Talk:Drag panic

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)


 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * "'. . . 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)

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


 * I also do not support a change. The existence of this article is not, in itself, political or biased. It reflects RS on the subject at hand, passes the test for notability, and is written according to Wikipedia standards of neutrality and POV.
 * I am open to hearing specific suggestions for specific wording changes, but otherwise do not agree the article should be deleted. Even if it were biased, that doesn't necessarily mean it should be deleted; it just means we should obtain consensus on what changes are needed to make it neutral. Lewisguile (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I Concede that the article should remain. Specific wording changes are necessary, though. The alternate term "drag hysteria" should be removed, for example, protestors should be termed "provocateurs" rather than "extremists,' and, most significantly, the title should be changed, as was suggested by multiple people, to something more neutral such as "Opposition to Drag" or "Anti-drag movement." JustAPoliticsNerd (talk) 15:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm pleased to see there is a consensus to keep the article. I'm happy to discuss language use and naming.
 * Re: drag hysteria
 * I did a search for "hysteria" in the article, and besides the references, it only appears as the alternate name for drag panic itself in the opening. To me, that doesn't read as an attack on anyone or Wikipedia calling people who oppose drag hysterical; it's just an outlining of the facts. If that term is used by RS, it's not biased or NPOV to include it.
 * If there are some reliable sources which question the terminology, indicating that there's a wider debate about it, then it might be relevant to include that fact in a terminology section or a criticisms section.
 * Re: extremists
 * I also searched for "extremists" and found it in two places besides the references.
 * In the UK section, "extremists" is used to summarise the view of the RS cited. The overview of the ISD report linked there says, "Anti-vaxxers, white nationalist groups, influential conspiracy theorists and 'child protection' advocates have at times formed an uneasy – even fractious – coalition of groups opposing all-ages drag events. The driving force behind these protests is a mix of far-right groups and COVID-19 conspiracists." Far-right and white nationalist groups would generally be considered extremists.
 * On p.7, the report itself says, "While it is an ideology that has manifested in many different forms, contemporary interpretations are frequently linked to conspiratorial and extremist beliefs." The article seems to be an accurate summation of what is written in the RS.
 * In the section on France, the link (in French), says "mouvements extrémistes". Extremists is therefore a fair interpretation and summary of that description as well.
 * I think we should leave "extremists" as it is, although the second reference could be better summarised as "extremist movements" so I will make that change myself.
 * Re: the title
 * I am aware there has previously been a consensus to merge this and another article (2022 drag performance protests) which had a slightly unclear and quite narrow focus. This may have resulted in the subject matter being broadened somewhat. There has also been another discussion about renaming it "anti-drag movement" which was, at the time, resolved due to this appearing to be the common name and a more specific name for a more specific set of circumstances.
 * "Drag panic" seems to me based on the older terms "gay panic" and "Satanic panic". These terms are still in use and are used in the Wikipedia titles for the relevant pages. The name itself isn't NPOV if it's the term used by experts.
 * I concur with the prior consensus that "Opposition to drag" is too generic and would broaden this article to cover lots of different subjects. That risks making it a WP:COATRACK. "Anti-drag movement" is certainly better than "Opposition to drag" but it is still less specific than "drag panic", and it is also not the common name for the phenomenon. The subject of the article seems to be that it is about anti-drag protests caused by what experts call a "moral panic". It is not just "opposition" or "protests". Therefore, "drag panic" seems the best name to me. Lewisguile (talk) 17:28, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Actually I spoke it too soon (Special:Diff/1231139176 about ok to anti-drag movement suggestion if there is a WP:REQUESTMOVE initiated. That Request-Move discussion have not started yet.
 * Also "Criticism of drag" WP:REQUESTMOVE / title rename to Criticism of drag just failed last month
 * my take about that Criticism of drag failed motion is this article is about events, about series of incidents & protests against any performances by drag queens...criticism of drag, to me, seemed like a topical subject, (like Criticisms of communist regimes) and not about events (eg Weiquan movement). So Criticism of drag is not OK. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 18:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh I agreed with Lewisguile that opposition to drag is too broad --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 18:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree, there is a subtle difference between "criticism of drag" and whatever we call "a moral panic about drag that is leading to protests". I have read through the article again, and every story listed is connected in some way to violence, threats or extremist groups (i.e., white nationalists, neo-Nazis, etc).
 * At the very least, any new title needs to be specific enough to show that experts believe there is a moral panic, that it targets drag queens and LGBTQ+ people, and that it involves threats of violence from extremist groups. If we can't do that, then I think WP:COMMONNAME is enough to keep it as it is. Lewisguile (talk) 19:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME & WP:PRIMARYTOPIC - WP:COMMONNAME...I forgot this one (and had came through these before)...
 * A web search came up more for Drag Panic than Anti-drag movement, especially Google Scholar too.
 * Secondly, Drag Panic had been mentioned in academic journals that are peer reviewed. Drag Panic is in the same vein as Gay panic or the very root Moral panic, all 3 topics are in peer-reviewed academic journals...Lewisguile elaborated much more better than me.
 * At this moment, having awared of WP:COMMONNAME & for wiki title WP:PRIMARYTOPIC / WP:DETERMINEPRIMARY - Drag Panic is better and more commonly used than anti-drag movement. --- Cat12zu3 (talk) 01:27, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I think there is a broad consensus that, even if the title isn't perfect or people don't like it, it's the most accurate and relevant we have so far.
 * Most of the historic opposition to the title revolves around whether the article is broader than the term "drag panic" suggests. But the article has been edited substantially since then, and it feels more on topic and more direct than it was, so that critique no longer really applies, either. Lewisguile (talk) 11:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Proposition to Nominate For Deletion
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)
 * Yes it can as RS say it is. Slatersteven (talk) 20:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * They do not have to say they prove it, just they just have to say it. Slatersteven (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Read wp:rs and wp:v. Slatersteven (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Christian post is not a RS Babysharkboss2 was here!!  Dr. Wu is NOT a Doctor! 14:46, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

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)


 * 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)
 * TNe follow our policies, and wp:afdit as you have been told. Slatersteven (talk) 09:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

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)


 * 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: 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)
 * 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
 * 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.
 * Wikipedia cannot state that exposing children to drag is benign - RS state this, you have yet to provide RS stating otherwise
 * 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
 * This article follows WP:NPOV, which means we follow the RS, not that we make our own WP:FALSEBALANCE
 * Thus, there continues to be no grounds to delete this article.
 * Your Friendly Neighborhood Sociologist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * Take it to AFD or drop it. This is disruptive, not helpful. —  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 19:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I do not support deletion for the litany of reasons outlined by others. There is no need to prove a negative (that drag isn't harmful); there *is* a need to prove the opposite (that it is harmful).
 * This is basic stuff. As per Wikipedia guidelines, contentious viewpoints about groups of people require a higher burden of proof than simply saying those viewpoints are contentious does. But either way, there is consensus among RS that this is a moral panic.
 * If it's that specific wording you disagree with (that it's a moral panic), I'd be happy to hear your suggestion for improvements, backed up by RS, here in the comments. Please remember, though, that news outlets have lower weight than, say, meta-analyses and academic papers from reputable organisations. Op-eds are lower still. Lewisguile (talk) 10:58, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum. Please use this talk page for discussion about specific improvements to the article. There is a process to follow for deletion, and it is very unlikely that this article would meet the criteria. Hist9600 (talk) 17:11, 27 June 2024 (UTC)