It Seemed Like a Simple Question. The Answer Was Not So Easy to Find.

There's been a lot of talk (hysterical shrieking is probably more like it) about the imagined problems of homosexual people, the imagined influence they would have particularly on minors, and now more specifically about "drag shows," and the imagined influence they would have on minors.

The idea, presumably, and often explicitly, is that homosexual people, sometimes supposedly parading around in clothes characteristic of the gender the homosexual people are not, would not only influence minors (to become homosexual themselves -- and it's never explained what's wrong with homosexuality), but would in some sense prey on heterosexual minors, so they could either convert them to homosexuality, or just molest them.  The presumption is that homosexual people are not content, and satisfied with each other, and they want to conscript heterosexual people to become homosexual.  No reason is given.

So, I have to confess that I have an impression about sex crimes, or abuse, or what we used to call molestation.  I haven't studied it.  I just think I have been aware of a trend, at least among the anecdotes we all hear and read.  My impression is that most molestation, or sexual abuse, is heterosexual.  And I got curious enough to look it up.

It's not easy to find.  There are several or many sources that track the gender of person most likely to be molested (female), but almost none I could find that characterize the predators.  Who preys on these girls?  Other females (demonstrating the danger of homosexuals in contact with minors)?  Or males (demonstrating the danger of heterosexuals in contact with minors)?

I typed into Bing "percentage of sexual crimes that are heterosexual," and I found this: The proportions of heterosexual and homosexual pedophiles among sex offenders against children: an exploratory study - PubMed (nih.gov)  Over 30 years old, I know.

If you look at the abstract (summary of the findings of the paper), you will see that heterosexual molestation/abuse is 11 times more common than homosexual abuse.  So, if we're concerned about anyone sexually corrupting or taking advantage of our children, we're far more worried about people of the other gender from our children than we are about people of the same gender.  We have simply (and wrongly) invented the idea that our children, or we, have anything to fear from homosexual people.

In another paper (2015MediaPacketInsertsFINAL508.pdf (nsvrc.org) it was said that "96% of people who sexually abuse children are male," and "91% of the victims of sexual assault and rape are female."  This appears overwhelmingly to suggest that the problem, or the cause, of sexual mistreatment of any kind is heterosexual, and that the specific pattern is males mistreating females.

But even if we irrationally (with respect to these studies) wanted to tell ourselves not only that homosexual people are in any sense sexually dangerous or predatory to our children, but more specifically that "drag shows" were corrupting and seductive, we have a problem (at least regarding the "drag shows").  I myself am not interested in "drag shows," and I don't attend them.  (I've seen examples of them in movies like "The Rose," "Connie and Carla," "The Crying Game," and "The Birdcage.")  But it is my general impression that they commonly take place in bars and other such venues.  Minors are not allowed in bars.  So "drag shows" are no danger to minors.

But if we stick to the studies, and if we further imagine that childhood experience greatly influences adult behavior and choices (GUILTY!!), we would be on much more solid ground if we wanted to shield our children from anything that looks like a heterosexual display.  Or even interaction.  We're talking here about co-ed schools, teachers who are of different gender from some of the students, sports events where females might root for males, or vice versa, proms (or dating people of the other gender before -- or even after?; or ever? -- age 18), or any of a wide number of opportunities for people of one gender to impress, and have an effect on, or be in the presence of, people of the other gender.  I have a female friend who refuses to be treated by male doctors.  I can't convince her that all doctors are alike, because they're doctors.  They're not different, because of their personal genders.  Is she right, because a male doctor will molest her?  Or is she counterintuitively wrong, because if "drag shows" can seduce minors into being homosexual, then maybe being evaluated and treated by a doctor of the same gender as the patient can lead the patient to become homosexual?  (Again, setting aside anyone's opinion of what's wrong with homosexuality.)  Or are we only worried about male doctors treating female patients if the male doctors are dressed as females?  If we (wrongly) think homosexuality is caused by things like looking at homosexuals (assuming that we tell ourselves that all transvestites are homosexual), and males should not be able to see other males dressed as females (because that's where our problem exists -- or is it?  Do we not want males to be in the presence of other males dressed as females, or we don't want them to be in the presence of females, at least for the sake of the females, or we're not worried about males at all, and they can attend "drag shows," because it's females who get molested?), shouldn't we also decide that we wouldn't want our children to grow up to be clowns, so they shouldn't go to circuses?  Or we wouldn't want them to be politicians, because politicians, as everyone knows, are corrupt, so they shouldn't learn about civics or American history in school?  And if they ask us who George Washington or Abraham Lincoln or FDR or JFK or Donald Trump or Joe Biden is, we could shrug our shoulders, and give them a mindless expression.

The whole crusade against "drag shows" is irrational and wholly ill-conceived.  It's rancid meat for hungry dogs, but it has no actual meaning.  And it does not in any way address the asserted concern.