Oh come on. "Drag" has not been going on for five centuries. Not all cases of cross dressing are drag. And you certainly shouldn't be including stage actors in eras where FEMALES WERE NOT ALLOWED TO ACT AT ALL in your loosey-goosey definition of drag.
For the most part, instances of actors playing a role almost never count as drag. A female playing Peter Pan is not drag. Robin Williams in Mrs. Doubtfire is not drag.
John Leguizamo playing a drag queen in To Wong Foo might actually count as drag... but in that situation it should be noted that Leguizamo is NOT a drag queen - they were playing the role of a drag queen in a movie.
Drag has nothing to do with transgenderism. With the notable exception of Drag Queen Story Hour being used as a vehicle by which to promote transgenderism to children.
Have you looked through the books being read? Many of them are everyday kids books, no big deal. But many of them are intentionally chosen to normalize sexual orientation and gender identity themes to very young children. There's a nuance in there that gets crossed for me, personally. I would have no problem with books that promote the idea that little Johnny likes to wear frilly dresses and tiaras, and that's okay - because little male children can wear whatever they want and still be little male children. I do have a problem with books that promote the idea that because little Johnny likes to wear frilly dresses and tiaras, it means that Johnny is actually a little female child.
I WANT children and adults to feel free to wear whatever style of clothing they like (with bounds of decency and appropriateness for venue), without judgement, without harassment. I want to decouple sex from the absurd social expectations placed upon us. What I don't want, however, is to instill in children the idea that they get to "choose" what sex they are, or the idea that they have the "wrong body".
No... as in you think it's just fine for young children to be stuffing dollar bills into the undergarments of a half-naked adult?
