Drag Show Drama Leads to Legislation Proposal to Ban Parental Choice

June is Pride Month, and for those who find themselves center-right, it’s the season to launch hate-filled rhetoric into the universe and pray that it will end queerness. Perhaps that’s a bit of a dramatic depiction? It’s not fair to say that all republicans are launching hate-filled rhetoric into the universe, but a fair amount of voices are sitting behind microphones detailing new plans to criminalize parents who dare to confront their curiosity and invite their children along for the exploration.

Let me share an example of what I mean. Texas GOP representative Bryan Slayton tweeted out that he would be filing legislation to ban drag performances in the presence of minors in Texas. The statement he released says this:

“The events of this past weekend were horrifying and show a disturbing trend in which perverted adults are obsessed with sexualizing young children. As a father of two young children, I would never take my children to a drag show and I know Speaker Dade Phelan and the rest of my Republican colleagues wouldn’t either. Protecting our own children isn’t enough, and our responsibility as lawmakers extends to the sexualization that is happening across Texas.”

He further added:

“I promised my voters that I would stand up for their values and fight to protect Texas kids. I was re-elected on that promise and I intend to keep it by authoring legislation to defend kids from being subjected to drag shows and other inappropriate events. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this important legislation.”

Colorado Representative Lauren Boebert responded to the reports of the Texas drag show, by tweeting out: “Take your children to CHURCH, not drag bars.”

Whether this is simply the right’s play for maintaining their anti-gay position or their way of patronizing Pride month with ridiculous propaganda, we cannot be sure. But what is obvious is that those who are repeating this rhetoric might not have seen the 3,000-page report on the SBC and its 20-year history of covering up sex abuse and molestation within their institution. I recently wrote about it here.

Let’s circle back to Slayton’s claim of introducing legislation to prosecute parents who are found guilty of making decisions for their own children. This mirrors a similar proposal introduced by Florida Representative Anthony Sabatini (R), which he announced on Monday.

“I will be proposing legislation to charge w/a Felony and terminate the parental rights of any adult who brings a child to these perverted sex shows aimed at FL kids. When will the sexualization stop?”

Not only are Republican lawmakers chanting the same rhetoric as Biden, “This is for our children,” but they are also failing to acknowledge the growing sexual abuse that is taking place within churches. Is this really about protecting children, or is this just another spectacle that ignites the internal fervor of hatred of the sexually confused and prude? Or worse, is this a deflection or a projection of what is haunting Evangelical churches, with which many Conservatives align themselves?

The premise that a parent could be charged with a Felony for simply allowing their children to be curious and participate in something different and entertaining is a wild proposal for legislation. Consider the consequence of that law if the views or values of the lawmakers change? And shouldn’t we at least acknowledge that while some Texans (or Floridians) may not agree with the event, there were several state citizens that did in fact support the event and took their children to the said event? Didn’t the citizens of the state already determine it was in alignment with the values of the people? Is the owner of the forum not a Texan? Are the patrons that attended not Texans? Why must the values of all Texans be adjusted to match those of a single, ignorant, state representative?

And isn’t it odd that Representative Boebert has such an issue with drag shows, but forgot to mention how dangerous a bowling alley could be? In 2004, the representative’s husband, Jayson Steven Boebert, age 24 at the time, was charged with “lewd exposure” after he revealed his genitals to 2 young women in a Colorado bowling alley. Rep. Boebert was 17 at the time. Never mind that 7-year age gap, (because clearly, we don’t talk about men grooming young women in the Republican party) our own children aren’t even safe at a bowling alley.

Do I support the idea of bringing my kids to drag shows? Not really. It’s not my schtick. But I appreciate that in this country, we have the freedom to make choices for our children. As a parent, I get to decide what is and is not appropriate for my children to observe or participate in. And I think I would rather keep that right to decide. So, if you ask me if I would support legislation to criminalize parents who may take their children to an event where a drag performer may be seen, the answer is no.

I am curious, however, why is this OK, but attending a drag show performance is not?

And can we be honest about drag shows? They really are not that sexual. Drag performers wear pounds of makeup, heavy wigs, 6” heels and don garments, and fabrics that flow with the music. Drag performers are not exposing their genitals to young girls in bowling alleys. Drag performers are not molesting children in Sunday School classrooms and telling children to keep it a secret lest they want their parents to burn in hell. Drag performers are entertainers. They are paid to be a spectacle, not to have sex with children. Pastors and priests, on the other hand, are literally paid to preach the Good News and molest our children. Shouldn’t we be demanding more legislation for churches and holding abusers accountable rather than chasing after men in 6” heels that just want to dance and wear makeup?

More so, let’s discuss the idea that the government should have more say over what I do as a parent. So long as I am not physically harming my child, no elected representative or official has the right to intervene with my parental choices to tell me how to operate. It’s clever to sell such legislation under the guise of “protecting children” but if you are not taking action to charge priests and pastors with sex crimes, if you aren’t willing to pursue the allegations of the Epstein case, I don’t believe that you actually care about children.

I think that supporters of this legislation care more about controlling the views of others, including children. And there’s no way I will ever have enough faith in the government to grant them more access to my children nor have control over what my children are doing. It’s one of the reasons I homeschool. More government legislation is always an indication of more control which means a reduction of the exercise of natural rights and free will. No thank you. I’d vote “no.”

One more slab of truth for you to marinate. This idea that others are sexualizing children by being in the same proximity to them is ridiculous. Do you know who the people are that are really sexualizing children? The ones announcing that others are sexualizing them. Think about this for a moment. If you perceive that something is sexual, say, for instance, a drag show performance, that’s your projection of the situation. This means that your mind is applying the lens of “sexual” to the scene. Say you were just a viewer of one of the viral videos from the event that took place last Saturday. If you see a child in the space of a drag performer, as an audience member and the performer is simply dancing, is that sex? No. It is not sex. And while I know “sex” has an expansive spectrum of depictions, dancing in full costume in front of other adults and children is not sex.

The lens you apply to the situation is often what creates the outrage. My question for any elected representatives is this: Does your jaded lens really speak to the reality of what was taking place? Should your emotional reactivity to your ignorant interpretation really be the motivation for new legislation? Is that even a logical proposal, or does your lawmaker need a sex coach?

I encourage you to think more in-depth about the ramifications of such reactive legislation and how it could impact you, personally. Sure, you may think this doesn’t affect you because you would never take your child to a drag show. But what if you don’t want to vaccinate your child with some new experimental drug? Do you want a politician to take away that choice from you? What if you want to take your child to Disneyworld? Do you want a politician to take that choice away from you because he or she believes Disney markets to pedophiles? What if you want to homeschool? Do you want your representatives to charge you with a felony for choosing to teach your own child because you fear the “sexual agenda” in the public institution? What if your child wants to play football, but your state senator thinks football is dangerous, and therefore any child who enrolls to play football will be taken from their home?

Legislation is ambiguous, as I was recently informed. This means that the laws can bend for whichever party has control. Consider cautiously how much energy you are willing to grant to lawmakers to charge parents who make different choices than you do. The road to hell is paved with good intentions to protect children. Hell, even Hitler used that piece of rhetoric to advance his agenda, and look at how well that turned out. Millions of Jewish children died. It’s never about the children, it’s always about more power and more control.