Subject to campaigns of intimidation
What Rowling said in response to the three shits who posted her address on Twitter:
No address visible:
It’s fine for the drag queen to mock women, but Rowling is “wading into” a debate that’s none of her business even though it’s all about women’s rights.
That one on the right looks much more like a clown than a woman. That heavy make up and what looks like a fright wig – is this his idea of what women look like? Maybe he should get off Twitter and go out and meet a few.
More ambassadors for the trans cult. Way to represent, scumbags.
@iknklsast
This is a big part of the reason that I don’t like drag. It’s not about men crossing gender lines, it’s about making women look clownish. How can anyone see it as anything but degrading towards women?
I think it should be disdained as much as blackface or dressing in indigenous costumes.
I won’t give up my moccasins Michael. ;)
Oh dear, three more non-existent Twitter accounts…
Naif, I noticed that as well. I suspect that to people like that it feels as though part of their identity has been stripped away. I bet it dramatically reduces the flood of daily affirmation they feel.
I’m struggling to come up with a charitable interpretation of that sign in the middle (“Don’t be a cissy”). Like, what did the protestor THINK that would convey?
It seems that either:
1. It’s a slur for all cis people, as a play on a word for trans people that is considered a slur. Uh, ok, but I’m not sure that inventing slurs based on something you claim is tantamount to racism is a great way to make your point that you’re against discrimination and hatred. Also, how are we supposed to “not” be a cis person? My understanding is that neither trans nor cis status is considered a choice.
or
2. It’s a slur for some cis people only. You know, the bad ones. Because it’s always a sympathetic argument when people say “I don’t call all [Xs] a [slur for Xs], just the ones who are! You other [Xs] are ‘the good ones’ and I’m ok with you and would never call you that!”
Add to that the fact that the obvious reference to “sissy” has homophobic and misogynistic roots, and this is just a real winner all around.
Michael, I’m tempted to say one could make distinctions within drag. I won’t pretend I’m a connoisseur, but I have seen probably more than my fair share of drag. Not all drag queens are clownish. There’s a difference between a tribute and a mockery. I suspect, however, that drag is becoming more clownish as the years go by.
Perhaps there’s something parallel to the trans movement. Which brings us back to the ridiculous, clownish troon in the photo. How does anybody watch this “Holly Stars” without cringing? As far as womanface goes, this is not the Rachel Dolezal of trans, this is full-on minstrelsy. White gloves, pass the watermelon.
Oddly enough, I remember once upon a time some people thought that drag queens would go away, that we would not longer need them, and they would be filed in the dustbin of history as an unfortunate stereotype. Now the mockery of the stereotype has its own momentum, with a side of righteousness.
Not at all authoritative, but: Suzi Parker’s book Sex in the South has a section on drag. She visited a fair number of performances and got to know the performers. Parker found them very convincing; they put a lot of care and practice into their performances. But these were men who were pretending to be female performers, singing and dancing and acting in that role, not mocking women. I am reminded, too, of Jim Bailey, an impressionist who used to imitate Judy Garland, Barbra Streisand, and Phyllis Diller.