Some More News - SMN: Are Drag Queens Coming For Your Kids??

Episode Date: June 21, 2023

Hi. In today's episode, we look at the right-wing moral panic surrounding drag queens, the nonsensical laws many states are trying to pass, and the ways in which grifters are trying to use the panic to attack the rights of LGBTQ+ people. Sources: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1qUfo3ZmXkg6gVHsPEGmvjEfpgD-JuK1I6R7GUt4IwjU/edit?usp=sharing  Check out our MERCH STORE: https://www.teepublic.com/stores/somemorenews?ref_id=9949  SUBSCRIBE to SOME MORE NEWS: https://tinyurl.com/ybfx89rh    Subscribe to the Even More News and SMN audio podcasts here: Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/some-more-news/id1364825229  Spotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/6ebqegozpFt9hY2WJ7TDiA?si=5keGjCe5SxejFN1XkQlZ3w&dl_branch=1  Stitcher: https://www.stitcher.com/show/even-more-news   Follow us on social media: Twitter: https://twitter.com/SomeMoreNews  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/SomeMoreNews/  Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/SomeMoreNews/  TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@somemorenews  If you want to take ownership of your health, try AG1 and get a FREE 1-year supply of Vitamin D AND 5 Free AG1 Travel Packs with your first purchase. Go to https://drinkAG1.com/MORENEWS. Go to https://eightsleep.com/MORENEWS and save $150 on the Pod Cover by Eight Sleep. That's the best offer you'll find, but you must visit https://eightsleep.com/MORENEWS for $150 off. Eight Sleep currently ships within the USA, Canada, the UK, select countries in the EU, and Australia.

Turn your music down! Sorry. Also, hi, but mostly sorry. Actually, you know what? It's more hi than sorry. It appears that our new studio has some kind of rave happening upstairs. And like, yes, I'm hip, I smoke doobie blunts and I get down with my bad self. But also, the situation isn't exactly ideal for recording a video about the news, which just so happens to be what we're trying to do right now.

I'm sorry, I'm distracted. I can't stress enough. I'm a rude splooge party dude. But I'm just not sure why our new studio is directly below an ongoing drug jamboree. Like, it has been on all day since 7 a.m. Who even lives up... Oh, my God! Somebody just fell through the ceiling!

Oh, yeah! I'm so numb! Woo, woo, woo! Ha-ha! Spring break! Woo! spring break you felt directly on your neck well cody the neck is the safest place to fall what is what's going on down here what are you doing is all this? You know we got a bachelorette spring break party happening upstairs. Right, so spring break was a while ago. Who got married?

Oh, who cares? I met them all at the club and brought them back to my burner pad. It's just a gaggle of wine moms wearing dick hats. Bachelorette parties are arguably the most destructive force in human history, so naturally I had a party with them. Cool, naturally. Well, listen, could you maybe turn the music down a little bit so we can do this video? It's kind of important. Come on, what are you, the sound police, huh? You the sound police? Because only God can be that. I know, listen, what we have to talk about today is going to affect not just you and me, but all of those wine moms upstairs.

It's worth an hour of keeping the sound down, please. Oh, really? Really? What could possibly affect a group of middle-class wine moms getting their drink on while holding babies? Are drag queens coming for your kids? Just a little lower. Great, thank you. Awesome, okay.

Party on. This is definitely a question. Are drag queens coming to hurt your kids? While a lot of you already know the answer, this is apparently something that a lot of people are asking right now, because here is some of the news. Currently, there are 20 different states considering some new law restricting drag queens

because of a newfound fear that they are either indoctrinating or grooming young kids. Tennessee became the first state to ban public drag performances, with many more bills on the way. Florida is also getting there because of course they are good luck Florida. Florida is the Disney world of states with regressive laws that also happen to have a Disney world inside of it. This new animosity

toward drag was sparked by a lot of bizarre controversy surrounding something called a drag queen story hour in which drag performers read to kids, which is something we will certainly get to in a bit. We're gonna try to cover it all, no holes unstuffed, as they say in the news biz. Yeah, it's the news business, it says so. But we're going to focus mainly on drag shows as opposed to the extremely terrifying escalation of,

oh, I'm not being sarcastic, the extremely terrifying escalation of right-, I'm not being sarcastic, the extremely terrifying escalation of right-wing freaks celebrating Pride Month by clawing at anything rainbow adjacent. Tonight, growing scrutiny on Target after the retail chain announced that it is pulling some products that celebrate Pride Month. And the reason is that there are concerns over employee safety. The company told the Wall Street Journal that over the past decade of selling Pride products around the month of June, it has always received some criticism, but it's taken a more aggressive turn this year. Quote, people have confronted workers in stores, knocked down Pride

merchandise displays, and put threatening posts on social media with videos from inside of the stores. Oh, right. Happy Pride Month. Sorry it's so bleak and embarrassing out there. Sorry that a lot of people have blown their hollow gourds over companies daring to sell adult, tuck-friendly swimwear and sending a few custom beer cans to a trans influencer for TikTok. That's seriously all they did. They just sent her a few cans. Calm down! So yeah, sorry that we've regressed into 80s era homophobia or sometimes even 70s. And if you don't think that's true

and you think that this is simply about concern for children, then I'm actually glad you're watching this right now. You are actually who we want to be watching this. We want this video to be specifically shown to people who are in fact on the fence with this drag show issue. Parents, relatives, friends, parents, you get it. People on the planet generally.

But in order to address these people, we of course have to assume those people are watching in good faith, which means we also have to present this in good faith. And with maybe less swearing, fewer references to unstuffed holes, I guess maybe we'll see. So for example, I'm going to assume in good faith

that anyone actually concerned about Drag Queen Story Hour is actually concerned with protecting kids. That means protecting them from pedophiles or sexual grooming or psychological and physical harm. But again, that desire needs to be in good faith. For example, if you're concerned about drag shows and not the Catholic church, which objectively has a far larger problem with child sex abuse, then I would highly recommend you seek a therapist to talk about why that is exactly, or a priest or whatever. Because another thing we need to agree on here

is that this isn't just about having an objection to LGBTQ people existing or being around children. Because going by just the hard, busty facts, there's no scientific evidence that exposure to or awareness of gay people is harmful to kids in any way. Nor does it, quote, turn them gay. Here's a paper that looked at 72 different studies to find that over 90% of those studies found no link

between the sexual orientations of parents and their kids. I think anyone who has existed in the world long enough probably understands this. There has also been overwhelming evidence that kids with gay parents are just as psychologically stable as any kid. Here's the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry saying that there's absolutely

no difference nor are kids more likely to be LGBTQ themselves with same-sex parents. Here's a similar statement from the Canadian Psychological Association saying that their review of the psychological research showed no difference between children of same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples. And here's a legal brief filed to the Supreme Court and representing the, deep breath,

American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychiatric Association, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, American Psychoanalytic Association, American Academy of Family Psych Physicians, and American Medical Association. We're not doing another take, I got through them. American Academy of Pediatrics,

American Psychiatric Association, American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy, American Psychoanalytic Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, and American Medical Association, ha ha! And those associations and organizations in that Supreme Court brief say, among many things, that being gay isn't a choice,

is a normal expression of human sexuality, doesn't affect children in any negative way, and the only reason to deny gay marriage is out of bigotry. I can keep going, but the point is that being gay isn't inherently harmful. These are just the facts we have. And if they bother you or you don't agree with them,

then there's nothing I or anyone can do for you there. So sorry, best wishes. Good luck being wrong. But if you're still sitting there in your little outfit and watching this, but still are worried about drag shows, then perhaps you don't think of yourself as bigoted or homophobic

and are simply concerned about the issue. Maybe you've never been to a drag show or maybe you see nothing wrong with laws making sure that adult entertainment is seen by adults only. But here's where I need to make another good faith agreement, which is that along with wanting to protect kids, we need to agree that we want to protect freedom

and human rights as well. Obviously, we are not free to harm other people, but there needs to be a burden of proof that the freedom being limited is actually causing harm, right? Because if there isn't that proof, then anyone can ban anything they don't like by lying about what that thing is.

We certainly don't want to ban being gay or any LGBTQ events simply for existing. And it's very important to stress that because the laws being pushed here are directly attacking personal freedoms in ways that are often extremely broad or bizarre or vague or just fucked up. Sorry, I swore.

The dam has broken now. Come, a torrent of come from the broken fucking dam. Let's go back to Tennessee, to that law that was passed, only to have a judge throw it out for First Amendment concerns. The reason why is clear when you read the law, which was trying to ban, quote, adult cabaret performances on public property

or anywhere that could be seen by a kid. And while that sounds reasonable, they define this as topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest. It was tossed because as legal experts explain,

the law was broad in how it defined both entertainment and public property. For example, here's the big drag bus that operates out of Nashville. While they don't allow indecent exposure, that bus is for adults only, but drives down public streets where, in theory, a child could see the bus.

Does that count? They don't know. A non-drag party bus seems like it wouldn't count. So why does it being drag themed make it a threat? Most of these laws function this way, creating a vaguely worded double standard directed only at drag performers. For example, being a cheerleader wouldn't be banned under this law, would it?

They aren't go-go or exotic dancers, but they absolutely are dressed in a way that appeals to a prurient interest. But because a cheerleader isn't also a male or female impersonator, it doesn't apply. It would only apply to a drag queen dressed in a cheerleading outfit. So how is that fair? impersonator, it doesn't apply. It would only apply to a drag queen dressed in a cheerleading outfit.

So how is that fair? If you truly are concerned about children being exposed to sexual content, wouldn't you also ban all cheerleading for anyone under a certain age? I'll give you another extremely clear example of how these laws aren't actually concerned with children, but rather are specifically limiting the rights of gay people.

I want you to meet Bridget Bandit. Bridget is a drag queen. Here's Bridget reading to kids in a much more modest outfit. Bridget is currently fighting against the numerous anti-drag bills happening in Texas. But what's interesting is that, despite being a drag performer,

Bridget is actually in no danger of being hurt by any of the laws Texas has cooked up. Under Senate Bill 12, which limited, quote, sexually oriented performances in public or in front of a child, those performances are defined as a person who is nude or, quote, a male performer exhibiting as a female or a female performer exhibiting as a male who uses clothing,

makeup, or other similar physical markers and who sings, lip syncs, dances, or otherwise performs before an audience and appeals to the prurient interest in sex. So why wouldn't this Bridget Bandit, a drag queen, not need to worry about this law. I will let them explain it. These bills discriminate against people based on sex and not the actual content of performances. The only reason this bill would affect me is that most people assume I am male under this costume and I received the same kind of treatment as any other drag queen. However, the bill would not directly affect me with the way it currently defines drag, as I am someone who is born female

and does drag as a feminine person. That's right, Bridget is AFAB, or rather a person assigned as a female at birth, who is also performing as a female character. She's a chick or a dame to be scientific, and she's doing a chick character. And since this law defines sexual performances as either nude or prurient behavior specifically performed

by someone exhibiting the opposite sex they were born with, Bridget is exempt. She can, if she wanted to, perform sexually suggestive acts in front of kids, so long as she wasn't naked and be fine under this law. So you tell me, does that make sense? Does it make sense that a drag performance can be sexual just as long as it's performed by someone

displaying the perceived sex they were born with? How is that about sexual content or protecting kids? It sure seems like this is less about common sense laws and more like a no homers club. You also might have noticed that most of these bills have ultimately removed the word drag from them. It's similar to a lot of anti-LGBTQ laws in that they know the wording can't be discriminatory

because that's still frowned upon, thank goodness. Or at the very least, it gives pedantic little freaks a way to pretend like the bill isn't actually that bad because it doesn't literally say the thing it does. See, gay, don't say, comma, comma again, bill. Don't say gay bill. But by trying to dance around what they mean, the laws almost immediately fall apart

because of how broadly or confusingly worded they are. For example, in Florida, their anti-drag laws will apply to any quote, adult live performance, which they define as, any show, exhibition, or other presentation in front of a live audience, which in whole or in part, depicts or simulates nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement. Hey, so what does sexual excitement mean there?

If a character says hubba hubba about another character, is that now banned under this law? If the cartoon wolf's eyes pop out at a pretty lady, does that wolf go to jail? It should be noted that this law is going to ban letting anyone under 18 into these performances regardless of parental consent. And as lawmakers have pointed out, this will have some super bizarre side effects. If the Broadway show Hair comes to Florida and there is nudity, a 17-year-old is not allowed

to attend. Is that correct? And they need to check ID at the door. Is that correct? Senator Yarbrough. Thank you, Madam President. If it is an adult live performance, which is any show, exhibition, or other presentation in front of a live audience, and has any of these descriptors, Senator Polsky, then it would apply regardless of what that show, exhibition, or other presentation in front of the live audience is. Right. This law would ban anyone under 18 from seeing any live theatrical performance that depicts in any way sexual conduct. Is that really what we want? To make teenagers not get to see musicals?

What if you have a theater kid? I know that's every parent's nightmare, but certainly you'd want them to go see the thing they're interested in rather than sitting around the house doing improv exercises. You want to live your life with zip zap zop, just echoing through your home?

No, obviously you don't. Do we want our teenagers to have absolutely zero fucking exposure to even the slightest sexual innuendo until they're 18? If your answer is yes, then once again, you should seek counseling from your pervert priest. Because if you are actually interested in protecting kids, if this is seriously about concern for children

in terms of their physical and psychological health, then surely you understand that exposure to sexual themes, as well as sex education and discussions about things like consent, will actually protect your kid from being victimized. Acting like sex doesn't exist until the kid is 18 certainly isn't the way to protect them. And it's literally never been how teenagers work.

Anyone who has been a teenager knows this, at least a cool one. Also, does anyone want seeing a musical to be an act of rebellion? What is this, that Equilibrium movie where art is banned? I mean, I wouldn't say no to the gun kata because I'm really awesome at that. But generally speaking,

I don't wanna exist in a world where Andrew Lloyd Webber is considered contraband. Except for cats, of course. Catraband. This is also very scary when some of these laws are threatening serious legal action if you violate them. In Arizona, for example, they're looking to send anyone

to prison for up to 10 years if they expose kids to an adult-oriented performance or business. And in the original bill, that would include most drag shows, literally any instance where someone would quote, "'Dress in clothing and use makeup "'and other physical markers opposite of the performers "'or group of performers's genders at birth. 10 years in prison.

The broad inclusion of drag was later taken out, but you see how incredibly weird and oppressive these laws are attempting to be. They are, in many cases, a direct attack on drag performers in any context, not to mention the other also direct attacks on drag performances by the Proud Boys, who have posed a serious physical threat to people attending these shows. Seems like if you're going

to a children's book reading looking to beat people up, you might not be there with the interest of safety in mind. So I guess my question to you, and the reason I wanted to begin with these laws, is whether or not this seems worth it. Is the removal of human rights and forcing all kids into this puritanical prison actually protecting them? But I guess the answer depends on what specific danger the kids are in, right? If you really think that drag queens are targeting children, then any law is worth avoiding that.

So let's explore that. Let's look at exactly what harm these drag shows actually inflict on kids. There are a lot of videos and stories floating around the internet. So it's important to actually acknowledge that and address it. But when we do, I want you to remember what's at stake.

Human rights, freedoms, to be specific. It's not really a joking matter. That's Katie. Cody, get up here, there's a dick clown. What's a, what's a dick clown? I'm gonna have to, okay. So we're gonna do some ads while I check out the dick clown and the ads.

Good day. As my grandpa used to say, a gnarled ham is a happy ham. Now, I have no idea what that means, but I've eaten a lot of ham in my day. They used to call me Ham Hole, because that's what my mouth was. But these days, this ham swallower enjoys AG1. Everyone needs vitamins,

but since there's no ham version of vitamins, AG1 is the next best thing. I gave AG1 a try because I was sick of swallowing a bunch of pills every day. AG1 takes all those different supplemental products and hams them into a single drink. A drink I will now drink like a ham. Oink.

Mm, ham it to me, baby. I drink AG1 because it makes me feel healthier when I do these ads. Plus it aids with my gut health, which I need because of all the ham. Every scoop is packed with 75 vitamins, minerals, probiotics, and whole food sourced ingredients. That is so ham. So if you wanna take ownership of your health,

try AG1 and get a free one year supply of vitamin D and five free AG1 travel packs with your first purchase. Go to drinkag1.com slash more news. That's drinkag1.com slash more news. That's drinkag1.com slash more news. And remember, early to ham, early to rise makes a ham. Just one second. And I am sober. It's a secret technique where I drink even more and it circles back around. Hey all, Cody's upstairs hanging out with Dick Clown, which turns out to just be the guy's name. He's pretty cool. Knows a lot about doing taxes. Anyway, I figured I'd give him a break and read the teleprompter for a bit.

But also, this just matters to me. I'm sure a lot of people can relate to the intense frustration and rage felt about this bizarre idea that drag queens and other LGBTQ people are trying to sexually groom children. It's hard to even want to address things like the Libs of TikTok account. There's a reason they were originally banned from Twitter, and that's because they put out a great deal of misinformation and propaganda specifically aimed at LGBTQ people. But since Twitter is now owned by a, let's call him a very divorced man who is specifically mad at trans people, these accounts have been given a voice. Despite people like Libs of TikTok creator Chaya Raychik being a full-blown bigot

who is using a public concern for kids as a way to attack the LGBTQ community. The LGBTQ community has become this cult and it's soating, and it pulls people in so strongly, unlike anything we've ever seen. It's really, really difficult. It's unlike anything we've ever seen, I think. It's extremely poisonous. But do you see a spiritual component to any of this? You don't have to answer that if you don't want. Yeah, I don't know. Well, I do. I do. I don't think this makes sense at all. No, it doesn't make any sense. And I think they're evil. She is just a bigot, guys. This is like 70s style anti-gay fear mongering. And it's weird that anyone would fall for it.

high gay fear mongering. And it's weird that anyone would fall for it. But there is a good chance someone watching might have stumbled across a Libs of TikTok video depicting some drag performer flashing their butts to a room that included a child in it. And perhaps, messenger aside, that still concerned them to see. And that means we have to have that good faith conversation again. Because I need you to remember that the end goal desired by conservatives is to make laws banning kids from attending any drag show. And in some instances, banning all drag in public areas. And honestly, they probably won't stop there. I also need you to remember what it means to avoid harm to children and what is considered ban-worthy in this country. After all, guns cause a great deal of harm to children, but most conservatives do not want a sweeping ban, or in some cases, even embrace

giving guns to kids despite that being a leading cause of death. Everyone has a different line they draw about what is deemed appropriate or safe for their kids. But it's very often the case that this line is drawn unfairly when dealing with LGBTQ content. Because to them, hyper-heterosexuality is normal and somehow non-sexual, but homosexuality is inherently sexual. somehow non-sexual, but homosexuality is inherently sexual. For example, are you also concerned about your kids going to Hooters? Because that's a restaurant literally named after tits. And they have recently created a family-friendly version of their honker brand. So is that any worse or different than drag queens reading to kids in a family-friendly environment? If in both cases the people are covered up and not saying inappropriate things,

then that should be equally acceptable, right? Well, what about belly dancing, which often happens at public places aimed at families? Or how about Mardi Gras, an event known for flashing boobs, advertising specifically for kids to come. Or cruise ships. You can find tons of examples of weird sexual dancing being performed on cruise ships in front of kids. They'll often hold fun best bikini contests for families to watch. Look at that camera. I need you to film the chest hair, the back hair, the shoulder hair. the chest hair, the back hair, the shoulder hair.

Hot, hairy stuff. That's from a best hairy chest competition on a carnival cruise line. And it sure does feature a lot of men dancing suggestively while kids watch and laugh. Is that suddenly inappropriate if you take those same people and dress them in drag? Should there be a law restricting that? What's the difference between Mardi Gras and a pride parade? Seems like this should just be up to the parent, as it has always been. Some parents are fine letting their kids watch gory horror films, for example. Kids go to wrestling events that have both sex and violence and often dangerous levels of awesomeness. If you think pro-wrestling is okay but drag isn't, well, you might want to think about what pro-wrestling is. It's generally not

up to the government to police what parents can and can't bring their kids to see. Conservatives are big fans of parental rights for this reason. There are, of course, exceptions. Like if a principal of a school brought a pole dancer in to perform for kids. The New York Post is probably not alone in pearl clutching over that, but you don't also see them calling for the banning of all pole dancing studios, right? Because that would be silly. And an attack against the First Amendment, as well as our precious pole industry. We need those poles, folks. But despite that very obvious double standard, the narrative right now is that drag is a specific attempt to sexualize kids. But I gotta say, the evidence of that is very flimsy.

Here's one example from the Aspen Hill Library in Rockville, Maryland this summer. If you're a drag queen and you know it, shake your bum. If you're a drag queen and you know it, shake your bum. If you're a drag queen and you know it, and you really wanna show it, if you're a drag queen and you know it, shake your bum. Woo! So the deal always was, do what you want,

just leave the kids out of it, because child molestation is a crime. I don't expect you to know this, Tucker, because I doubt you raised your kids, but there is just an unsettling amount of kids content encouraging them to shake their butts. And if you think that's somehow sexualizing kids, the problem might be you. As others have argued, it's not the drag queens making this about sex, but the people opposing it. And so it's just making this about sex, but the people opposing it. And so it's just so disingenuous to use video like this as evidence for any kind of problem or to say that drag queens are pedophiles or that

they shouldn't be around kids because there is. And I really want you to hear me now. Zero statistical evidence that drag queens are regularly molesting kids. Priests? Oh, oh, there's a ton of evidence for priests. But all this conversation, you may have noticed no one bringing up sweeping evidence of drag performers grooming kids. At most, we get one or two examples in a handful of videos, most of which have nothing to do with drag story hour. For example...

Wow, that looks bad. While it's not exactly a drag show, the video appears to be a bunch of scantily dressed people doing sexual dances in front of babies and parents. It's captioned saying it's specifically targeting babies. Libs of TikTok shared it with the sarcastic, quote, innocent, beautiful, family-friendly entertainment. But of course, none of that is based on what we see in the video or any source saying that. Those are just conclusions by the people sharing the video. Here's Fox News calling it a drag show for babies based on exactly zero information. So here's a wild idea. Let's look into what the video actually is. Turns out that it's from England, so right away, none of the drag laws in the US apply here.

You might have also noticed that there are no kids over a certain age in this video. It's all babies. And that's because what we're looking at is called the Kaba Baba Rave, an adult performance specifically advertised for parents with babies. It's not targeting babies, but parents who want to see a racy show but can't leave their young child at home. It's hosted by two mothers, and to quote their website, we wanted to create the type of event we ourselves as moms would want to go to. There's only so many times you can listen to the fucking wheels on the bus.

We wanted to give parents the experience of a big London night out. Cabaret, drinks, and dancing. But one you can bring your baby to and still be home for bedtime. Is that weird? I mean, yeah, a little. I certainly don't want to go to a brightly lit bondage show performed over the crying of babies at 3 p.m. That honestly sounds like something they'd do at Guantanamo Bay.

But you might notice that this wasn't held by drag queens, but rather new parents. And new parents are pretty fucking weird. A similar event would be stuff like Movies for Mommies, in which films are screened for people with babies. Those films are alsoed for people with babies. Those films are also adult themed. For example, this showing of Magic Mike for parents and babies. That's a movie about stripping and sex. Or here's an article about baby friendly showings of Darren Aronofsky's mother. Not to spoil the film, but there's really no such thing as a baby-friendly screening of that movie. So when you realize the context, it's not exactly a scandal, is it?

Babies, and this is important, don't even register or remember stuff. They're babies. Parents do all kinds of dumb shit while holding babies. Heck, whenever someone hands me their baby, I always try to do at least one dumb thing while holding it. Here's the New York Post acting shocked over baby-friendly bars. But again, despite your views on parents bringing babies to adult events, this footage is not a drag queen story hour at all. This is why all of these videos are so insidious and why I didn't want to address them at all. People tend to react viscerally, even if they're not actually seeing a drag show eventing

at kids. But you can't use these videos to make a case against a story hour or to propose sweeping bans to people's freedom of expression. And if you are, you're participating in propaganda. And if you are, you're participating in propaganda. The people pushing for these bans know this, which is why they've already tried different tactics to convince people that story hours are bad, even if they aren't actually sexual in nature. The academic queer theorists and the people who founded the drag queen story hour movement

have left a trail of evidence in academic papers and manifestos that say the goal is very clear. They want to sexualize children. They want to subvert the middle class family. And they want to basically eliminate what they call the sexual hierarchy in favor of creating a sexual connection between adult and child, which has, of course, long been the kind of final taboo of the sexual revolution. So if you know who Christopher Rufo is, and I mean, actually know him, you already might suspect that he's not exactly being truthful in his accusation that child molestation is baked into the ideology around queer culture. Rufo has spent his career

going after critical race theory and LGBTQ rights, specifically in schools. He's kind of a fucking clown. Not Dick Clown, who is drunk and cool. And his opinion about drag, which you can read here on Fox News, is very wrong. The Rufers actually recognizes that the majority of drag story hours have nothing to do with sex, but claims that the very nature of a man dressed in drag is rooted in an ideology where the end goal is to have sex with kids. However, the only, and I mean only, link to pedophilia in his column is a single essay from the 80s by Gail Rubin called Thinking Sex, Notes for a Radical Theory

of the Politics of Sexuality. He claims the essay discusses a sexual hierarchy in which pedophiles are at the bottom and goes on to say that Rubin's goal was to subvert that hierarchy. He then concludes, advocates of drag queen story hour might reply that these are outlier cases and that So, goal of elevating those at the bottom of the sexual hierarchy, including pedophiles, which cannot be erased by switching the context and softening the language. So that's the accusation. Specifically, that drag as a performance is rooted in the theory that there's a sexual hierarchy where pedophiles exist on the bottom, and the end goal is to elevate people at the bottom of this hierarchy.

and the end goal is to elevate people at the bottom of this hierarchy. So in this scenario, it doesn't matter if the drag story hour is sexual in nature because it's part of a larger agenda to abuse kids. The problem, however, is that Chris Ruffo has no idea what he's talking about. For starters, are drag queens all reading this one essay from the 80s? Does he think being a drag queen is like a secret club with a newsletter they all get in the mail? But more importantly, the Gail Rubin essay that Rufo is referring to does not actually say what he's claiming. Here's that actual essay. We'll put a link in the description.

Go ahead and read it. It's very online. Like Ted Cruz. You might notice that Chris Ruffo doesn't quote directly from it when he claims that Gail supposedly calls for the elevation of pedophiles. And that's because that quote doesn't exist. and then concludes that most of the discourses on sex, be they religious, psychiatric, popular, or political, delimit a very small portion of human sexual capacity as sanctifiable, safe, healthy, mature, legal, or politically correct. The line distinguishes these from all other erotic behaviors, which are understood to be the work of the devil, dangerous, psychopathological,

which are understood to be the work of the devil, dangerous, psychopathological, infantile, or politically reprehensible. Arguments are then conducted over where to draw the line and to determine what other activities, if any, may be permitted to cross over into acceptability. All these models assume a domino theory of sexual peril. The line appears to stand between sexual order and chaos. It expresses the fear that if anything is permitted to cross this erotic DMZ, the barrier against scary sex will crumble and something unspeakable will skitter across. Notice how she's not calling for pedophiles to be allowed past that imagined line. She's simply pointing out how we draw these lines, and then, as a society, we grow concerned that letting any sexual desire across it will open the floodgates.

In other words, she is literally warning against the kind of thing that Rufo is doing by equating drag queens with pedophiles. Seriously, read the fucking essay. It's not a call for pedophilia, but rather an argument against the exact pearl clutching that's happening here. And that's it. The big bad wolf that Rufo is claiming exists is that drag is part of queer theory. And within queer theory, there is an essay from the 80s that talks about how society draws a sexual hierarchy and that perhaps we shouldn't be so strict about penalizing certain, but not all, expressions of sexuality.

That's the smoking gun they have. And it's pathetic. There's just no evidence that drag shows and drag story hour are in any way designed to victimize kids. There just isn't. And so going back to that good faith conversation about human rights and freedom of speech versus ensuring safety for kids, it just doesn't seem like there's enough of a proven threat towards children to justify making

sweeping laws that ban drag shows, is there? Do you see any reason to be making these laws? If you don't, and I changed your mind about this, well, I'm still going to need you to stick with me after the break, because after the break, we are going to talk about why these new laws are not only unjustified, but fucking terrifying. And that starts with the history of drag. But ads first, because as the Bible says, a Katie needs to get her drink on, Ezekiel. Hiya folks, Katie here. Ever since I've moved to the mountains, I've become crepuscular, which means I'm only active during dawn and at dusk. But society has yet to recognize my lifestyle. For one, it's hard to sleep sometimes, and that's why I use the Pod Cover by Eight Sleep.

You know, no matter when you sleep, temperature is often the main reason we wake up before the alarm. But the Pod Cover regulates your temperature all year long, even in winter when I'm able to blend in with the snow during my hunt. It works just like any other fitted sheet, except smarter. It even monitors your health and sleep during the night. Sleep is everything, especially when you have to wake up and protect your territory every day. So having the pod cover to keep you comfortable is very important to me. So go to 8sleep.com slash more news and save $150 on the pod cover by 8sleep. $150 on the pod cover by 8sleep. That's the best offer you'll find, but you must visit 8sleep.com slash more news for $150 off. Wow. 8sleep currently ships within the USA, Canada,

the UK, select countries in the EU and Australia. Woo. Sorry. It was the snow leopard. I was thinking of the snow leopard, not me. I just sleep regular. Sorry. Oh, my. Good. Hey, you guys are still here. Did you know I can write off part of my home if I work from home, which I do? You know, I work from that place. Pandemic stuff, you know, that really, really changed things a lot, you know, changed the world.

You know what? I gotta, hold on a second. No. Oh, there we go. Had to circle back around. Sorry, I was gone. But it looks like Katie did some of the show while I was hanging with the DC.

Before we broke for ads, she discussed the many accusations around drag shows and why they are unfounded. We pointed to an article by Christopher Ruffo who was sopping with misinformation and desperately tried to ideologically link drag to pedophilia. If you noticed, his essay didn't use historical examples

to do that or really any actual facts. That's probably because the actual history and facts of drag doesn't showcase a timeline of child molestation and villainy. And honestly, something tells me that these modern moral panics are purposefully ignoring the historical context of drag for very specific reasons. Because Ruffo was right in saying that drag is rooted

in queer ideology, but not at all for the reasons he claims it to be. Also, you may have noticed that nowhere in this video have we really talked about transgender people as they relate to drag. And that's because while the anti-drag crowd might want to make that link, being a drag queen and being trans

are two completely different things. They will often intersect, but traditionally, drag as a performance was not seen as an expression of transness. There was actually controversy within this community for this very reason, but that is since blown over, it seems.

Point is that drag is, at its core, about entertainment! And historically, the politicization of it has always been thrust on drag queens, as opposed to being something they themselves bring about. To explain that, I'm gonna start in goddamn 1848 when Columbus, Ohio issued a ban on public cross-dressing. Soon after, there were a whole bunch of similar laws in over 40 cities across the United States.

Now, what may surprise you is that at the time, this had nothing to do with drag or being trans, but rather these laws originated because female sex workers would often dress as men to attract customers. These were anti-prostitution laws designed to clean up these areas so that people would want to migrate there and start their own hardware store before reluctantly taking on the role of sheriff and fighting George Hearst.

And because of these laws, there were absolutely instances of cops straight up checking genitals, including the genitals of immigrants coming into the United States. Boy, that's fucked up, right? Thank goodness we don't do anything like that anymore. That would be extremely fucking scary

if we still did that to people. Can you imagine that? Anyway, these were called masquerading laws and didn't just apply to sex work. They were generally laws against people wearing disguises while doing crimes. You know, like if a rabbit dressed like a sexy human to avoid being hunted.

But in the late 1800s, the idea of drag as an expression of queer culture became a larger thing. Mind you, drag has been around since forever. But in America, the first reported drag queen was a former slave named William Dorsey Swan, who would go to jail for hosting drag balls. All William was doing was hanging out with other adults, but his mere existence was deemed a crime. Swan would even ask for a pardon from Grover Cleveland, but it would be denied. The official charge, by the way,

was keeping a disorderly house, because it turns out that broadly worded laws aimed at queer people have been a whole tradition. Awesome, we love tradition. Now, there isn't going to be a time in history where LGBTQ people aren't routinely victimized because America is cool and normal. However, something interesting happened in the early 1900s.

That thing was called vaudeville. Vaudeville, along with burlesque, managed to popularize the concept of drag while very often separating it from LGBTQ culture. There was an odd disconnect that happened here where people enjoyed drag on stage, but not on the street. What's kind of fascinating is that for a while, it was simply respected as a comedic art so long as the public thought it was done by non-gay performers.

Arthur Blake, a drag queen from the 1940s, was able to perform in both gay venues and major stages. He specialized in impersonating female celebrities, something very common with drag performers today. And for that reason, he actually performed as Eleanor Roosevelt at the White House for FDR. Historians seem unwilling to say for sure that he was gay, but his obituary notes that he spent 20 years of his life

in Provincetown, Massachusetts. If you're unaware, Provincetown is, objectively speaking, the gayest place in America. Incidentally, P-Town is also just a very family-friendly vacation spot that, yes, on occasion, hosts Macaulay Culkin vampires, friend of the show. So anyway, it's kind of wild that all the way back in the 1940s, drag was mainstream enough

for the president to enjoy it, and not just this one president. You know, you're really beautiful. No, no, no, not that one. Farther back. Do you think that you can get me into pictures? If you're nice to me, I'll get you on the screen. How about a movie test? Not with hair upon your chest. And now it's time to dance, I'll get you on the screen. How about a movie test? Not with hair upon your chest.

And now it's time to dance, but keep it clean. That's a clip from the 1943 film, This is the Army, in which a bunch of soldiers perform a drag show. And yes, the person opening the curtain at the start of that clip was Ronald fucking Reagan. Big quotes around fucking, because I don't actually think he had sex. It was a very popular film,

the proceeds of which were donated to Army Emergency Relief. Notice how in this clip, no one is screaming about sexual deviancy. That's because it wasn't and isn't a problem, which isn't to say there were zero problems during this time because as we already alluded to, this was all acceptable so long as no one publicly stated that they were gay. Drag, in terms of vaudeville,

was very much a closeted profession. It did, however, shape a lot of modern drag, which is very often a comedy and variety show. But as vaudeville faded away by the 1960s, all that remained was the homophobia. Masquerading laws were used to specifically target LGBTQ people as they hung out in private clubs

and had consensual relationships. And throughout the 60s, the harassment and anger escalated more and more until the sex number year that is 1969, the year of the Stonewall Riot. In the month of June, police raided a gay club in New York called the Stonewall Inn

and arrested 13 people for violating the state's gender-appropriate clothing statute. This wasn't an unusual occurrence. In one of the many fucked up ways that they could just put you in jail for being gay, police regularly raided and targeted drag performers for violating these old laws originally made to catch wascally wabbits. There were, of course, oodles of mistreatments, such as making Queens wash their faces in mop water or spraying down people with hoses. But this time the patrons decided that enough was enough,

hence the riots. This event would immediately be associated with drag as the New York Daily News would run the headline, homo nest raided, queen bees are stinging mad. Boy, they just love their puns. This of course fueled the politicization of drag performances and it was the police who absolutely started it.

All cops are beginners of it, ACAP. After this, the raids winded down, though it would be silly to say they stopped completely. But what Stonewall did was make LGBTQ people realize that in order for them to exist safely, they needed to push back against what the cops were doing. And so as being gay became a little more public, a different tactic had to be formed by the right wing.

This is where we finally get the whole think of the children argument. Stuff like where we finally get the whole think of the children argument. Stuff like the Briggs Initiative in the 1970s, which tried to ban gay teachers from California schools. That was supported by a woman named Anita Bryant, who spearheaded the idea that while she didn't hate gay people, she was simply concerned for them as well as the children. Because if you don't flaunt it, who's going to know you're homosexual or not? You see, what they wanted to do was to flaunt it and to not lose their jobs because of it. If we were going to go on a crusade across the nation and try to do away with the homosexuals, then we certainly would have done it on June the 8th

after one of the most overwhelming victories in the country. Um, uh, but we didn't. We, we, we tried to avoid it and went into a place called Norfolk, Virginia, and were met with protest and, um, um, all kinds of problems. And, uh, every... Oh! I didn't have to show the part where an activist hit her in the face with a pie, but I wanted to. So I did.

Bryant pushed the idea that gay people lived a deviant lifestyle just by being gay alone. And I had to get to her because what she was doing is exactly what people like Christopher Ruffo and Chaya Raychik are doing today. They are trying to argue that being a drag queen is inherently and without the need for proof, deviant. And you can see how in this history lesson,

that belief ebbs and flows depending on how out these performers choose to be. We saw a vaudeville repeat in the 80s and 90s, didn't we? Tootsie, bosom buddies, Mrs. Doubtfire, a lot of non-LGBTQ actors playing queer or drag characters. And of course, it never went away with sketch comedy like Kids in the Hall or Monty Python. Which is why it's so obvious that drag itself isn't a problem. Drag is everywhere. It's an American institution that isn't exclusive

to any specific lifestyle. Very often it's good, clean fun, but other times it can be raunchy and inappropriate. It's not unlike standup comedy in that regard, except no one is out there trying to make standup comedy illegal, right? Despite what Dennis Prager and Adam Carolla might have you believe,

the libocrats aren't banning all jokes. No one is showing a handful of videos of standup comedians telling jokes about their dicks to an audience that happens to have a kid in it, and then using that as proof that they should be banned across the board. And it would be very weird if they started doing that suddenly out of the blue.

Just like it's weird that a bunch of politicians have suddenly decided that drag is this really insidious thing and all these people are suddenly protesting and outraged when, I can't stress this enough, it's never been that way in recent culture. Can't stress this enough, it's never been that way in recent culture. Oh girl, where did you get that wig?

That's a Pepsi ad from 2019 celebrating pride. Don't you think it's odd that people didn't hold a massive boycott of the brand back then? Why didn't Kid Rock shoot a bunch of Pepsi cans? If this is such a big problem, why didn't they care when that ad ran? Heck, Drag Queen Story Hour has been around since 2015. It's almost a decade old.

Don't you think it's strange that people only just started caring about it? What does that say about the people going after this event? What does it say when drag as a profession has been around for longer than America has? If it was resulting in the molestation of kids, you'd think we'd get a ton of stories about drag queens hurting children, some statistics,

but we don't. Instead, we get stories about, let's call it other groups. But of course they don't actually care about kids, nor do they even care about drag. What they actually care about is that drag is a way to empower LGBTQ people specifically. Because not too long ago, they lost the battle to prevent gay people from getting married. And they've been mad about that ever since. And they super fucking hate that drag is being used to teach further acceptance for children.

Because that's all it's actually doing. Author Michelle T. first created Drag Queen Story Hour in San Francisco in 2015. Its goal? To inspire a love of reading while teaching deeper lessons on diversity, self-love, and appreciation of others. Everyone is different and everyone is not bad, said Scooter, who is a turtle. Different is special. So what do you think a drag queen is? A queen of dragons.

A queen of dragons. We really are. We entertain, we lip sync, we are funny. We're like clowns, but prettier. And I get to hang out with people like you. Isn't that awesome? There it is. The big, scary drag queen story hour.

You can watch these things online, you know. And it's just the same hippie ass, self-accepting bullshit we've been teaching kids since forever. That's really it. The kids aren't disturbed. They aren't thinking about sex. They're little kids after all, you freaks. The only way you can make this sexual

is if people start forcing their own anxieties onto it or start, you know, forcing fucking genital checks on them like it's the 1800s again. And see, that's why it's not enough to point out that drag shows are an innocuous form of entertainment that's been rooted in American culture forever, or that accusations about Drag Queen Story Hour are lies. We have to point out that it is our duty as Americans

to reject the idea that these should be banned and vote out anyone who plays into that idea, because I'm not at all inaccurate in comparing this to banning standup comedy, or really any recreational activity that Americans engage in. Jazz, for example. Imagine if we banned jazz because a group of people

decided that it was associated with deviant behavior. Why, geez, that would be exactly what the Nazis did in the early 1930s. Am I calling the people making anti-drag laws Nazis? Not exactly. I'm more specifically calling them Nazis in the early 1930s because banning entertainment is without question a clear sign of authoritarian leanings.

How could it not be? And so pushing aside your personal feelings on drag shows, you, the any person watching this, should be furious that our government would, on any level, play with the idea of banning any artistic expression over some flimsy fear that it will upset someone. If you believe in freedom, then that's something you should reject

with every fiber of your being. You should be sickened over the fact that in this month, there's a very real danger for people who simply want to celebrate who they are and the fact that who they are doesn't hurt anybody. Banning drag is no different than banning theater or sports or comedy or any other activity you might have grown up with.

Because there are people out there who grew up with drag, just like you grew up with barbecues or watching sports or going to the drive-in theater or going bowling or fingering at the drive-in theater after going bowling. Many people who work on this show have gone to drag shows or had drag shows at their high schools. They've grown up with gay mentors or family. For a huge part of the country,

LGBTQ culture and drag are just American ways of life. Pride is an American celebration and it's been in the mainstream for a while now. RuPaul's Drag Race alone has existed since 2009. It's never been a problem before. And so imagine how you would feel if something that you grew up with, something that is perfectly normal to you,

that didn't hurt you, was suddenly being banned and called immoral because that's what's happening. An American art form is being criminalized because of the people who engage in that activity, otherwise known as fascism. It's fascist, not in the hyperbolic way, but in a way that exerts strong autocratic or dictatorial control over a group of people in this country, because they won't stop here. Of course they won't.

A new bill proposed could ban the pride flag from being flown outside of government buildings. Now a Wilton Manors commissioner is expressing his concerns. Right. See, by banning drag in public events, they are by extension banning pride parades, and that still won't be enough for them. We know this because every time they claim that's the case, they keep pushing for more and more restrictions. In this case, more and more ways to make being gay illegal. And as we've seen from history, this very often starts with drag. Should wearing dresses and skirts be illegal

for men in public? If so, should wearing pants for women be illegal in public? Well, pants not so much because there is a female version of pants that is nearly indistinguishable in many cases from male pants. But men wearing traditional female clothing in public, I think that there's a case that local community should be able to stop that.

Does it seem reasonable to police what people wear on the streets? Can't stress it enough, it was never about the kids. The people making or supporting these laws and spreading this fear have always done it because they simply hate and or fear gay people. That's it. And if they start with this false concern for kids,

they know they can slowly push the boundary more and more. Matt Walsh isn't happy just getting rid of story hour. He's now calling for people to go to jail for any drag event because that was always the logical conclusion. And what's disturbing is that they've somehow gotten even more puritanical over the years. Genital checking, anti-cross-dressing laws. This is shit from the 1800s. Do you really want to keep going down that path? Do you really want to let Christian fundamentalists

dictate their morals on everyone else? Because this country was specifically founded, so things like that wouldn't happen. Is that really worth it, even if you don't like drag? But also, why the hell don't you like drag? I know there are a million other better points we've made, but drag and pride events are a blast. It's something that everyone should experience

at least once. In fact, hey, Dick Clown, hit me with that party magic. Dick Clown is also a gay cleric. Perfect. I'm beautiful now. You knew you wanted this when you started watching the video and you got it. And I feel great,

except I'm not used to the tucking part, which I now realize I didn't need to do because you only see my torso. Anyway, happy goddamn Pride Month. Once again, I'm sorry that America is failing the LGBTQ community and letting fascists dictate our lives. They won't stop at drag shows or even LGBTQ people.

It will keep going for as long as people let them. And so thank you to all the drag queens out there who are once again on the front lines of this. They deserve support from everyone. Everyone should be furious. Everyone should want every single lawmaker making or proposing these laws to be removed from office and for everyone pushing this weird anti-drag stuff

to be exposed for the fascist they are. You should want to fight this. You gotta fight for your right to par 10. Oh my God! She just fell through the ceiling again, but like a different part of the ceiling. Yeah, smoke one, yeah. And she's puking. So much puke.

I still feel beautiful though. Even with so much puke filling the room. You don't know about my mistress. Oh! Ah! It's everywhere. She's getting it all mixed up with the corn cream. I don't even know what's what anymore. I'm hungry. Well, you ruined the meal by puking on it.

The corn cream was everywhere ready for you. Mmm, corn cream. Okay, you're definitely drunk. Hello! Hello. That's from Hook. Thanks for watching the video. Make sure to like and subscribe and leave a nice comment. My turn.

We love nice comments. We love you liking, subscribing. We like it when you listen to our podcast even more news and my turn we also have this show some more news as a podcast if you prefer the audio to the audio visual we also have a patreon if you are into that kind of thing we sure are thank you hit in a column slash some more news and uh, uh... We have merch. Merch! With a wormbow on stuff and other things on that stuff. Other things on that, including our catchphrase that is also a truth is that we love you very much.

Much. And the end. I think we did a good job here. Hello!