Before moving onto Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH), I will briefly go over a little bit of history involving drag, the sexual revolution, gender theory, and some studies to give more information about crossdressers and/or drag queens in part 1. Feel free to skip to part 2 if you only want information on DQSH.
Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) is just what it sounds like—drag queens reading stories to children in libraries, schools, and bookstores. DQSH captures the imagination and play of the gender fluidity of childhood and gives kids glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models. In spaces like this, kids are able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions and imagine a world where people can present as they wish, where dress up is real.
PART 1
The curious phenomenon of men dressing in drag in imitation of women started many centuries ago. Female roles were played by men or boys in ancient Greek theater and English Renaissance theater.
There are, however, some Spanish examples of females dressing as men as early as the 16th century. And in time it wasn't unusual to see males playing females and females playing males. Whether out of convenience or to enhance a role in a particular way (for example, it's very common for females to voice act for young male roles in animation or radio shows). Now the majority of visible acting roles appear to have the sex of the actor conforming with that of the character.
Women were exempted from most early theater because these performances were considered "unbecoming" of a woman or it was proscribed against, and there often was not any political aspect to cross-gender acting roles once there was more freedom in casting from both sexes.
If a child were to witness cross-gender acting, the parent would simply explain the peculiarity of the situation. There was no confusion about identity, sex, gender, etc. It's not really a concern. However, the sexual revolution further normalized promiscuity, transvestitism, pornography, homosexuality, transgenderism, and various other behaviors or activities. A small body of intellectuals also went a step beyond the logic of transgenderism with it's focus on binary and deconstructed or marginalized sex as a concept using the fairly modern linguistic term known as gender—leading to the concept of non-binary.
Judith Butler is an example of a theorist who writes tedious books on gender theory, and is a popular figure who emphasizes the subjective category of gender (as opposed to the biological and objective category of sex) to deconstruct it.
From Judith Butler's Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity (1999, pg. xxviii of the preface):
But how can an epistemic/ontological regime be brought into question? What best way to trouble the gender categories that support gender hierarchy and compulsory heterosexuality? Consider the fate of “female trouble,” that historical configuration of a nameless female indisposition, which thinly veiled the notion that being female is a natural indispositionShe doesn't want to "trouble the gender categories"—rather, she'd like to destroy them, seeing as she says they support gender hierarchy and compulsory heterosexuality. She wishes to be free of any kind of structural norms that pertain to gender and/or sex. Hierarchy is viewed as oppressive, but because of sexual dimorphism there will necessarily be differences between the sexes that will naturally promote a hierarchy.
Now sexuality is more heavily promoted through the media and pornography is very easily available. Because of this more sexualized world, people tend to be more promiscuous, at increasingly younger ages, and illegitimate births are a serious problem. Instead of any kind of abstinence program or having the parents handle the issue of sexuality, teachers are teaching sexual education classes at younger ages, not to mention they're also modifying the education to emphasize "safe pleasures" and the intricacies of homosexuality, transgenderism, and sexual identity. Even if the safest and healthiest option, physically and psychologically would be abstinence until marriage, or at least one long-term monogamous partner, sexual education is all about "safe sex", with no concern about statistics that would make the student more cautious and prudent when approaching sex (or abstaining). Promiscuity is presented as being perfectly fine as long as you do it safely.
And it's no wonder that experts say abstinence-based education is not effective. Parents are busy and increasingly both of them work. Children now come from broken families more than ever. The internet and TV are oozing with sexuality. Children are even sexualized on TV. Abstinence worked well in the past because the culture was different. Now it's a meager prophylactic for this transmogrified culture we presently experience.
In Europe, some countries teach children about sexuality before kindergarten. It's of course debatable when children should be taught and what they should be taught. The results typically reported from the Netherlands are positive from what I've seen (I'll probably eventually do a post on this topic as well). Certainly their illegitimate and underage pregnancy rates are lower than the U.S. Granted, it's not an entirely fair comparison because of demographic differences.
An attempt to provide a modicum of information about the crossdressing population:
According to Docter and Prince (1997):
Our subjects were 1032 self-defined periodic cross-dressers, all of whom were biological males, ranging in age from 20 to 80. This volunteer nonrandom sample was acquired from throughout the United States by announcements at transvestite club meetings, conventions of cross-dressers, and in magazines and newsletters for cross-dressers. Nearly all subjects received the self-responsive survey form at one of these events; a small percentage were mailed to individuals who volunteered to participate. An unknown number of survey forms were reproduced by support groups and distributed to interested members. Our best estimate of the overall response rate is that roughly 30 to 35% were completed and returned. The data were collected over a 2-year span ending in 1992. All participation was anonymous. None of the subjects had any clinical relationship with either of the investigators. Geographically, all subjects were from the United States; while nearly all sections of the country are represented, the proportion drawn from larger cities is overrepresented. Probably this is because the largest transvestite support groups tend to be located in the biggest metropolitan areas.
There's a common belief that most transvestites are homosexual, but as this study demonstrates, more of them actually identify as heterosexual (there is still a distinction between homosexual behavior and how one reports their sexual orientation, however). There's still a higher rate of reported sexual encounters with men than would be found in the general male population—and typically more aberrance in terms of identity. This sample may not be an accurate representation because of certain groups not being included and the age range is trending toward old rather than young—it's also non-random, meaning the subjects are drawn from cross-gender-specific clubs, organizations, and magazine readers. For groups, we can make the distinction between a crossdresser, which would be the average person who crossdresses for whatever reason; there's also the drag queen (they even mention this particular group is not represented), who dresses in drag with the intention of entertainment, usually in front of an audience, at a club, or even on television.
Docter and Prince, again:
Docter and Prince, again:
The present sample reported 60% married, down 4% from Prince and Bentler's group. Compared to the earlier study, we had more subjects who were married at some tune (83 vs. 78%) but fewer who had fathered children (69 vs. 74%); this may well be a reflection of greatly expanded use of birth control alternatives. In both studies high percentages said they had been raised by both parents (76 vs. 82%), the father provided a "good masculine image" (76 vs. 72%), and that they had nearly all been raised "just as a boy" (86 vs. 83%).
Sexual and cross-dressing variables contrasting the two studies are summarized in Table II. As expected, the present sample is characterized by a strong preponderance of heterosexuals as was seen in 1972 (87 vs. 89%). The only comparatively large difference in sexual orientation is seen for a small subset who report themselves to be either "asexual or unsure" (5 vs. 1%). We found almost the same percentage as did Prince and Bentler for previous homosexual experience (29 vs. 28%). However, our subjects were much more likely to say they have a below average interest in having sex with women (26 vs. 14%). The two samples are quite different concerning the age reported for the onset of cross-dressing. The 1992 sample has a greater percentage reporting the initiation of cross-dressing before age 10 (66 vs. 54%) and a lower percentage starting after age 20 (5 vs. 8%).
Sexual excitement and orgasm have been linked with cross-dressing from the earliest clinical reports. Forty percent of the 1992 group said sexual excitement and orgasm were nearly always or often experienced with cross-dressing. Only 9% said this was "never" the case. This question was not included in the 1972 survey, nor was a question concerning the wearing of "feminine items when orgasm is not feasible." This non-orgasmic pleasure is acknowledged by 90% of our subjects as an occasional or more frequent accompaniment of cross-dressing.
It is noteworthy that only 26% report having used ladies' restrooms.
Compared to the 1972 findings, a small percentage of our subjects are more likely to appear in public cross-dressed on a frequent basis (14 vs. 8%), and an even greater difference is seen for "occasionally" venturing out in public (48 vs. 23%). This apparent change in public participation may be one of the most important differences compared to the Prince and Bentler results. Virtually all statutes making it illegal for men to cross-dress in public have been invalidated over the past two or three decades.
There appears to be pervasive guilt associated with transvestism, for we found three quarters of our subjects reported a "purge" of their feminine attire at some time in their history (75 vs. 69%). This is invariably described as a product of intense feelings of wrongdoing and shame. There was little change in the awareness of wives concerning this activity (83 vs. 80%), but a greater percentage of the wives are said to be "completely accepting" (28 vs. 23%). The present subjects are also more inclined to inform their prospective wives about their cross-dressing before marriage (32 vs. 27%). Taken as a whole, we see many differences between the two samples, although the percentages for most variables in the two studies tend to be within a few points.
Although about three-fourths of the present sample characterize them-selves as "a man with a feminine side" (74 vs. 69%), we found an increase in the subgroup that feels like "a woman trapped in a man's body" (17 vs. 12%). Conversely, a small percentage of the present subjects attributed their cross-dressing to "fetishism" (9 vs. 12%). When asked about their preferred gender identity, the 1992 group differed markedly from the Prince and Bentler findings. Sixty percent of our group said they preferred the masculine and feminine self "equally" (compared to 12%). The masculine self was awarded very low preference (11 vs. 29%), and the preference for the feminine self was far less than in 1972 (28 vs. 56%). We discuss this later.
The use of female hormones is one of the persistent topics in the cross-dressing magazines of today. In view of the apparent high interest in this topic, it is surprising that only 5% of our subjects say they have ever used these hormones (vs. 4% earlier). Only 4% (vs. 5%) say they are using female hormones now, while nearly half of the present sample reported having no interest in using these hormones (48 vs. 41%). A strong percentage (43 vs. 50%) would like to use female hormones but they are not doing so at present.
...This may, in part, be related to the fact that 72% said that they linked their cross-dressing, at least occasionally, with sexual arousal and orgasm; 21% said their cross-dressing was always paired with orgasm, while 9% said this was never the case, and 19% said it was rarely so.
According to surveys, homosexuality was much more accepted in the late 1990s and the early 2000s than it was in 1990-1992. One survey indicated that 70.7% said homosexual relationships (relationships—not marriage) was "always wrong" and only 14.5% said it was "not wrong at all" (averaged to get both sets of numbers).
Perceptions at the time may have left some of the men uncomfortable addressing their homosexuality or transvestitism through a survey. However, the results of both the 1972 and 1992 data were interestingly similar, though some of the percents were trending higher in 1992 as a result of relaxed laws and small shifts in public perceptions, as well as more organizations catering to this population. While surveys are anonymous many people are very cautions even in these instances.
Additionally, some studies suggest crossdressers report different sexual orientation depending on whether they are crossdressed versus not crossdressed and a higher rate of past sexual encounters with men. So it must be noted that mere orientation as casually reported doesn't tell as much as we might often think it does.
Though it is important to remember per capita. In some instances homosexuals are overrepresented (it's difficult to tell how much due to a lack of solid polling or survey data on how large this population is but it's unlikely to be over 1-2%). Future studies should consider sexual orientation when crossdressing and not crossdressing as well.
The primary purpose of going over some general information on crossdressing is to ascertain characteristics of crossdressers who are interacting with children. It's not clear how much any of this data generalizes to the drag queens who are part of DQSH—they might differ from other crossdressers in important ways, seeing as not only do they "entertain", but they also are presumably handpicked to influence children.
For further reading, Reisbig (2007), lists these as part of a review:
Regarding demographics, most men who crossdress tend to have a heterosexual orientation (Buckner, 1970; Buhrich & Beaumont, 1981; Buhrich & McConaghy, 1976; Bullough & Bullough, 1997; Bullough, Bullough, & Smith, 1983; Docter & Fleming, 1993; Freund et al., 1982; Peo, 1988; Prince & Bentler, 1972), are married or have been married previously (Buckner, 1970; Buhrich & McConaghy, 1976; Docter & Fleming, 1993; Docter & Fleming, 2001; Docter & Prince, 1997; Prince & Bentler, 1972; Wise & Meyer, 1980; Zucker & Blanchard, 1997), are welleducated (Docter & Fleming, 1993; Docter & Fleming, 2001; Docter & Prince, 1997), and have higherstatus jobs (Bullough et al., 1983; Prince & Bentler, 1972). In reference to gender identity, crossdressing men tend to identify as having a masculine gender identity except for when fully crossdressed (Peo, 1988) and as being men “with a feminine side” (Bullough et al, 1983, p. 251).
RADAR Productions and Michelle Tea founded DQSH in 2015. It began within San Francisco Public Library, but was adopted by Brooklyn Public Library in 2016—yet the growth didn't stop there: according to the event section of the website, they have at least 35 chapters (on DQSH website there are 42 individual entries with an email) spread across the united states—4 of them are even located outside of the U.S.: Japan, Germany, Sweden, and Puerto Rico. Aside from libraries, they also host events at schools and museums. These events also have had some degree of exposure within Canada and the UK as well. Many events draw in 100-500 people at a time and are regularly being hosted.
Many screenshots of events and drag queens can be found on the official DQSH Instagram.
Michelle Tea is an author who runs a feminist book press and defines herself as a "queer woman." Her literature often focuses on topics of queer-culture, race, class, feminism, prostitution, etc. She was a co-founder of Sister Spit in 1994, founder of RADAR Productions in 2003 (Tea left the organization in 2015 and was replaced by Juliana Delgado Lopera), Mutha Magazine in 2013, and Drag Queen Story Hour in 2015 in San Francisco. She is married to a Jewish woman named Dashiell Lippman and has one child.
(SIDE NOTE: It should be noted there's no evidence Michelle Tea is Jewish, though I've seen a few blogs or other sources make the claim without any evidence. Her spouse, Lippman, is mentioned to be Jewish by Tea. She makes note that her son will be part Jewish because of the sperm donor being Jewish, not because of her ethnicity. She does seem to be philo-semitic based on some of her articles and information I've provided below, has openly said she's not Jewish, and there really seems to be no reason she wouldn't just admit to being Jewish if she actually was, given everything I've seen. It is possible she has some Jewish heritage she's not aware of, but I don't believe she's lying; Tomasik is a Polish name, sometimes possessed by Jews, but the name itself doesn't confirm anything. all of this information can be obtained from her xoJane articles with Wayback Machine. I would have included convenient direct links, but I didn't feel it was important to mention or provide until I saw the claims by other writers during my research; if requested, I can dig everything up).
A rather odd piece about her issues getting pregnant can be found in the Wayback Machine:
I've noticed a trend of lesbians seeking out gay sperm donors. In the case of Tea, she sought out a gay man through a friend for the role of inseminator. Others head down the more formal path of a sperm bank, should their country condone impregnating lesbians. But even at sperm banks, it seems that lesbians often prefer "gay" sperm, according to Pride Angel, wherein they report on the "increasing demand by both lesbian and single women for 'gay sperm donors'."
Searches for "co-parenting" will primarily lead to websites focusing on divorced or separated parents, but this phrase has taken on a new spin after being appropriated by homosexuals.
The reason for this digression is to take note of how homosexuals seek out other homosexuals either for insemination or co-parenting, both of which reasonably lead to the propagation of more homosexuality. Scientists tend to be divided on how much environment and genetics contribute to homosexual behavior, but most agree that both are contributing factors, with some weighing one as being more contributive over the other. Not only do homosexuals hope to replicate their behaviors by non-genetic means through asserting more influence on school and media, as well as the direct shaping of a child through adoption, lesbians also commonly prefer the sperm of people more like themselves. More homosexuals means more power to them as a demographic, and a steeper decline into chaos and liberalism.
Giving any of these undue rights or privileges to homosexuals and pretending homosexual "couples" are of equal value to heterosexual couples leads, indeed, to a slippery slope, which is not at all a fallacy. It was not long after gay marriage was accepted that various other LGBT issues such as transgender reassignment surgery for children and Drag Queen Story Hour became the norm.
Back to Tea's article:
Perceptions at the time may have left some of the men uncomfortable addressing their homosexuality or transvestitism through a survey. However, the results of both the 1972 and 1992 data were interestingly similar, though some of the percents were trending higher in 1992 as a result of relaxed laws and small shifts in public perceptions, as well as more organizations catering to this population. While surveys are anonymous many people are very cautions even in these instances.
Additionally, some studies suggest crossdressers report different sexual orientation depending on whether they are crossdressed versus not crossdressed and a higher rate of past sexual encounters with men. So it must be noted that mere orientation as casually reported doesn't tell as much as we might often think it does.
In their cross-cultural study, Buhrich and Beaumont (1981) asked subjects to indicate their sexual orientation when they were dressed as males and when they were dressed as females: 87% of an American sample said they were exclusively heterosexual when they were dressed as men but only 52% were exclusively heterosexual when cross dressed. Similarly, an Australian sample went from a 72% heterosexual orientation in men's clothing to a 56% heterosexual orientation in women's clothing. Homosexual fantasies or actual homoerotic activities are clearly a part of the cross-dressing sceneWhich leads one to assume that part of the fantasy of crossdressing may lead to a modification of the subject's sexual orientation. The sample was narrowed down to include 86 Australians and 126 Americans. Bullough and Bullough go on to discuss their own data—a sample of 368 crossdressers—yielding the result of 67.4% heterosexual, 10.6% bisexual, 2.4% homosexual, and 19.6% either asexual/or not currently sexual. The questionnaires were sent through a national cross-dressing organization. Unfortunately, the sample isn't as impressive as the Docter and Prince study. Depending on the methodology it's possible to find a higher rate of non-heterosexual crossdressers and/or aberrant behaviors, but the typical trend has more subjects identifying as heterosexual.
Though it is important to remember per capita. In some instances homosexuals are overrepresented (it's difficult to tell how much due to a lack of solid polling or survey data on how large this population is but it's unlikely to be over 1-2%). Future studies should consider sexual orientation when crossdressing and not crossdressing as well.
The primary purpose of going over some general information on crossdressing is to ascertain characteristics of crossdressers who are interacting with children. It's not clear how much any of this data generalizes to the drag queens who are part of DQSH—they might differ from other crossdressers in important ways, seeing as not only do they "entertain", but they also are presumably handpicked to influence children.
For further reading, Reisbig (2007), lists these as part of a review:
Regarding demographics, most men who crossdress tend to have a heterosexual orientation (Buckner, 1970; Buhrich & Beaumont, 1981; Buhrich & McConaghy, 1976; Bullough & Bullough, 1997; Bullough, Bullough, & Smith, 1983; Docter & Fleming, 1993; Freund et al., 1982; Peo, 1988; Prince & Bentler, 1972), are married or have been married previously (Buckner, 1970; Buhrich & McConaghy, 1976; Docter & Fleming, 1993; Docter & Fleming, 2001; Docter & Prince, 1997; Prince & Bentler, 1972; Wise & Meyer, 1980; Zucker & Blanchard, 1997), are welleducated (Docter & Fleming, 1993; Docter & Fleming, 2001; Docter & Prince, 1997), and have higherstatus jobs (Bullough et al., 1983; Prince & Bentler, 1972). In reference to gender identity, crossdressing men tend to identify as having a masculine gender identity except for when fully crossdressed (Peo, 1988) and as being men “with a feminine side” (Bullough et al, 1983, p. 251).
PART 2
To begin with, here is a description of what Drag Queen Story Hour events are like directly from the official website:
Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) is just what it sounds like—drag queens reading stories to children in libraries, schools, and other community spaces. Most events are 45 minutes and designed for children ages 3-8, though this may vary by location or event. A drag queen generally reads 3-4 children’s books, sings children’s songs, and leads children in a craft activity such as making crowns, wands, or paper bag puppets, or sometimes other activities like face painting or dress-up time. Through a fun and fabulous literary experience, DQSH celebrates learning and play, encouraging kids to celebrate gender diversity and all kinds of difference, while building confidence in expressing themselves. Some cities also offer other kinds of DQSH programming for kids and teens of all ages.
Many screenshots of events and drag queens can be found on the official DQSH Instagram.
In the events section, there are 30 events listed from July 11 to September 22. The age range of the children who attend these events vary, but some events are advertised for children 3 to 8 years old, while others are for an older audience, such as 12 to 18 years old. Many of the events involve story time, with drag queens reading to children, but other events include makeup lessons and tips on fashion. From videos it can be seen that many of the drag queens lip synch to music and dance.
Michelle Tea is an author who runs a feminist book press and defines herself as a "queer woman." Her literature often focuses on topics of queer-culture, race, class, feminism, prostitution, etc. She was a co-founder of Sister Spit in 1994, founder of RADAR Productions in 2003 (Tea left the organization in 2015 and was replaced by Juliana Delgado Lopera), Mutha Magazine in 2013, and Drag Queen Story Hour in 2015 in San Francisco. She is married to a Jewish woman named Dashiell Lippman and has one child.
(SIDE NOTE: It should be noted there's no evidence Michelle Tea is Jewish, though I've seen a few blogs or other sources make the claim without any evidence. Her spouse, Lippman, is mentioned to be Jewish by Tea. She makes note that her son will be part Jewish because of the sperm donor being Jewish, not because of her ethnicity. She does seem to be philo-semitic based on some of her articles and information I've provided below, has openly said she's not Jewish, and there really seems to be no reason she wouldn't just admit to being Jewish if she actually was, given everything I've seen. It is possible she has some Jewish heritage she's not aware of, but I don't believe she's lying; Tomasik is a Polish name, sometimes possessed by Jews, but the name itself doesn't confirm anything. all of this information can be obtained from her xoJane articles with Wayback Machine. I would have included convenient direct links, but I didn't feel it was important to mention or provide until I saw the claims by other writers during my research; if requested, I can dig everything up).
A rather odd piece about her issues getting pregnant can be found in the Wayback Machine:
Oh my god oh my god oh my god! I had my donor! A 20-something, adorable, attractive, artistic, intelligent, politically conscious, super funny gay boy! Who is also Jewish -- bonus! I don’t know why Jewish should be a bonus actually, but it just feels special, right? Everyone knows Jewish people are special. My gay Jewish baby is going to be totally amazing!The donor also happens to be a drag queen, known as Miss Super Extra Deluxe Pandemonium who hosts "drag Bat Mitzvahs."
I've noticed a trend of lesbians seeking out gay sperm donors. In the case of Tea, she sought out a gay man through a friend for the role of inseminator. Others head down the more formal path of a sperm bank, should their country condone impregnating lesbians. But even at sperm banks, it seems that lesbians often prefer "gay" sperm, according to Pride Angel, wherein they report on the "increasing demand by both lesbian and single women for 'gay sperm donors'."
Their study looked at the number of recipients looking for gay men from their database of over 4500 members. Of the 4500 members 64% are women looking for ‘sperm donors’, with only 16% registered as ‘sperm donors’. This shows a huge shortage in the number of willing donors, compared to the demand. They found that of those recipients who requested ‘looking for’ in their profile, 51% are looking for a ‘gay single man’, with 31% looking for a ‘gay couple’. In contrast, of the registered sperm donors only 23% record themselves as ‘gay’ within their profiles. 53% of sperm donors request ‘looking for’ a single woman, with 33% ‘looking for’ a lesbian couple to donate to.The owner of the website suggests gay men might be perceived as more sensitive or caring, but their suitability for co-parenting may be a reason for specifying a preference. Co-parenting is a concept that doesn't necessarily refer to divorced parents as one would expect, but a joint relationship centered around child rearing without any romance between the two parties. One example coparents.com uses is a gay couple pairing with a lesbian couple.
Searches for "co-parenting" will primarily lead to websites focusing on divorced or separated parents, but this phrase has taken on a new spin after being appropriated by homosexuals.
The reason for this digression is to take note of how homosexuals seek out other homosexuals either for insemination or co-parenting, both of which reasonably lead to the propagation of more homosexuality. Scientists tend to be divided on how much environment and genetics contribute to homosexual behavior, but most agree that both are contributing factors, with some weighing one as being more contributive over the other. Not only do homosexuals hope to replicate their behaviors by non-genetic means through asserting more influence on school and media, as well as the direct shaping of a child through adoption, lesbians also commonly prefer the sperm of people more like themselves. More homosexuals means more power to them as a demographic, and a steeper decline into chaos and liberalism.
Giving any of these undue rights or privileges to homosexuals and pretending homosexual "couples" are of equal value to heterosexual couples leads, indeed, to a slippery slope, which is not at all a fallacy. It was not long after gay marriage was accepted that various other LGBT issues such as transgender reassignment surgery for children and Drag Queen Story Hour became the norm.
Back to Tea's article:
To get accidentally pregnant! Something I lived in mortal fear of -- until I lezzed out, but even then when I was a hooker, and then again later when I got all bisexual.
Michelle Tea: “I’m constantly trying to queer my relationship with him and get him to wear tutus, but he hates it. He’s just like, ‘No.’”
Yeah, I'm sure things are going to go great for this kid with his kooky gender non-conforming lesbian parents, one of whom was formerly a hooker (amongst all the other weirdness you cab find on her xoJane articles). One would think trying to put a tutu on a boy would be gender conforming, but I guess they boil it down to a boy dressing in drag and non-conforming? It's all so wishy-washy and inconsistent.
Tea’s solution, called Drag Queen Story Hour, introduces elements of gender bending and camp. “I have long thought that drag queens need to be the performers at children’s parties, rather than magicians or clowns,” she said. “Drag has become more mainstream. Kids might have seen one on a billboard or on TV.”
She runs a webzine called Mutha Magazine. Here's an example:
Of course, I would like my daughter very much to be aware of race. She is white, she should know what this means in terms of privilege and power. “The Transracially Adopted Children’s Bill of Rights,” by adoptee Liza Steinberg Trigges includes this rule: “Every child is entitled to parents who know that if they are white, they experience the benefits for racism because the country’s system is organized that way.”
RADAR is a Bay Area queer literary arts organization creating and supporting a community of queer artists through commissioning, developing and presenting ground-breaking literary work. Our programs include SHOW US YOUR SPINES a monthly residency with the Hormel Center at the SFPL; The legendary Sister Spit tour and a yearly literary and visual arts collaboration with local community spaces.
As if the taxpayers funding public school propaganda wasn't enough, they also have to fund public libraries that peddle nonsense about gender expression and identity, diversity and inclusion, transgenderism, and assorted LGBT-oriented content, all while dressed in hideous, gaudy drag—sometimes their accoutrements resembling demons more than caricatures of women.
_810_500_75_s_c1.jpg)
An interview with Mor Erlich (who relocated from New York to Israel in 1996) on Mutha Magazine addresses the creation of The Dragtivity Book, a collaboration between Sez Me and DQSH, which is advertised on the DQSH website and is sometimes part of DQSH activities. He is also the creator of Sez Me, an LGBTQ+ website featuring colorful videos with drag queens and children. Additionally, he is responsible for advocacy promoting trans visibility, gender fluidity, and inclusivity through drag work shops with NY youth.
 |
| Mor and Duy (the 7-year-old). |
A few months later I met Mor Erlich, the creator of Sez Me, at the Gender and Family Project’s holiday party and we immediately knew we wanted to work together. We were both creating children’s programming hosted by drag queens, and we both regularly got asked the same kinds of questions—How do I explain drag to my five-year-old? What pronouns should I use for the drag queen? What if my child has questions that I don’t know how to answer? Mor suggested we collaborate on an activity book to help kids and adults explore drag, gender, and identity together, and within a month he had written and illustrated the whole book. We self-published the first edition of The Dragtivity Book in time for Pride 2018.
In the twenty-page coloring and activity book, Hello Mellow, the animated egg-like host of Sez Me, gets into drag as Sonya Side Up, giving kids an inside look at what it means to be a drag queen. Starting out with the question, “What is a drag queen?” and offering a few suggestions based on things actual kids have said at DQSH events—“a cross between a dragon and a queen?”—Hello Mellow goes on to define drag as “a character you create to express your feminine side, or any other side of yourself you would like to explore” and invites kids to “decorate this female symbol to celebrate your favorite female role models.” Through simple activities such as “circle your pronouns” and “find your drag name,” The Dragtivity Book introduces kids to gender identity and gender fluidity in a way that is easy for them—and the adults in their lives—to grasp. Drag queens themselves love the book because it is so real about drag: “My room gets very messy when I get into drag. It’s time to clean up!”Erlich recounts a story about discussing his transition with a 7-year-old child. The boy is puzzled about whether or not this confused man is going to be a man or a woman, and about what his pronouns are or will be. It seems to have troubled Erlich that this young boy was posing his questions in a binary form of man and woman. It occurred to him that the bulk of people were unfamiliar with gender fluidity and "the other options on the spectrum that you could be". Erlich realized that explaining the birds and the bees and body parts to a 7-year-old should be left up to the discretion of the parents, but he concurrently thinks of a way that he could explicate this in a kid-friendly fashion and supplant the parent—to show that "there are so many ways to be"—which led to the creation of The Dragtivity Book!
"normal" is right.
While the key topic here is DQSH, the themes and intent of Sez Me are very similar—so what Erlich says about why he chose to have drag queens host Sez Me is applicable to DQSH:
Libraries themselves are often breeding grounds for leftist indoctrination and activism. In the 1970s, the Task Force on Gay Liberation was formed as part of the American Library Association (ALA). It's now known as the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Round Table (GLBTRT). Israel David Fishman, a Jew, was the founder and first coordinator of the group. The purpose was to raise awareness of LGBTQ+ people, foster inclusion, etc. They even had a "Hug-a-homosexual: Free Kisses" booth at one point (seemingly same-sex only); the idea was unpopular and few, if any, people came by to receive a hug or kiss, so those organizing the event kissed each other instead, yet it did garner publicity successfully—this was an idea of Barbara Gittings who became the coordinator in 1972, and was an important founding member of LGBTQ+ organizations, sometimes referred to as the mother of the movement. She headed the first U.S. lesbian civil rights organization in the 1950s (Daughters of Bilitis in New York), her activism, along with others built the momentum for the Stonewall Riots in 1969, and she was a key figure in the APA's (American Psychiatric Association) removal of homosexuality as a mental illness from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders).
A sampling of recommended (much of it subversive and degenerate) literature by the ALA can be found here. Another list (near the bottom of the OIF blog post) of approved material for children, which is used for DQSH, in the ages 2-5 range can be found here. It includes about 15 titles, most of them LGBTQ books, with a handy summary of the content.
Here is an example of one of them:
A list of the top ten most challenged books from 2001-2018 according to the OIF can be found here. The majority of challenged books, from a cursory look, appear to pertain to popular (or possibly just marketed for propaganda in some cases) children's and young adult fiction. Challenged means that an individual or group is attempting to restrict or remove certain material from the library or school curriculum.
Of course, the implementation has been slow in the U.S. so far, but gradually it will only get worse and LGBTQ education will be mandated in more states as the liberalism of the country progresses.
While drag used to be harmless entertainment (though what appears at first innocuous quickly becomes a severe problem) it's now a political tool. Those exposed to drag just decades ago did not experience it in the same way kids will now. Essentially, it's not even really about drag. It's about deconstructing gender (which in turn deconstructs sex, the far more objective and biological term). Will this encourage kids to dress in drag? Maybe. But it also encourages introspection that isn't worthwhile for a developing mind. It leads to bewilderment about one's very own identity and the identity of others. They will question whether they really are a boy or a girl. They will question their sexual orientation. Why not be the other if you have the option to choose and believe it's a subjective choice not shackled by biology? This is not progressive enough. They then break the boundary of the sexual binary into even greater bafflement. Why stop at transgenderism, when you can shift from one part of the supposed spectrum at will? You essentially can't discuss DQSH very deeply without talking about LGBTQ+ as a whole.
It's not just about learning to tolerate people who are different and the respective problems they bring to the larger society. It's also about having perfectly normal children, who know very little of the world and whose minds are highly impressionable and malleable to the harmful ideas imposed upon them. The LGBTQ+ community has a number of problems. Higher than average suicide rates and mental illness, homelessness, and susceptibility to diseases (homosexuality is one of the worst vectors for various STDs, not to mention HIV), etc. To promote or incentivize these behaviors increases the possibility of a perfectly normal person becoming part of the LGBTQ+ community and hurting their livelihood.
But even if the child's identity remains stable, they don't join the ranks of the LGBT, and they go onto be a relatively functional adult, DQSH, and many of these other nefarious social engineering measures, will foster tolerance; tolerance for a destructive life style that harms the LGBT minority and society as a whole. The more children nipped in the bud to become tolerant at a developing age, the less likely society can ever recover from its downward spiral. Any sense of community is largely eroded and those whom the constituents of the country elect deceive their way into office and always act against the people's interest.
Well, they're doing a good job of grooming, of indoctrinating. There are many children's books with the same kind of material—here is a recommended reading list for an LGBTQ+ activist. The same person is adamant about indoctrinating children and says as much with a very bold title. Another activist admits the same. There are a plethora of activists who think the same and/or write similar articles. Many groups with an agenda similar to DQSH are also known for indoctrination.
From the author who penned the previously linked article:
While homosexuals lobbied for gay rights, specifically gay marriage, the majority of homosexuals don't use this privilege granted to them and are often polyamorous and more prone to promiscuity and risky sexual behavior. Not only can they not have children by normal means and devalue the notion of marriage, but permitting marriage also legitimizes them adopting children. There likely aren't many studies with large enough samples to adequately show the effects of homosexual parents compared to heterosexual ones, seeing as the gay lobby would bemoan the results if they're negative. Common sense indicates that a well-adjusted heterosexual couple consisting of a well-defined mother and father would prepare their child for a normal society much better than if they had two dads, two moms, or two confused individuals who can't decide what they identify as.
Mark Regnerus's study compares children raised by homosexual and heterosexual parents. The main criticism of his study is that most of the heterosexual couples were far more intact—often with both parents. The homosexual ones often were not intact, and this was interpreted as merely an example of comparing stable couples against single parents. However, if we consider that this is a representative sample, then comparing stable same-sex and heterosexual parents would actually be non-representative and this doesn't adequately generalize to the population at large. Even when looking at studies with stable same-sex parents versus heterosexual parents a common trend is that the daughters of lesbian mothers are more likely to engage in homosexual activity or exhibit behaviors more similar to homosexuals.
LifeSiteNews summarizes this issue of representation by looking at AAP's (American Academy of Pediatrics) data:
If we consider per capita, then it becomes clear that stable same-sex couples are exceedingly rare even within the small subset of homosexual parents.
David Lee Richardson (Miss Kitty Litter) was convicted for prostitution, and his records are here.
Homosexuals also commit a disproportionate amount of molestation against minors compared to those who are heterosexual. Now, that's not to say any individual who is gay is more prone to behave in such a way, but on a group level there are many studies to indicate this is true. Disturbingly, two of the drag queens from DQSH who read to children or were involved in some capacity, Alberto Garza and William Travis Dees, turned out to be convicted sex offenders, all of their crimes committed against prepubescent children.
They were not properly vetted by DQSH or the Houston Public Library; anyone who works with children should have a robust background check. In fact, background checks are not always required in some states, depending on the circumstances, but given the sexually deviant nature of drag queens, any sane person should feel obligated to have a background check performed even if it is not mandatory according to state laws. The problem is the politically correct way society is expected to view LGBTQ people: we're not supposed to perceive them as suspicious; rather, they are presented as morally superior and virtuous compared to the normal population by many media outlets. Coming out is stunning and brave, not to mention incentivized.
There were also other less notable protests: 1, 2, 3.
Drag queens experiment with gender and gender presentation and I felt like that was a fluid way to talk about gender without clocking anyone on their personal private life, whatever their identity is. It’s very sensitive to mention somebody’s identity as trans. You have to wait for them to come out as trans, you can’t just out someone. But someone in drag is still one person that is presenting another character, so for a child to see that it brings up a lot of questions and they can explore it. So I figured I’ll take my seven-year-old friend and put them in front of a gender fluid person and see if they get it, if they can understand gender fluidity.
The American Library Association
Libraries themselves are often breeding grounds for leftist indoctrination and activism. In the 1970s, the Task Force on Gay Liberation was formed as part of the American Library Association (ALA). It's now known as the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Round Table (GLBTRT). Israel David Fishman, a Jew, was the founder and first coordinator of the group. The purpose was to raise awareness of LGBTQ+ people, foster inclusion, etc. They even had a "Hug-a-homosexual: Free Kisses" booth at one point (seemingly same-sex only); the idea was unpopular and few, if any, people came by to receive a hug or kiss, so those organizing the event kissed each other instead, yet it did garner publicity successfully—this was an idea of Barbara Gittings who became the coordinator in 1972, and was an important founding member of LGBTQ+ organizations, sometimes referred to as the mother of the movement. She headed the first U.S. lesbian civil rights organization in the 1950s (Daughters of Bilitis in New York), her activism, along with others built the momentum for the Stonewall Riots in 1969, and she was a key figure in the APA's (American Psychiatric Association) removal of homosexuality as a mental illness from the DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders).
A sampling of recommended (much of it subversive and degenerate) literature by the ALA can be found here. Another list (near the bottom of the OIF blog post) of approved material for children, which is used for DQSH, in the ages 2-5 range can be found here. It includes about 15 titles, most of them LGBTQ books, with a handy summary of the content.
Here is an example of one of them:
Introducing Teddy: a gentle story about gender and friendship by Jess Walton (Bloomsbury, 2016) – Errol and Teddy are best friends, but Teddy is sad, will he be able to tell Errol why? And how will Errol feel about Teddy when he learns the truth? (Teddy is transgender)And:
Stella Brings the Family by Miriam B. Schiffer (Chronicle Books, 2015) – It is mother’s day and Stella who has two fathers is unsure who to bring as a special guest to school.Kristin Pekoll, the assistant director of at the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF), states in an OIF blog post that every monthly display is a perfect time for all material, but also a great opportunity for exposure to queer content; however, June is the designated gay pride month, when they deck the libraries with "inclusive displays and rainbows," and it's also when the OIF receives an uptick in reports enumerating complaints about the LGBT content of the displays.
A list of the top ten most challenged books from 2001-2018 according to the OIF can be found here. The majority of challenged books, from a cursory look, appear to pertain to popular (or possibly just marketed for propaganda in some cases) children's and young adult fiction. Challenged means that an individual or group is attempting to restrict or remove certain material from the library or school curriculum.
“LGBT” was the most cited reason for challenging library materials and services in 2017. Since 1990, the ALA Office for Intellectual Freedom has recorded 122 titles that have been challenged for including LGBT content. More than one-third of these titles have been challenged more than once.It's not necessarily that the libraries allowing access to some of this literature many people find objectionable, especially parents, is a problem per se. It's worthwhile to be able to access literary work, regardless of their demerits or poor values, though parents are understandably concerned about their children accessing obscene literature. A complete ban on selected books is perhaps going too far, yet a degree of restricted access for minors to certain library content would be reasonable, but this is really beyond the pale when considering that the FAIR Education Act was passed, requiring LGBT-oriented topics to be covered in California in 2011, with Colorado and New Jersey following their example in 2019, and Illinois expected to do the same in July 2020, while Arizona, Utah, and Alabama have lifted restrictions on LGBTQ content, and New York has considered mandating LGBTQ material similarly to the first three listed.
Of course, the implementation has been slow in the U.S. so far, but gradually it will only get worse and LGBTQ education will be mandated in more states as the liberalism of the country progresses.
Back to Drag Queen Story Hour
While drag used to be harmless entertainment (though what appears at first innocuous quickly becomes a severe problem) it's now a political tool. Those exposed to drag just decades ago did not experience it in the same way kids will now. Essentially, it's not even really about drag. It's about deconstructing gender (which in turn deconstructs sex, the far more objective and biological term). Will this encourage kids to dress in drag? Maybe. But it also encourages introspection that isn't worthwhile for a developing mind. It leads to bewilderment about one's very own identity and the identity of others. They will question whether they really are a boy or a girl. They will question their sexual orientation. Why not be the other if you have the option to choose and believe it's a subjective choice not shackled by biology? This is not progressive enough. They then break the boundary of the sexual binary into even greater bafflement. Why stop at transgenderism, when you can shift from one part of the supposed spectrum at will? You essentially can't discuss DQSH very deeply without talking about LGBTQ+ as a whole.
 |
| Carla Rossi (Anthony Hudson) |
It's not just about learning to tolerate people who are different and the respective problems they bring to the larger society. It's also about having perfectly normal children, who know very little of the world and whose minds are highly impressionable and malleable to the harmful ideas imposed upon them. The LGBTQ+ community has a number of problems. Higher than average suicide rates and mental illness, homelessness, and susceptibility to diseases (homosexuality is one of the worst vectors for various STDs, not to mention HIV), etc. To promote or incentivize these behaviors increases the possibility of a perfectly normal person becoming part of the LGBTQ+ community and hurting their livelihood.
But even if the child's identity remains stable, they don't join the ranks of the LGBT, and they go onto be a relatively functional adult, DQSH, and many of these other nefarious social engineering measures, will foster tolerance; tolerance for a destructive life style that harms the LGBT minority and society as a whole. The more children nipped in the bud to become tolerant at a developing age, the less likely society can ever recover from its downward spiral. Any sense of community is largely eroded and those whom the constituents of the country elect deceive their way into office and always act against the people's interest.
In the video he (Dylan Pontiff/Santana Pilar Andrews) says this is going to be "...the grooming of the next generation. We are trying to groom the next generation to not see the way that they just did [referring to the way people see him who are opposed to the event and present at the courtroom]". He further says "We will teach them to be tolerable [sic], patient, and loving".
Well, they're doing a good job of grooming, of indoctrinating. There are many children's books with the same kind of material—here is a recommended reading list for an LGBTQ+ activist. The same person is adamant about indoctrinating children and says as much with a very bold title. Another activist admits the same. There are a plethora of activists who think the same and/or write similar articles. Many groups with an agenda similar to DQSH are also known for indoctrination.
From the author who penned the previously linked article:
I for one certainly want tons of school children to learn that it’s OK to be gay, that people of the same sex should be allowed to legally marry each other, and that anyone can kiss a person of the same sex without feeling like a freak. And I would very much like for many of these young boys to grow up and start fucking men. I want lots of young ladies to develop into young women who voraciously munch box. I want this just as badly as many parents want their own kids to grow up and rub urinary tracts together to trade proteins and forcefully excrete a baby.He goes on to say, yes, we indoctrinate—but that's no different than "anti-gay opponents" or conservatives. Yet it's very different. There's absolutely no benefit to being gay or any of the other LGBTQ+ subsets, and if you are a logical person and you could choose for your child to be heterosexual and normative over LGBTQ+, you'd always pick the former. To be tolerant is to say that homosexual relationships are just as legitimate as heterosexual relationships, and to pretend that homosexuality and other aberrant LGBTQ+ behavior is just as safe, productive, and beneficial to society.
While homosexuals lobbied for gay rights, specifically gay marriage, the majority of homosexuals don't use this privilege granted to them and are often polyamorous and more prone to promiscuity and risky sexual behavior. Not only can they not have children by normal means and devalue the notion of marriage, but permitting marriage also legitimizes them adopting children. There likely aren't many studies with large enough samples to adequately show the effects of homosexual parents compared to heterosexual ones, seeing as the gay lobby would bemoan the results if they're negative. Common sense indicates that a well-adjusted heterosexual couple consisting of a well-defined mother and father would prepare their child for a normal society much better than if they had two dads, two moms, or two confused individuals who can't decide what they identify as.
Mark Regnerus's study compares children raised by homosexual and heterosexual parents. The main criticism of his study is that most of the heterosexual couples were far more intact—often with both parents. The homosexual ones often were not intact, and this was interpreted as merely an example of comparing stable couples against single parents. However, if we consider that this is a representative sample, then comparing stable same-sex and heterosexual parents would actually be non-representative and this doesn't adequately generalize to the population at large. Even when looking at studies with stable same-sex parents versus heterosexual parents a common trend is that the daughters of lesbian mothers are more likely to engage in homosexual activity or exhibit behaviors more similar to homosexuals.
LifeSiteNews summarizes this issue of representation by looking at AAP's (American Academy of Pediatrics) data:
“The US 2010 Census reported that 646,464 households included 2 adults of the same gender. These same-gender couples are raising ~115,000 children aged ≤18 years and are living in essentially all counties of the United States. When these children are combined with single gay and lesbian parents who are raising children, almost 2 million children are being raised by gay and lesbian parents in the United States.”
If the estimate of 2 million children with “gay and lesbian parents” is correct, then comparing it with the figure of 115,000 being raised by same-sex couples indicates that only 1 in every 17 children of “gay” parents actually lives with a same-sex couple. Thus, the model of “gay parenting” held up by homosexual activists in the marriage debate—that of children being raised in a stable household by a loving and committed same-sex couple—is extraordinarily rare in the real world, even as a fraction of the already small minority of children who have a homosexual parent.
The answer to that question can also be found in the AAP Policy Statement, which reports, “In 2010, married adults were raising 65.3% of all children in this country.” Even if the Census Bureau (source of this figure) defied the federal Defense of Marriage Act and chose to include some of the 646,464 same-sex couples in this number, it is still clear that the overwhelming majority of these 48 million married couples are of the opposite-sex.
On the other hand, nearly 2 out of every 3 children of heterosexual parents are living with a married couple. The number of children being raised by a married heterosexual couple is more than 400 (four hundred) times higher than the number being raised by a same-sex couple.
If we consider per capita, then it becomes clear that stable same-sex couples are exceedingly rare even within the small subset of homosexual parents.
A Few Notable Drag Queens
A more recent drag queen goes by the name Annie Christ, an obvious play on anti-Christ.
 |
| Annie Christ |
Many drag queens who perform in DQSH appear to moonlight in very sexual roles.
Stormy Vain runs a sex-oriented business under the banner of Stormy’s Angels of Entertainment and Eroticasy. His more questionable business offerings include: nude maid services, nude maintenance service, nude handymen, nude personal trainers, nude hair styling, strippers for parties and 1-on-1 sessions, male escorts/companions, sex toys, X-rated candies, and “much more”.
 |
| Stormy Vain |
 |
| David Lee Richardson. |
 |
| David Lee Richardson in drag. |
Homosexuals also commit a disproportionate amount of molestation against minors compared to those who are heterosexual. Now, that's not to say any individual who is gay is more prone to behave in such a way, but on a group level there are many studies to indicate this is true. Disturbingly, two of the drag queens from DQSH who read to children or were involved in some capacity, Alberto Garza and William Travis Dees, turned out to be convicted sex offenders, all of their crimes committed against prepubescent children.
They were not properly vetted by DQSH or the Houston Public Library; anyone who works with children should have a robust background check. In fact, background checks are not always required in some states, depending on the circumstances, but given the sexually deviant nature of drag queens, any sane person should feel obligated to have a background check performed even if it is not mandatory according to state laws. The problem is the politically correct way society is expected to view LGBTQ people: we're not supposed to perceive them as suspicious; rather, they are presented as morally superior and virtuous compared to the normal population by many media outlets. Coming out is stunning and brave, not to mention incentivized.
Garza in Drag.
 |
| Dees is in the middle of the bottom row. |
 |
| Dees again, with the chicken, often cited as a gay symbol meant to represent a young gay man. |
Dees goes by many aliases, and some of his lurid exploits as a drug-abusing sex worker and his struggles with dysphoria as a "trans woman" are divulged in an article using the alias Elizabeth Davidson.
Aside from the issue of exposing children to potential sexual predators; the confusion engendered by non-binary, transgenderism, and gender fluidity; there's also two sides of the argument summed up by commentary from a Breitbart article:
Speaking to BBC London Radio, the nurseries boss said exposing infants to men dressed as women is beneficial for society “because children are very open until about three”.
“At three they begin to absorb all the ‘isms’ that adults have developed very effectively,” she argued.It's rather absurd to state that exposing infants to men dressed as women is beneficial to society, but the idea is to inoculate them against 'isms,' as she puts it. This presupposes that tolerance is some virtue and people should tolerate any impropriety or activity that destabilizes society. The attempt at inculcating tolerance foisted upon us for so many decades has made society worse rather than better. The sexual revolution is all about high time preference hedonism.
But critics have warned that the rush to inundate young children with information on “transgender” issues could have negative long-term consequences, with leading child psychotherapist Dilys Daws — co-author of Finding Your Way With Your Baby — saying she fears the sessions could sow the seeds of confusion.
“There’s this idea that’s sweeping the country that being transgender is an ‘ordinary situation’. It’s getting so much publicity that it’s getting children thinking that they might be transgender, when it otherwise wouldn’t have occurred to them,” she told the Mail...
In The Times, veteran journalist Janice Turner said children in Britain are being “sacrificed” to appease the transgender lobby, pointing to the huge rise in children attending clinics for “gender identity issues”.
“If there was a 1,000 per cent rise in six years in any other field,” she cites a doctor as saying, “there would be a major inquiry. Instead no one asks why.”
“The apparatus of medical transition, a hormone regime causing sterility, plus surgical removal of healthy tissue, is seen as wholly positive,” said Turner, slamming “deluded” politicians for buying into the idea that “the new measure of an enlightened society” is based on “how quickly we transition kids”, despite the potentially life-destroying consequences.Simply put, LGBTQ+ was often portrayed negatively because being part of this community usually involves much more high-risk behavior than the general population. If LGBTQ+ comprises 2-4% of the population, shouldn't we be doing everything we can to limit the percentage of people who identify as being part of that movement, rather than potentially growing it by a campaign of making children uncertain about their own identity, while also reinforcing tolerance for these behaviors and even incentivizing them by making it trendy, exotic, normal, etc?
There has, of course, been considerable backlash against these activities from religious groups and some conservatives. In some cases the protesting is so fervent that the event gets shut down: one event in New Jersey was cancelled after repeated phone calls over the span of two days. However, others continue virtually unimpeded, with protesters outside of the library, holding up signs and shouting lines such as "A drag queen reading stories is child abuse," or "We don't want to teach them that they can be anything they want," as children are funneled inside.
But the LGBT opposition is just as passionate in what they believe. West Virginia University LGBTQ+ Center alleged that as many as 60 people supportive of DQSH showed up to protest when an event was shut down.
Many DQSH events restrict the audience or activists and media from recording. One event, in Renton, Washington, held last month (June 22) had several concerned mothers and activists filming the event. This was a teen/tween event, which should mean the age range was 10-19. The performances of the drag queens and some of the paraphernalia and services available are concerning, not to mention the bad ideas these events exalt. At least two mothers were escorted out by police and they were subsequently doxxed by antifa and others of their ilk. The two mothers stated that their birthdays and addresses have been posted publicly by DQSH stooges on social media.
The two mothers also alleged there were unattended minors despite this being against the rules, and a Planned Parenthood representative was present for gender transition consultation. The Planned Parenthood representative, according to her own words in the video, confirmed gender transition consultation was being provided at the event. If everything the representative said is correct, Planned Parenthood is currently only able to provide hormone replacement therapy to those 18 and over. However, they're working on changing this condition so they can provide it to minors and their goal is for everyone to be able to access these services.
Planned Parenthood table
Lifelong AIDS Alliance, an organization that received over $22 million in grants and fees in 2017, was also present to provide information about PrEP (Pre-exposure Prophylaxis)—an HIV preventative treatment (the drug itself would be Truvada or some other derivative).
In the video below, the man at the table confirmed that children/teens at the event would be eligible to start PrEP treatment if they weigh over 77 pounds and can acquire parental consent, though he states that PrEP navigators can override parental consent during the screening.
Lifelong AIDS Alliance table
The two above videos (and the Freeza Dlust one below) can be found at Library MOMitors, a youtube channel with several videos filmed during DQSH events.
The original Freeza Dlust (the drag queen above) is difficult to find and was removed from youtube, but here is the full version; the part where he is on all fours and screaming starts at about 3:18.
Some of the items featured here include lube, flavored condoms, and dental dams, and gift cards for acquiring breast binders (to maintain a more masculine look), according to The College Fix. One pamphlet is alleged to say "Abuse is not S/M [Sadism and masochism]."
In Spokane, Washington, there was a feminist group called 500 Mom Strong (their Facebook page seems to be down) protesting a DQSH event (June 15) along with other protesters. Two swat team snipers were setup on the roof of the library, along with at least 30-40 police officers on the ground. The reason for such serious measures were alleged threats of violence or death being reported by some of the DQSH staff. Some of the mothers from 500 Mom Strong also said this was not true (at least from their group) and they alleged they also received death threats.
There were also other less notable protests: 1, 2, 3.
Mass Resistance has compiled a 160-page expose (mostly relevant to Houston Public Library, but much of it pertains to other chapters of DQSH). Apparently their report has expanded to 600 pages, but the entirety is not yet released to the public. A large chunk of the expose involves images and links to videos of some of the DQSH drag queens—a lot of the material is from their social media and doesn't directly pertain to DQSH events, but it shows their disturbing behavior, and it's hard to believe any parent would want these people entertaining their kids.
Page 2 of the document indicates that rules are being routinely broken according to the libraries website, and while there are instances where the audience is free to record, but since there have been many protests and negative media coverage among a bevy of religious, alternative media, and conservative sites, the libraries and/or staff behind DQSH are wary of events being recorded because they may go viral or promote further hostility toward DQSH.
One of the most disturbing entries from the expose.
Likewise.
On page 3 the idea of a "Bible Story Hour" is proposed or requested to the library, but anything of a religious nature tends to be rejected, especially Christianity. This is intolerance, but the agenda of the liberal element is to disempower the religious because their faith is viewed as discriminatory or intolerant and is part of the older and once dominant status quo. But a degree of intolerance is necessary to keep society functioning and orderly. They want to curb religion so they are free to have a society that is non-judgmental to a tiny minority of the population. Their view stipulates that the majority should have to bend to the will of the minority rather than the minority having to bend to the will of the majority. And I speak not of democratic decision or majority rule being proper. It just so happens that the majority are against many of these practices and are correct to dissent, and society is lost if the majority becomes pliant to this creeping threat. Democracy—and this includes representative democracy—inevitably leads to chaos. Only homogenous peoples with a strong national identity can flourish for long as a republic, but this, too, eventually declines.
The diversity brigade.
Some will say that it's up to the individual parent to choose whether or not to subject their children to this content, should they deem it to be suitable, but it's truly difficult to watch as the next generation of children, who represent the future of the U.S., are forced to be indoctrinated with ideas that may seem initially innocent enough due to the liberal ideas we've imbibed for so long, but are in the long-run truly pernicious and destructive.
Any greatness the U.S. once had is fading away because of the individualistic mindset the majority population exudes. Once circumstances become awry, they move to the suburbs. White flight was a form of surrender. Instead of standing their ground, they fled. As long as they and their children were okay, the rest of the U.S. could go to hell for all they cared (the "they" could be boomers, or any generation really)—not even stopping to consider their progeny further down the line would pay for it. It's the same with many other scenarios. A family with enough money can send their child to a private school, so to them, the condition of the public schools is not an issue, and they retreat from politics, activism, or the community at large (to the extent there even is any form of community—it's truly rare, and people are more atomized than ever), attending to their vocation and avocations. To retreat and allow others to make choices that are detrimental to society and will lead to a gradual decline that becomes harder and harder to correct. It's bizarre that people are so shortsighted that they worry about their own children and maybe even their grandchildren, but not multiple generations beyond their death. Eventually society will be so corrupted that there won't be anywhere to escape to anymore.
Education should be about learning subjects like math, science, reading, etc. But it is true that most any education system will involve a degree of indoctrination. The far more wholesome education Americans would have received in past decades or centuries was a form of indoctrination. Good ideas that keep society healthy should be inculcated into the next generation. This new indoctrination takes out many good values and replaces them with negative values.
There are many people fighting against these liberal elements, but not enough. If more people who disagreed with it would organize, then order could be restored, though it would be an arduous effort. But there is a lot of pressure to conform. Certainly adherence to establishment values is incentivized. Those who are docile and don't interfere with the establishment's wishes will be rewarded; and those who dissent against the establishment values will be shamed—in some instances even losing their employment and becoming ostracized. Censorship, Deplatforming from various social media, and even bank accounts being shut down are a possibility... an inevitability.
The culture itself is built around consumerism and materialism. The higher up the ladder one climbs, the more precarious is their position as a consumer and the more damaging will be their fall. Perhaps the only way to move forward and take the country back would be to live modestly, save money, eschew materialism and consumerism, establish coherent communities with the same values, and either become self-employed or learn a trade that is separate from the purview of the establishment. If one is employed at a tech company, then they are vulnerable if they have dissident views. If one is a welder or some similar occupation, then their livelihood should be more stable.
