Over the last couple articles, we discussed the rationale for the peculiarly odd wickedness known as drag. 

In what possible worldview does it make sense? That worldview is known as queer theory, a philosophy dedicated to overthrowing traditional sexual norms. Queer theory teaches that different kinds of sexual activity exist on a hierarchy, and that sex is a malleable social construct. 

Thus, those who are considered “perverted” are actually oppressed by the society that is refusing to approve of their particular kind of sexual behavior.

How does drag fit into queer theory? We discussed two main ways that drag attempts to change societal perception of sex. 

First, drag erodes natural categories of gender when performers intentionally dress and act like those of the opposite sex. By doing so, they blur the lines between the sexes and underscore the idea that sex is a malleable social construct. 

Second, drag attempts normalize unnatural sexual behavior by glorifying it in performances (stooping even to the level of pedophilia and necrophilia). This, of course, is all in the name of “liberating” those who are oppressed—oppressed, that is, by the God-given categories of male and female, righteous and unrighteous.

Yet, what’s up with the “family-friendly” version of drag that’s creeping its way into schools, libraries, and media? Why is such perverse ideology intent on infecting the kids? 

There are three things to consider here. 

First, we’ll look at the “innocent” surface message for kids. Then, we’ll look at a deeper wicked agenda. Finally, we’ll think about why children are particularly the target.

On the surface, even “family-friendly” drag reverberates with the queer mantras we’ve already covered. Look at Drag Story Hour’s (DSH) own website:  

DSH 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 everyone can be their authentic selves! (italics mine)

This paragraph gives us everything we need to know. To quote myself from just a few paragraphs ago, this story hour is evidently intended to 1) “erode natural categories of gender,” 2) “blur the lines between the sexes,” 3) “underscore the idea that sex is a malleable social construct,” and 4) “make unnatural sexual behavior seem more normal by glorifying it.”

This is what drag is doing in schools. It’s there to convince your kids of the wicked principles of queer theory we’ve been exposing thus far. And if it works, your kids will likely be convinced of everything down the line—sexuality is a social construct, perverts are merely “oppressed,” and societal approval matters more than God’s righteous judgments.

I think I’ve made my case well enough to warrant my conclusion: there is no such thing as family-friendly drag. 

Drag is there to destroy the family as we know it and God ordained it. You might as well be a salesman for bug-friendly pesticides.

But wait, there’s more. 

At least some of drag’s enthusiasts are quite open about its real significance. 

Queer theorist Harper Keenan and drag queen Harris Kornstein published an article in 2021, making it very clear that Drag Queen Story Hour is not merely about its self-styled “empathy” and “diversity.” Their article’s very title practically gives the whole game away: “Drag Pedagogy.”

In the article, Keenan and Kornstein argue that drag provides a good avenue for undermining traditional sexuality, replacing the biological family with ideological substitutes, and even arousing sexual desires in children. 

Thus, they refuse to limit Drag Queen Story Hour (DQSH) to the progressive buzzwords that it uses to market itself. Here’s a direct quote from their article:

As an organization, DQSH may be incentivized to recite lines about alignment with curricular standards and social-emotional learning in order to be legible within public education and philanthropic institutions. Drag itself ultimately does not take these utilitarian aims too seriously (but it is quite good at looking the part when necessary).Instead, drag is firmly rooted in play as a site of queer pleasure, resistance, and self-fashioning. (italics mine)

Evidently, the cries about “sexualizing children” aren’t just paranoid conservative hyperbole. Queer theorists admit it themselves.

It’s precisely here that we’re making a pivotal turn from what we’ve mentioned before. We’ve already discussed queer theory as an attempt to take “unnormal” people and integrate them into normal society by changing societal expectations. 

Now we’re talking about taking “normal” people—that is, innocent children—and making them unnormal. It’s not enough for some queers to play passive defense and just make sure they’re accepted. 

They must play aggressive offense and sexualize your kids, too.

Finally, why are children the target of all of this? Well, children are at a very impressionable stage of life; whatever they grow up with is what they will be inclined to view as normal. I believe this is one of the reasons why the Bible places such a high emphasis on bringing up children in the teaching of the Lord (Deuteronomy 6:7, Ephesians 6:4).

This means that perversions won’t strike children as perverted in the same way that they strike adults. So, anyone who wants to push a sinful agenda on people will be more effective if he can convince them when they’re that young. 

The guard dogs from the classic Animal Farm were such effective enforcers of the prevailing dogma because the ruling pigs snatched them away while they were still puppies.

Yet, there’s a further reason I believe children are the target of this thinly veiled sexual depravity. It’s one particular piece of a much larger cultural war on children. 

As Alex Newman observed in a recent interview,

Pagan societies seem to always hate children. And as our society becomes more pagan, we are no exception—we kill them in the womb in the name of our autonomy, chemically and surgically mangle them in the name of respecting their autonomy, and consistently devalue the kind of family structure that is necessary to bring them up in the proper nurturing they need. 

Perhaps this is ultimately spiritual in nature; perhaps their innocence particularly bothers the enemy. Perhaps he can’t stand to see God’s young, beautiful creatures living young lives free from the temptations of “adult” sins, and so he does his best to pollute their lives as early as possible.

The drive to target innocence is not just my conjecture, although I wish it were. The thing that really turns my stomach is when I read queer theorist Hannah Dyer’s words in her 2016 article “Queer Futurity and Childhood Innocence.”

Applying queer methods of analysis to studies of childhood can help to queer the rhetoric of innocence that constrains all children and help to refuse attempts to calculate the child’s future before it has the opportunity to explore desire. (italics mine)

Calling childhood innocence a “constraint” and advocating that children lose it so they can “explore desire” is—I legitimately don’t have words for it. 

All I can say is that it makes me sick.

Parents of America, they are driving racecars down the broad road that leads to destruction and they’re dragging your kids down with them. 

Don’t let them.