Jump to content

Talk:Drag panic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Félix An (talk | contribs) at 02:45, 26 June 2024 (→‎The very existence of this article is biased: rm hat, it is a legitimate concern). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Merge?

Resolved

This and 2022 drag performance protests will likely cover much of the same ground, do we think they ought to be merged? Pinging page creators @CT55555: & @BlackJack92:. -- Pokelova (talk) 08:37, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also pinging @TheTranarchist: since she has a lot of experience with the creation and maintenance of articles on anti-queer subjects. --Pokelova (talk) 08:45, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that they are the same topic and that merging them makes sense. CT55555(talk) 12:56, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping! I agree they should be merged. I'm more partial to merging the 2022 drag performance protests into this article than vice versa, since the panic began before 2022 (though certainly picked up speed then). After the merge (if there are no objections to it), when I have some time, I'll try and update the article since a lot more details could be added (particularly orgs that have been vocally protesting such things like Gays Against Groomers, the Proud Boys, and Guardians of Divinity). TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 17:23, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also propose to merge 2022 drag performance protests as this entry since the one contains only 1 specific year while this one is more all encompassing.--BlackJack92 (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that the 2022 article is unnecessarily time limited and that should be addressed. However, this article presents the issues as uniquely American and that is ignoring the events in Canada and UK. I think the other article covers the topic more comprehensively. I also don't think "drag panic" is the all encompassing term of the phenomenon, I don't think that is how people searching for the issue will search for it. Only two sources in this article say "drag panic" in their title. Basically, both articles are flawed in their framing. CT55555(talk) 02:44, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When there is no common name, we are entitled to come up with one that is descriptive. While the specific phrase "drag panic" doesn't appear in too many sources, many sources do describe a moral panic about drag queens. --Pokelova (talk) 06:57, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would proceed to merge the pages if no one objects or if a formal vote is not needed.
As for the name of the page, it can also be changed but I think, in its current state, this is representative of the phenomenon.--BlackJack92 (talk) 09:05, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone seems to unanimously agree that they should be merged, so that can definitely be done without a formal vote. Drag panic currently has the most support, so that is the logical target for now while we continue to discuss possible alternative titles for the article. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:37, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's only been a few days, please let's give it the normal amount of time to get wider consensus before taking action. There is no rush. CT55555(talk) 02:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge, obviously duplicative topics. Reywas92Talk 02:50, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done--BlackJack92 (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Better image(s)

The image of RuPaul for this page is fitting, but I think it could be better. I'm having trouble finding a good image that fits Wikipedia's guidelines. If anybody could find a better image or has any tips for image licence in the future, that would be appreciated. ChocolateAvian (talk) 03:04, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the image used at 2022 drag performance protests? CT55555(talk) 02:53, 20 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the image of RuPaul. This is not an article about RuPaul. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Drag Isn't Dangerous" telethon

---Another Believer (Talk) 14:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has created Drag Isn't Dangerous ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:02, 23 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Inserted.--BlackJack92 (talk) 16:44, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Transparency

Does this article actually fail to mention that sexualized drag shows where kids are present do exist? There are several videos that explicitly show this. Or even where the kids themselves are dressed as drag queens in inappropriate fashions. 142.186.88.120 (talk) 02:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gurl... ---Another Believer (Talk) 23:49, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It does indeed exist, here is one example: https://www.libsoftiktok.com/p/watch-drag-queen-appears-to-perform?sd=pf
While Wikipedia may not allow any sources that discuss these events, can we at least acknowledge they do exist and we should be at least trying to find reliable source(s)? 142.186.88.120 (talk) 19:26, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Come back when you're ready to share those reliable sources. ---Another Believer (Talk) 19:06, 8 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
libs of tiktok is not a reliable source. Obelus1 (talk) 15:31, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The source in this instance is the video footage itself, not the website hosting it. Smarten up. 82.38.214.252 (talk) 07:58, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Read wp:rs, and wp:sps. Slatersteven (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a WP:RS, the CBC, that mentioned that sexualized drag shows with kids present exist: https://www.cbc.ca/cbcdocspov/features/is-it-ok-for-your-kids-to-watch-or-take-part-in-drag-performances

"Yule says some adult drag shows and communities might have more “flirty” or sexual performances, but parents can ensure their children are attending age-appropriate events. If there are song lyrics or dance moves that a parent is uncomfortable with, it’s important to have a conversation."

And CBS: https://www.cbsnews.com/texas/news/texas-senate-votes-limit-childrens-access-to-drag-shows/

Félix An (talk) 11:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These sources do not show that there is a widespread issue of age-inappropriate drag performances targeted at children.
The first source says, 'The [drag] events that are geared toward children and teens tend to be very positive — not hyper-sexualized — and very appropriate...'
Also: 'Monitoring children’s activities is not specific to drag, she adds. It would be the same with music, movies, television shows and online content — she says parents should screen for appropriate material with anything their children enjoy.'
So this isn't something specific to drag.
The second source does report on a lawmaker's *opinion* of drag, but doesn't verify that opinion as a fact. It reports on a law that was passed, including some of the wording of that law, but not how many (if any) incidents led to the law being passed or whether they were indeed sexualising children.
As it stands, this page already points out that several American politicians and commentators have claimed there is an issue, and this article merely corroborates that the existing wording is enough. It doesn't suggest that additional/new wording is needed. Lewisguile (talk) 11:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to "Criticism of drag"

Requested move 16 May 2023

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 08:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drag Panic → Criticism of drag – As per WP:COMMONNAME and the relevancy of the title. Google shows 34 600 000 results for "criticism of drag" as opposed to 17 600 000 for "drag panic", and the article is mainly about various groups that have criticized drag in the past, which several sources have called drag panic, so "Criticism of drag" is a more suitable name. Félix An (talk) 12:19, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that "criticism of drag" might not just be about this. In fact this is the first hit (for me) [[1]], which is about feminism, not child protection, in fact most of the first few hits seem to be about that. Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recently 2022 drag performance protests was merged into this article. I think a descriptive title along those lines is preferable to the uncommon expression "Drag Panic". I would support a move to 2022–2023 drag performance protests, as the controversy is still ongoing. Cheers, gnu57 12:38, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "Criticism of drag", as that is overly broad for the subject at hand. I've already said my piece about "Drag panic" in an above section, I think it's mostly fine. As for the above suggestion of "2022–2023 drag performance protests", if we were to go in that direction I would say drop the word performance from it. --Pokelova (talk) 13:05, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Also this article says it started in 2019. Slatersteven (talk) 13:09, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The page speaks of a moral panic (it illustrates all the typical elements that are part of it) while the "criticism of drag" gives the idea of something generic as if it were an aggregator of generic critical points on the issue.--BlackJack92 (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Not many people are calling it the "criticism of drag" and the article's name should be Drag panic and not Drag Panic. — JuanGLP (talk + contribs) 14:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose. We will rename this article "Criticism of drag" the same day we rename the article Antisemitism to "Criticism of Jews", i.e. never. Why not? Let's break it down. This is not about "criticism". To call it "criticism" is to accept the cynical and dishonest framing of the abusers at face value. Surely we are smarter than that? This article is about the specific moral panic. Actual criticism of drag probably does exist but that would be a completely different topic and can be covered elsewhere to whatever extent is warranted. Other names suggested also seem deficient because "protests" does not cover the extent of the topic. There is a lot more to this than protests. There is the legislation and pseudo-legislation, the threats and the terrorism. I think the current title is reasonable but maybe some improvement is possible. Quite possibly JuanGLP is correct about the capitalisation? I don't want to cut the discussion off but what we can't even consider is any suggested euphemistic title that disguises what the subject of this article actually is. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:00, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Drag Panic → Drag panic

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Moved (non-admin closure) >>> Extorc.talk 06:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Drag Panic → Drag panic

I created this page calling it "Drag panic" but it was moved to "Drag Panic". I don't see the reason for the capital letter (as if we were talking about a name) and consequently I request that it be reverted to the previous name. BlackJack92 (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-03

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vyyyvu (article contribs). Peer reviewers: AzeiahMacapagal.

— Assignment last updated by Momlife5 (talk) 15:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture 320-01

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2024 and 10 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lindaesco21 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Cristinayasmine.

— Assignment last updated by Bbalicia (talk) 00:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The very existence of this article is biased

This article assumes, in a way that is not in any way neutral, that any concerns about drag and the exposure of drag to children are exclusively moral panic, and not valid in any way, shape, or form.

I must repeat, this is NOT politically neutral. The very existence of this article is predicated upon presumptions that are disagreed upon fiercly. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 06:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree as well, which is why I proposed moving the article to “Criticism of drag”. Unfortunately, the other editors didn’t agree to move it at the time. You can try starting a move discussion again and see if the opinions have changed. Félix An (talk) 06:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be pushing a very specific POV, given your recent edits. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:13, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am rejecting a very specific POV, which seems to be seeping like sludge off the words of a large number of articles here. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 17:32, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is about the false concerns spread by people, Thre is no recent evidence Drag is more of a threat to children than, say, being a crush worker (in fact given the number of arrests recently, a lot less evidence). Slatersteven (talk) 16:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While there is a lack of evidence, a lack of evidence does not prove the contrary, especially in a case like this where there simply aren't studies investigating the psychological effects of drag on children, so no evidence to the contrary, as well.
You are simply making an unsubstantiated claim based on a worldview that is not universally shared. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NO, I am pointing out to say "X is not true" we need evidence (presented by RS) that X is not true, not your opinion its not true. And I am not talking about the psychological effects of Drag, but actually grooming leading to sexual abuse. Slatersteven (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You don't understand; This article assumes that "X is not true," i.e. that exposure to drag has no harmful effects on children.
You need affirmative proof to the contrary to say that "X is not true" in an encyclopedia, which does not exist in this case. The burden of proof is on this article, not on me or anyone else.
Does exposure to drag has a significant negative impact on kids? Probably not. But nobody has the clear proof to the contrary necessary to justify this article calling it objectively false. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 18:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No we say that " is a moral panic that stems from the belief that drag, especially when exposed to minors, can be harmful, due to its perception as sexual in nature", there is no proof this is not true. There is no proof it is "=attempts by the LGBTQ+ community to sexualize or recruit children." som we are reflecting what the sources say, that there is no evidence any of this is true. Slatersteven (talk) 18:04, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"'. . . is a moral panic that stems from the belief that drag, especially when exposed to minors, can be harmful, due to its perception as sexual in nature', there is no proof this is not true."
Yes, there is no conclusive proof that drag has negative effects on minors. There is also no proof that says that drag isn't bad for minors. Thus, this article should not take a position either way. However, by labelling it a "moral panic" and calling protesters of drag "extremist," the article heavily implies that they are objectively wrong and is explicitly politically biased, especially when even centre-left publications sometimes voice objections (source: https://www.newsweek.com/drag-never-appropriate-kids-opinion-1807055)
And I am not talking about purported attempts to sexualize and recruit children, which is a much more serious and far-fetched allegation that is being improperly conflated with the general idea that drag, which is generally considered sexual, could be harmful to children.
This entire article is thus biased, and no amount of mental gymnastics on your part will fix that. Thus, the article should be deleted entirely. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 19:10, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, and no that there is no evidence it does affect them, hence it is an accusation without proof, which is what we say. Slatersteven (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, you say that it is hysteria, that it is an accusation that is false. An accusation that is without proof going up against a defense with no proof is called subjectivity. Now stop making the subjective appear objective. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am out with a no change supported. Slatersteven (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposition to Nominate For Deletion

Disruptive trolling
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

According to WP:PROVEIT as of 6/24/2024: "All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material."

Unless verifiable proof can be presented that exposure to drag has no harmful effect on children, this article cannot call this assertion "hysteria" or "moral panic," and so must be deleted. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it can as RS say it is. Slatersteven (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Which reliable sources objectively prove that there is no negative effect on children from exposure to drag? Please enlighten me. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 20:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They do not have to say they prove it, just they just have to say it. Slatersteven (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.newsweek.com/drag-never-appropriate-kids-opinion-1807055
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2876760/why-drag-queen-performances-are-not-appropriate-for-children/
https://www.christianpost.com/news/most-parents-say-drag-queen-events-are-inappropriate-for-kids.html
Here's three sources that say the opposite. Should I go make a Wikipedia article called "Drag Queen Grooming of Children?" By your logic, yes, I should. You need proof for a claim like this, though. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 20:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Read wp:rs and wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have read these, and according to this, not only is the burden of proof "with the editor who adds or restores material," but also that "significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered." So, the significant minority opinion that exposure to drag is bad for children should be covered in this article, which would require a complete rephrasing of this article to, perhaps, "criticism of drag," which should itself not be an article. Thus more reason why the article should be deleted
Any more objections? JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 21:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are opp-edds, and read wp:blp. But you are free to create any article you like or free to wp:afd this one. I am now out of this. Slatersteven (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not feed the troll. Signed, somebody who has made the same mistake too many times. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not trolling. If you have legitimate objections to what I am saying, make them. If you don't, see WP:NOPA JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 21:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A Logical Proof For Deletion

If there is no objective proof that exposing children to drag is benign, then the following is true:

1) Wikipedia cannot state that exposing children to drag is benign

2) Thus, Wikipedia cannot state that opposition to opposing children to drag is grounded in "hysteria," "moral panic," or "extremism."

3) Thus, this article is imbued with an unacceptable degree of political bias.

4) Thus, this article should be deleted.

I am not trolling, do not believe that drag is grooming, and have, myself, multiple close family members who are LGBTQ+. That being said, I believe this degree of political bias to be unacceptable, and so I am dead serious in wanting to initiate a discussion regarding deletion. If you consider this unacceptable, see WP:STEAM. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stop it! If you want to nominate this article for deletion then you can roll the dice by starting an AfD. That is the process by which the article could, in theory, if there was a case for it, which there isn't, be deleted. You can't just repeatedly post nonsense here and expect that to accomplish anything other than annoying people. This is not a valid page for deletion nominations. Nothing posted here will lead to anything getting deleted. You already tried WP:PROD and that failed, AfD is the only avenue remaining.
Here is the process to follow if you really want to waste everybody's time and nominate the article for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Please read it carefully and decide whether the article really does meet the criteria for deletion (It doesn't!) before proceeding. --DanielRigal (talk) 23:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1) WP:STEAM is an essay not a policy or guideline. Even if it wasn't, as others have told you, you are free to take the article to WP:Articles for Deletion. Nobody will agree since the article has over 100 RS and is clearly notable, and nobody here has agreed with you, but you can do it - just don't expect it to go anywhere
2) WP:PROD says it may only be placed on a page a single time. Any editor (including the article's creator or the file's uploader) may object to the deletion by simply removing the tag; this action permanently cancels the proposed deletion via PROD. - you can't just put it back up if others disagree, especially citing a nonexistent consensus[2]
3) Your logical proof is ridiculous (and would earn you a failing grade in any logical reasoning class): the panic is people are saying the sure statement "drag is harmful" without evidence. Until you provide reliable sources saying "there is evidence this is harmful" that counteract the numerous RS saying "there is no evidence this is harmful, it's a moral panic" , this line of reasoning is silly.
  1. Wikipedia cannot state that exposing children to drag is benign - RS state this, you have yet to provide RS stating otherwise
  2. Thus, Wikipedia cannot state that opposition to opposing children to drag is grounded in "hysteria," "moral panic," or "extremism." - Wikipedia is based off reliable sources, which state exactly that
  3. This article follows WP:NPOV, which means we follow the RS, not that we make our own WP:FALSEBALANCE
  4. Thus, there continues to be no grounds to delete this article.
Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Simply because there is no conclusive, empirical evidence for a claim does not mean that all those making that claim are "hysterical," and the sources cited do not meet the standards of objectivity to claim as such.
Meanwhile, I can cite about a billion sources, some of them listed by WP:RSPSS as reliable, saying the contrary:
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/2876760/why-drag-queen-performances-are-not-appropriate-for-children/?utm_source=google&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=Pmax_USA_Magazine_21-June-Intent-Audience-Signals&gad_source=1&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI597st473hgMV8jcIBR0tkQMxEAMYASAAEgLBJfD_BwE
https://www.americanexperiment.org/parents-need-to-stop-taking-their-kids-to-drag-shows/
https://dailycitizen.focusonthefamily.com/drag-queen-story-hour-admits-to-grooming-your-kids/
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/drag-queen-story-hours-radical-origins-subversive-sexualization-kids
https://unherd.com/2022/08/drag-shows-arent-for-children/
https://www.returntoorder.org/2019/03/how-drag-queen-shows-destroy-childrens-innocence/
https://troymedia.com/lifestyle/children-should-not-be-exposed-to-drag-queen-story-hours/
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-sinister-rise-of-drag-shows-for-children/
https://mafamily.org/2024/04/18/drag-queen-exposes-underwear-to-children-at-school-sponsored-event-in-sutton/
https://www.feministcurrent.com/2022/06/26/why-do-children-need-drag-queen-story-hour/
I want to make it clear that I personally don't agree with much of these sources. Regardless, the bottom line is that I doesn't matter how many sources say, completely without evidence, that "X is true," and how many say, also completely without evidence "X isn't true."
This is an entire political debate based on nothing other than personal intuition from either side, and so Wikipedia should not pick a side, no matter how much it aligns with your or my personal intuition. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of those are so obviously unreliable it's funny.
  • Center of the American Experiment is a biased think tank.
  • WP:FOXNEWS is not reliable
  • Daily citizen is by Focus on the Family, a fundamentalist organization
  • Unherd is considered to, at best, publish only opinion pieces that are often undue, and at worst be straight up unreliable[3]
  • Return to order is a website that calls for the re-enmeshing of church and state, it's another fundamentalist org
  • The Massachusetts family institute is an anti-LGBT advocacy group that also thinks gay marriage takes thinks too far and is dangerous to kids
Addressing the ones that are slightly more reliable:
  • The washington examiner is a publisher of opinion rather than fact that it incredibly biased (see WP:RSP
  • The troymedia piece is an opinion piece
  • WP:SPECTATOR published only opinion pieces
  • Feministcurrent is a website that doesn't offer any fact-checking of what people submit there
Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You say this, yet the articles you hold to be reliable on this issue cite about as many sources on this matter as these do, and also make assertions without any actual evidence. Who is to say, conclusively, that there is no negative psychological effect on children? There are no studies, and so nobody can say that this is conclusively hysteria or extremism. JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When we say "reliable" we are talking about WP:Reliable Sources. Sure, there are other definitions of the word "reliable" and you are very welcome to use those anywhere other than Wikipedia. Now, please stop. Whether your intention is to troll or not, this is disruptive behaviour and it isn't getting anybody anywhere. DanielRigal (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
https://coloradonewsline.com/2023/04/27/drag-queen-childrens-book-objections-douglas-county/
https://safeschoolsallianceuk.net/2022/01/09/drag-queen-story-hour/
https://alphanews.org/drag-queen-story-hour-harmful-to-kids/
https://murraycampbell.net/2023/05/01/melbourne-academics-admit-the-obvious-about-drag-performances-for-children/ JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 16:21, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Take it to AFD or drop it. This is disruptive, not helpful. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Drag_panic&oldid=1231035596"