Ripping the glitter-bedecked, 5XL schmatta off “Drag Queen Story Hour” to reveal the hideous Marxist depravity underneath.

Drag Queen Story Hour—in which performers in drag read books to kids in libraries, schools, and bookstores—has become a cultural flashpoint. The political Right has denounced these performances as sexual transgressions against children, while the political Left has defended them as an expression of LGBTQ pride. The intellectual debate has even spilled into real-world conflict: right-wing militants affiliated with the Proud Boys and the Three Percenters have staged protests against drag events for children, while their counterparts in the left-wing Antifa movement have responded with offers to serve as a protection force for the drag queens.

Families with children find themselves caught in the middle. Drag Queen Story Hour pitches itself as a family-friendly event to promote reading, tolerance, and inclusion. “In spaces like this,” the organization’s website reads, “kids are able to see people who defy rigid gender restrictions and imagine a world where everyone can be their authentic selves.”

This is what the pedophile freaks consider “authentic”:

But many parents, even if reluctant to say it publicly, have an instinctual distrust of adult men in women’s clothing dancing and exploring sexual themes with their children.

*shudder* Fascist weirdos.

These concerns are justified. But to mount an effective opposition, one must first understand the sexual politics behind the glitter, sequins, and heels. This requires a working knowledge of an extensive history, from the origin of the first “queen of drag” in the late nineteenth century to the development of academic queer theory, which provides the intellectual foundation for the modern drag-for-kids movement.

The drag queen might appear as a comic figure, but he carries an utterly serious message: the deconstruction of sex, the reconstruction of child sexuality, and the subversion of middle-class family life. The ideology that drives this movement was born in the sex dungeons of San Francisco and incubated in the academy.

Incorrect. In reality, it was born in London, in 1848.

It is now being transmitted, with official state support, in a number of public libraries and schools across the United States. By excavating the foundations of this ideology and sifting through the literature of its activists, parents and citizens can finally understand the new sexual politics and formulate a strategy for resisting it.

I formulated a perfectly workable strategy for resisting it within moments of first hearing of it, as I’m sure millions of other fathers did: club said Drag Queens like baby seals every time they try to put on another of their filthy little Groomer-fests in rural America. After no more than about three such examples being made of their sinister fellows, the survivors will get the message expressed in my post title well enough, trust me.

Start with queer theory, the academic discipline born in 1984 with the publication of Gayle S. Rubin’s essay “Thinking Sex: Notes for a Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality.” Beginning in the late 1970s, Rubin, a lesbian writer and activist, had immersed herself in the subcultures of leather, bondage, orgies, fisting, and sado-masochism in San Francisco, migrating through an ephemeral network of BDSM (bondage, domination, sadomasochism) clubs, literary societies, and New Age spiritualist gatherings.

And hey, what fair-minded dad wouldn’t want such a sordid, doomed future for his own precious toddler?

In “Thinking Sex,” Rubin sought to reconcile her experiences in the sexual underworld with the broader forces of American society.

As with Leftism more generally, it can’t be done, it’s a logical impossibility. You cannot “reconcile” traditional American society with forces which are explicitly, openly hostile to it, and wish to see it undermined, discredited, destroyed, and replaced with their own vision of a proto-Marxist hellscape.

“Modern Western societies appraise sex acts according to a hierarchical system of sexual value,” Rubin wrote. “Marital, reproductive heterosexuals are alone at the top erotic pyramid. Clamouring below are unmarried monogamous heterosexuals in couples, followed by most other heterosexuals…Stable, long-term lesbian and gay male couples are verging on respectability, but bar dykes and promiscuous gay men are hovering just above the groups at the very bottom of the pyramid. The most despised sexual castes currently include transsexuals, transvestites, fetishists, sadomasochists, sex workers such as prostitutes and porn models, and the lowliest of all, those whose eroticism transgresses generational boundaries.”

And there’s nothing wrong with such a hierarchy, really. As a born outlaw who’s lived my entire life well outside the margins of traditionalist norms my own self, I’ve always understood a basic concept these dilettantes seem unable to grasp: any self-styled rebel requires something to rebel against. Absent a clearly-defined and established hierarchy and the standards it imposes, whither rebellion?

Rubin’s project—and, by extension, that of queer theory—was to interrogate, deconstruct, and subvert this sexual hierarchy and usher in a world beyond limits, much like the one she had experienced in San Francisco. The key mechanism for achieving this turn was the thesis of social construction. “The new scholarship on sexual behaviour has given sex a history and created a constructivist alternative to” the view that sex is a natural and pre-political phenomenon, Rubin wrote. “Underlying this body of work is an assumption that sexuality is constituted in society and history, not biologically ordained. This does not mean the biological capacities are not prerequisites for human sexuality. It does mean that human sexuality is not comprehensible in purely biological terms.”

Well, DUH. Who the hell ever said it was, moron? Human sexuality is a complex bouillabaisse which involves emotional, psychological, and even spiritual elements, not merely the physical/biological. Only over-analytical, self-obsessed nitwits could ever think otherwise. IE, shitlibs. And if you know your shitlibs at all well, then you could see this next part coming from a mile away.

In other words, traditional conceptions of sex, regarding it as a natural behavior that reflects an unchanging order, are pure mythology, designed to rationalize and justify systems of oppression. For Rubin and later queer theorists, sex and gender were infinitely malleable. There was nothing permanent about human sexuality, which was, after all, “political.” Through a revolution of values, they believed, the sexual hierarchy could be torn down and rebuilt in their image.

My God, the wretched killjoys have even politicized sex. Is it really any wonder they’re so miserable?

Where does this process end?

A: as with all other liberal “processes,” it NEVER ends. It grinds on and on and on forever, the demands escalating from the unusual, to the weird, to the off-putting, to the outrageous, to the downright bizarre, to the unthinkable and beyond. As I’ve said before, it’s only a matter of time before they’re raising immortal hell for their God-given right to marry farm animals, just you mark my words. Hey, like abortion, it’s in the Constitution, don’tchaknow.