Drag Queens and kids. Scientific evidence of harm?

Hear me out as this may or may not be what you think it is.

I am distrustful of the Republican and Democrat narratives. But if there is solid peer reviewed scientific consensus on the issue I would be interested in it. I think we can all agree that it is of paramount importance to protect children. So if Drag Queen shows in fact harm children there must be scientific evidence in support of the claim. If so I would be grateful for links to it.

I am not here to debate the issue as I assume we all understand the futility of that. And I will not comment upon the quality of the data of those kind enough to post unless you would like me to. I simply wish to get a better perspective as to what all the hubbub is about so I can better come to my own conclusion.

Input is appreciated but mostly looking for links to solid psychological data on the impact Drag Queen shows have upon the young. My fear is if we are not basing conclusions on science then we may be basing them on personal prejudices.

Thanks all.

 

I think I can predict, in advance, that no respectable scientific studies, have been done on this; so if you cannot reach a conclusion using your own common sense, you will probably find yourself rudderless. Or, I suppose, the more accurate analogy would be to say, without a compass. Though that is becoming a somewhat dated image. But, saying "without GPS service," just doesn't paint as nice sounding, of an image.

I guess you're just on your own.

 

A moralistic argument that I am betting is what most base their conclusions upon. To me morals are about promoting behavior that at a minimum avoids harm. So for me to take a hard stand I need scientific proof of harm. Common sense is not synonymous with fact and too often is a function of group think. Belief itself is not evidence that the belief is factually correct.

From my perspective I would be rudderless without science as I would be left to the subjective and often biased machinations of the human mind.

 

I think you're asking the wrong question. I doubt a one off dance would have any lasting effect in and of itself. Could probably even do a few more with no lasting effect. And it probably depends on the child and their other environment factors.

The question you should be asking is what is the long term effect of normalizing such dancing on society and by side effect on children? Grooming is a concern. If a child is raised to believe that sexually dancing in front of children is normal, then that is an avenue groomers can use to their advantage. If society over all believes that same thing...then that avenue for groomers has widened exponentially.

These links are on grooming and not what you asked for. But understanding grooming can help understand the possibilities of normalizing such behavior in society can lead to.

LINK: Research Report - Grooming and child sexual abuse in institutional contexts - Prevention (icmec.org)
LINK: Grooming: recognising the signs | NSPCC Learning

Notice something the first link says...

There is a reason that porn was always considered as something that children should not have access to. It normalizes sex at an age that it should not be normalized at. And yes, I know, porn on the internet is accessed quite easily. The laws need to be updated to cover that. The point is that societally speaking, children should not have access to such. So why should drag shows be allowed in front of small children? Drag shows are all about sexuality and their dances are often sexual in nature to emphasize that point. It is at the end of the day a normalization of something that little kids should not be normalized into for their safety.

 

People seem to have forgotten how ubiquitous “gender benders” were in the ‘70s and 80s.
Grace Jones


Freddie Mercury, David Bowie Annie Lennox etc etc etc

And that does not even start with people like Julian Clary, Dick Emery, John Inman in Are you being served?

Inthink it was Mayor Pete who said it best “ if all that straight literature I read as a kid did not turn me straight how can one gay book in a library cause harm?

 

You raise a valid concern of the longterm impact of repeated exposure. Yet it changes little on my end as I would still have to review the scientific literature, assuming there is any. Thank you for the links. I will look it over.

 

Why has this suddenly become an issue?


Oh! And a can absolutely guarantee that you did NOT read that fracking report! Especially since it was commissioned by a Royal Commission into mostly Catholic abuses

 

That is a good point. I remember Rap and Metal being more the big boogie man back then. Everyone I knew in conservative Boise Idaho back then loved Bowie and Freddie Mercury.

 

May I suggest that if you link to a report written in my state in response to an AUSTRALIAN Royal Commission you research further to find out what it was really about

https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/issues-papers

The Royal Commission was held in response to reports of abuse from

https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/issues-papers

If this is where the majority of abuse occurred we shouldn’t be banning Drag Queens we should be banning Anyone claiming to be acting on Gods orders

 

Wow, I see I touched a nerve with you. Do you really think it matters why a study was commissioned? Does it change the outcome of the study in any way shape or form? Is anything said in the report that is not applicable to groomers all over? Or do you really think that its only applicable to Catholics or those "claiming to be acting on Gods orders"?

 

Do you really think that being a homosexual is purely determined by genetics? That a person cannot become one due to environmental conditions? For instance: If a woman is abused by her father all of her child life, and then when she finally gets away from him is abused again by some other guy, and then another guy....that she might not start shying away from men and become a lesbian?

Humans can be taught to be anything given the right environment. To deny this is to deny human reality. We are not purely driven by our genetics. Societal Environment, past and present, plays a factor in how we interact with other humans also. This is a fact. Do you deny this?

I can see I've touched a nerve with you. So let me tell you a bit about myself. I don't care if someone is homosexual. When same sex marriages were being argued about I argued that being a homosexual is both a genetic disposition and an environmental one. I argued on behalf of same sex marriages as marriage is a Right. I didn't care if a homosexual got married. That's their do. And had nothing to do with me in the slightest. Additionally I have a daughter that is Bi. And she'll be the first to tell anyone that I've always supported her. I have nothing against homosexuals.

You may want to stop taking offense to what I am saying/showing and start thinking about what it is I am saying. And stop assuming my motives.

One more thing, this issue is not "sudden". It been being talked about for at least a year now. When they started dancing in front of children and having "story hour" with children. Prior to this no one ever talked about drag queens. Nobody cared one way or another about them. Its when kids started to get involved that people started to object. And their objection is based on protection of children. Refer to my first post as to a reason why.

 

No, it wasn't really a good point. Read up on Nature v Nurture. A starting point: LINK: Nature vs. Nurture | Psychology Today

 

Because that study I am betting contains not one word about homosexuality or “Drag shows” or anything to do with the original question but it DID highlight the triggering mechanism the words “drag show” have now become.

Abuse of children in care in institutions like Barnados was a national disgrace- hence the Royal Commission - which are involved, costly and usually extremely through and fact based. You would do worse than to read it since it talks about real abuse in real institutions not thos make believe fuelled by Tucker Carlson and other Faux hosts driving ratings

https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/final-report

 

So you do believe that the reports stance on grooming can only be applied to Catholics. Got it.

Btw, you may want to re-read what I said. No where in it did I associate drag queens, or homosexuality to committing acts of grooming. (in fact I didn't bring up homosexuality period, you did).

 

Your first paragraph: I think you need to look at the definition of lesbian. Just because a woman might feel safer and prefer to be in the presence of other women does not make her a lesbian.

Your last paragraph: Drag shows such as in Christmas pantomimes have been shown to children for 300 years. There are and have been many sexual inuendos in those plays. Personally I don't like them and do not like the sexual undertones but that is not because I believe that children may be influenced to effect their sexual behaviour in their adult lives. Children do laugh at them at the time and many will miss the sexual references. Any of them who understand the inuendos already know about the topic of the jokes

 

tell me - have you EVER herd of anyone successfully “praying the gay away” or a successful “conversion therapy”?

https://psycnet.apa.org/buy/1994-34347-001

As of writing there have been found that between 1.5 and 2% of children are born with DSD or Disorders of Sexual Development - there is some evidence that there are distinct physiological brain differences. Gender is inherently tied to identity and although there are “gender fluid” people usually it is hard to shift. How do we know that? Because the “research” has been done.

One of the more outstanding stories is that of David Reimer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

He was born an identical male twin but a circumcision as a baby went terribly wrong and it burnt his penis off. The decision was made to surgically “reassign” him as a girl. A psychologist became interested and wanted to study the twins. David believed all his life he was a boy. Similar cases can be found among children with DSD who were “assigned” a sex at birth and sometimes surgically altered to fit that decision

You “touched a nerve because you linked to a research paper that did NOT support your position

As for “being talked about for a year” that is a hellacious short time - why now?

If we were talking about cases like those in the video I have no issues with stopping that reassignment surgery on babies. The issue I have with the current mess and threats to hospitals courtesy of wankers like Carlson

 

“Humans can be taught to be anything given the right environment.”

That is a bold claim. Is it backed by science or is it your opinion?

 

No. I did not say that

and if you try and put words in my mouth again…….

And I apologise ( yes I am big enough to do that) for reading what was not there however I do ask - who do you think is “grooming” children?

 

I did not say prefers to stay in the company of women. I said become a lesbian. That includes sexual intercourse with women and not having sexual intercourse with men. Falling in love with women, and not with men.

Drag shows actually have a longer history than 300 years. And there is a big difference between innuendos, and sexual dances.

 

Actual pedophiles. Not drag queens. Not homosexuals. Not trans. My argument was about normalizing the sexual dances that drag queens were doing in front of children into society and groomers using that as a way to further implement their sick fantasies. Its giving them opportunities. As your own country noted in the study I provided, culture has an influence on how groomers are able to do what they do. Hence the reason that I underlined the word "culture" in the part of the study I quoted. Which can be a synonym for society.

I thank you for your apology. I did not actually think you meant to say that. My phrasing there was to get you to acknowledge that isn't what you meant. Now that you know I'm not denigrating homosexuals, trans, or even drag queens, lets start over shall we?

 

Refer to post 12.

If you want more advanced studies I gave you a starting point. I'm not going to teach the whole of psychology to you on a forum. And certainly not without pay.

But really you don't even need a study. What do you think psychologists DO? Do you really think that they would be able to do what they do if humans were not able to be taught to live certain ways? Answering those two questions will answer yours.

 

I read the whole article and saw nothing in it that supports your claim that “Humans can be taught to be anything given the right environment.”? Can you quote the bit that you believe supports your claim? Or do you perhaps have a better source that directly backs your claim?

 

Like I said. It was a starting point. I also said I'm not going to teach you the whole of psychology on a forum. And I see that you ignored my questions.

I've given you a starting point in learning psychology. I've given you common sense questions that have common sense answers. The rest is up to you. I'm not going to hold your hand.

 

many bad people that harm children, including some preachers

 

I am not aware of any so called studies that "prove" that there is harm in showing nude pictures to a group of 5-year-olds.

Does this supposed lack of evidence mean that you do not see any problem with doing so? At what point does common sense kick in for you? In the absence of a pseudoscientific study of psychology, is there a time where you would just conclude that probably is not a great idea?

Parents do not have time or the ability to look for supposed scientific studies before making every decision regarding their children. What you suggest is preposterous and not realistic in any fashion.