustache · 15-04-2019 2:38pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Shirley Temple-Bar did telly-bingo for years on daytime RTE both in and out of drag for years without any problems.

I think you might have touched on the main issue here. When people think of this reading thing, they're probably thinking that it's more Drag Race than it is Shirley Temple Bar.

BattleCorp · 15-04-2019 2:50pm

mcmoustache wrote: »

I think you might have touched on the main issue here. When people think of this reading thing, they're probably thinking that it's more Drag Race than it is Shirley Temple Bar.

Well, when you see how Glitter Hole advertise themselves, you can see why people don't think that it's very 'Shirley Temple Bar'.

Roger Hassenforder · 15-04-2019 4:25pm

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

(For the sake of brevity, I'm not replying to the points that are not relevant to arguments I've made, apart from the opening one, which, I agree was a bit unclear. But to clarify: I was refer only to innunendo only in the name of the group)

Ah, my tone. Of course. You're not actually reading the words then, or is this just an attempt at the moral highground?

As I said, I find the idea that it's automatically going to sexualised because their only association of it is in risque nightclubs ignorant. You say yourself below, no one knows. That's not intolerance, that's just pointing out ignorance based on assumption.

I've addressed this.

You've addressed this... "not reading the words". indeed. You can tell a lot of someone by their choice of language, tone etc.
I take your point re innuendo though. Took you long enough.

If this troop of entertainers were so set on providing "alternative" fun book readings, they should set up a Garda vetted group, build a base, rather than cashing in on whatever appeal or cachet 'Glitter Hole' has, and avoid provoking all the hand wringing, "bigotry" etc. Ive no issue with LGBT people around my kids, close friends are gay ( incidentally, one of the couple hates the drag scene, the other loves it), but not this lot in this role.

(or is there a bang of the Belfast cake of this?
* removes tinfoil hat).

And if the moral high ground has people verbalising concerns for putting 3yr olds in a room with Garda unvetted risqué adult entertainers, well, there you'll find me!

KaneToad · 15-04-2019 4:31pm

Mongfinder General wrote: »

Some unaccountable manager/employee/civil serving had to have signed off on this. They should be ducking hung. Sick bastards.

I presume you meant civil servant?
There are no civil servants working in DLR.

Dave0301 · 15-04-2019 4:44pm

I had a look at Glitter HOLE's Facebook page to see what is on it.

It would not appear appropriate for 3-7 year old children. Reference to butt plugs, swearing and some sexualised content.

Now, I am not saying that this is what was intended for the reading at the library, but they do not seem to be an ideal choice for a reading group as it does not appear that children are their target audience.

Just like if any group that were not age appropriate were signed up, people should question it.

TCM · 15-04-2019 4:51pm

prawnsambo wrote:

He was 56th in driving accuracy at Augusta. Missed 20 fairways or thereabouts. Now they weren't all bad misses, some in the first cut and others just off and into the pine straw. But there were quite a few where it badly affected his second shot. Like on the 18th on Sunday where he had a big miss and bogeyed the hole. Luckily he had two sh9ots to spare, but that was one of them. On the bigger hitting courses, that sort of accuracy could put him out of the running.

partyguinness wrote:

Personally I think the only thing that will stop him getting 19 is himself-as in his appetite, his head and his body.

Zorya wrote:

Dr. Johanna Olson Kennedy, who runs the Gender Clinic at Los Angeles Children's Hospital (and who advocates for mastectomies in girls from age 13) got grant funding last year to reduce the age at which children receive cross sex hormones from 13 to 8 years old. That is not puberty-blockers - that is full on CROSS SEX hormones from the other gender at EIGHT YEARS OLD. Testosterone injections or tablets, for example.

Zorya wrote:

This is the document proving same obtained under FOI by Dr Michael Laidlaw

Zorya wrote:

Dr. Johanna Olson Kennedy, who runs the Gender Clinic at Los Angeles Children's Hospital (and who advocates for mastectomies in girls from age 13) got grant funding last year to reduce the age at which children receive cross sex hormones from 13 to 8 years old. That is not puberty-blockers - that is full on CROSS SEX hormones from the other gender at EIGHT YEARS OLD. Testosterone injections or tablets, for example.

Zorya wrote:

This is the document proving same obtained under FOI by Dr Michael Laidlaw

Zorya wrote:

Dr. Johanna Olson Kennedy, who runs the Gender Clinic at Los Angeles Children's Hospital (and who advocates for mastectomies in girls from age 13) got grant funding last year to reduce the age at which children receive cross sex hormones from 13 to 8 years old. That is not puberty-blockers - that is full on CROSS SEX hormones from the other gender at EIGHT YEARS OLD. Testosterone injections or tablets, for example.

Zorya wrote:

This is the document proving same obtained under FOI by Dr Michael Laidlaw

Zorya wrote:

Dr. Johanna Olson Kennedy, who runs the Gender Clinic at Los Angeles Children's Hospital (and who advocates for mastectomies in girls from age 13) got grant funding last year to reduce the age at which children receive cross sex hormones from 13 to 8 years old. That is not puberty-blockers - that is full on CROSS SEX hormones from the other gender at EIGHT YEARS OLD. Testosterone injections or tablets, for example.

That's disgusting stuff.

Gimme A Pound · 15-04-2019 5:01pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

Well, when you see how Glitter Hole advertise themselves, you can see why people don't think that it's very 'Shirley Temple Bar'.

Exactly! Ffs, it's not unreasonable to object to people whose act is for adults only, hosting an event for children aged seven and under - doesn't matter whether they are gay, straight or bisexual. Arguing that this is a Helen Lovejoy position etc is just absurd.

Dante7 · 16-04-2019 12:44am

I was a bit surprised to see so many people voice their support for the Glitter Hole drag group after they were stopped from reading stories to kids. Apparently we just have to accept any activity, unquestionably, as long as it flies under the flag of inclusivity. To even question this is to be branded a bigot.

The question I found myself asking is why are some drags so keen to spread their message to very young children? The answer is complicated, but a very high proportion of transvestites are Autogynophiliacs - they get off by dressing as members of the opposite. It's a sexual paraphelia. 3% of males exhibit this. Drag acts are thus, hugely sexualised. And that's fine. Grown ups exhibiting their sexual paraphelia in front of other grown ups and making a cabaret about it is fine. But do not try to compare it to a male playing Lady Macbeth or to a pantomime Dame. This is very different. They are trying to introduce a sexual paraphelia as mainstream.

Would you allow people dressed in S&M gear read stories to your kids?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 16-04-2019 12:52am

Dante7 wrote: »

I was a bit surprised to see so many people voice their support for the Glitter Hole drag group after they were stopped from reading stories to kids. Apparently we just have to accept any activity, unquestionably, as long as it flies under the flag of inclusivity. To even question this is to be branded a bigot.

The question I found myself asking is why are some drags so keen to spread their message to very young children? The answer is complicated, but a very high proportion of transvestites are Autogynophiliacs - they get off by dressing as members of the opposite. It's a sexual paraphelia. 3% of males exhibit this. Drag acts are thus, hugely sexualised. And that's fine. Grown ups exhibiting their sexual paraphelia in front of other grown ups and making a cabaret about it is fine. But do not try to compare it to a male playing Lady Macbeth or to a pantomime Dame. This is very different. They are trying to introduce a sexual paraphelia as mainstream.

Would you allow people dressed in S&M gear read stories to your kids?

Big difference between transvestism and drag.

And from there to S&M...? Classic slippery slope fallacy.

Finally, the support was for pantomime-style drag in general, rather than the Glitter Hole burlesque. No one is supporting the later, but I'd seriously doubt that's what the intended (and if it was, is be against it with the rest of you).

Dante7 · 16-04-2019 1:02am

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Big difference between transvestism and drag.

And from there to S&M...? Classic slippery slope fallacy.

Not really, and not really.

There is a huge chance that dudes who dress up as women and tell bawdy jokes at night are Autogynophiliacs. It is not bigoted or homophobic to express concern that they will read stories to kids and perhaps insert elements of their disorder to vulnerable children.

Why not S&M storytellers? They are equally sexually dysphorics.

How Soon Is Now · 16-04-2019 1:05am

****ing sick of this kinda ****e being forced into everyday situations it has no place in.

Kids do not need to be dragged into gay pride lefty propaganda bull****. Unfortunately though the direction this country is going in dont be surprised to see more of this kinda crap appear! There's far to many weak people who actually would be in favour of it as well.

I'd be willing to bet that gender studies will be introduced as part of the primary and secondary school programme not to far down the line.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock · 16-04-2019 7:02am

Dante7 wrote: »

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Big difference between transvestism and drag.

And from there to S&M...? Classic slippery slope fallacy.

Not really, and not really.

There is a huge chance that dudes who dress up as women and tell bawdy jokes at night are Autogynophiliacs. It is not bigoted or homophobic to express concern that they will read stories to kids and perhaps insert elements of their disorder to vulnerable children.

Why not S&M storytellers? They are equally sexually dysphorics.

First is you trying to pass off badly researched opinion as fact, and with the second you appear not to know the diffetence between the portrayal of a fantasy character and a sexual addiction in the second.

Ricosruffneck · 16-04-2019 7:50am

I see DLR has changed their original cancellation statement from being unsuitable for this age group

''dlr Libraries wish to advise that the Drag Story Time event planned to take place on Wednesday 26th June at 3pm in Deansgrange Library will not now go ahead. This event was programmed as an age appropriate, family-friendly story time session. However, following a review in terms of age appropriateness, this event will not now go ahead at this time, and may be rescheduled as part of a future Book Festival lineup.''

To this

In its new statement this afternoon, Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council said health and safety is at the forefront of its concerns.

“We would like to reassure the public that this event is age-appropriate and family-friendly.”

The council said its libraries “object to homophobia in all its forms” and that it reserves the right to remove content or comments on its social media platforms that “may be considered offensive, abusive or defamatory”.

“DLR Libraries remains safe, inclusive and welcoming places for all and offer a diverse, cultural programme.”

sbsquarepants · 16-04-2019 8:19am

Dave0301 wrote: »

I had a look at Glitter HOLE's Facebook page to see what is on it.

It would not appear appropriate for 3-7 year old children. Reference to butt plugs, swearing and some sexualised content.

Now, I am not saying that this is what was intended for the reading at the library, but they do not seem to be an ideal choice for a reading group as it does not appear that children are their target audience.

Just like if any group that were not age appropriate were signed up, people should question it.

I'm sure, like any other performer, the act is something that gets turned on and off, so there's no reason to think any of the more adult themed content would be delivered to the kids. I remember there being a big scandal in the US when some porn star signed up to a some programme to read books to kids in hospitals I think, could have been in schools either. The usual puritans were horrified at the mere suggestion that this woman could dare sit in front of their kids and recite the 3 little pigs. (Then they went and polished their assault rifles to calm down:D)

But I just can't for the life of me understand why anyone thought this was a good idea - why would you have a drag act read to kids? What's to be gained? What possible benefit is to be had by the inclusion of cross dressing? I just don't see the point.

You couldn't counter with why not, I suppose - but if that's the best argument for doing something, then it's probably not really worth doing. It's certainly no great loss to not do it in that case!

I wouldn't bring my kids along to it.

Beechwoodspark · 16-04-2019 8:41am

Ricosruffneck wrote: »

I see DLR has changed their original cancellation statement from being unsuitable for this age group

''dlr Libraries wish to advise that the Drag Story Time event planned to take place on Wednesday 26th June at 3pm in Deansgrange Library will not now go ahead. This event was programmed as an age appropriate, family-friendly story time session. However, following a review in terms of age appropriateness, this event will not now go ahead at this time, and may be rescheduled as part of a future Book Festival lineup.''

To this

In its new statement this afternoon, Dun Laoghaire-Rathdown County Council said health and safety is at the forefront of its concerns.

“We would like to reassure the public that this event is age-appropriate and family-friendly.”

The council said its libraries “object to homophobia in all its forms” and that it reserves the right to remove content or comments on its social media platforms that “may be considered offensive, abusive or defamatory”.

“DLR Libraries remains safe, inclusive and welcoming places for all and offer a diverse, cultural programme.”

To me it is utterly bizarre that drag acts want to get involved in reading stories to young children in libraries. What the hell like? WHY?

suicide_circus · 16-04-2019 9:10am

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

WHY?

difficult not to see it as indoctrination

Roger Hassenforder · 16-04-2019 9:12am

TBH, i sometimes struggle with whether the Garda unvetted man from a niche adult entertainment show with make up in the pretty frock reading 3 -7 yr olds books in a public library, is (auto)gynephilic, femephilic, or just having fun.

I suppose i should be more open to diversity and inclusiveness, sure the children will be grand.

Beechwoodspark · 16-04-2019 9:14am

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

TBH, i sometimes struggle with whether the Garda unvetted man from a niche adult entertainment show with make up in the pretty frock reading 3 -7 yr olds books in a public library, is (auto)gynephilic, femephilic, or just having fun.

I suppose i should be more open to diversity and inclusiveness, sure the children will be grand.

Hold on hold on -this gets worse-are you saying no garda vetting would be involved ???

seamus · 16-04-2019 9:21am

Oh look, it turns out that DLR didn't cancel the performance because they were concerned about the content - they were concerned for the safety of staff and children because of the comments they'd received from homophobes.

https://libraries.dlrcoco.ie/events-and-news/library-news/cancellation-dlr-libraries-event-drag-story-time

Colour me (not at all) shocked.

Great job, scumbags. Attacking a children's event. Top drawer.

Roger Hassenforder · 16-04-2019 9:21am

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Hold on hold on -this gets worse-are you saying no garda vetting would be involved ???

Sure its smiley face hilarious the whole thing

11 yr/old drag kid worshiped within LGBTQ community (Mod warning op)

Comments