Apparently a Drag Queen Being Around Children Is the End of Civilization, According to CCN
The Outrage Machine Has Officially Driven Into the Ditch
There are some things you see online that make you stop and wonder how we got to this point as a society. Then there are the things posted by Cowlitz County News that make you realize the outrage machine has officially driven into the ditch.
Let's be clear about what CCN is actually outraged about, because this isn't really about Poison Waters reading a children's story. CCN's outrage is much more than that. CCN is outraged because they have no control over what a school district, in another city, in another county, and in another state does. CCN is outraged that a drag performer is getting really great community recognition. CCN is outraged because, while the majority of the kids would be able to sit through a storytime with this drag performer and have a great time, CCN's kids would be yanked out of school and miss out on the fun that the other kids are having. CCN doesn't want themselves to look like shitty parents so they decide that NOBODY'S kids should have fun because, if they had to explain their reasoning to their own children, those kids would wake up someday and realize that they were raised by bigots.
If you didn't know any better, you might think the screenshots showed evidence that a child had actually been harmed. They don't. What they show is a drag performer participating in a storytime event and a whole bunch of people deciding that her presence around children is, by definition, evidence of something sinister.
That's a pretty enormous leap.
Poison Waters has been part of the Portland community for decades. Portland State University awarded Poison Waters an honorary degree in 2025 and selected her as a commencement speaker, recognizing her community involvement and work in the community.
PSU's 2025 commencement materials also list Poison Waters as an honorary degree recipient and commencement speaker for the College of the Arts.
So the question isn't really, "Why is Poison Waters reading a story?" The question CCN's post is encouraging its audience to ask is, "Why would a public school allow a drag performer anywhere near children?"
Once you understand that, the comments make considerably more sense.
The problem isn't the book. The problem is the person reading it.
That's where this stops being a discussion about a particular school activity and starts looking an awful lot like plain old anti-LGBTQ+ bigotry.
Apparently "Drag Queen" Now Means "Pedophile"
One of the commenters wrote, "Anyone who puts their kid in school with this is a groomer."
No. That's not what the word means.
A groomer is not simply somebody you don't like. Grooming is an actual behavior involving manipulation and conditioning, often with the purpose of sexual abuse or exploitation. A drag performer being around children isn't automatically grooming. A parent who doesn't have a problem with a drag performer being around their child isn't a groomer. A person wearing a dress isn't a pedophile.
These really aren't complicated concepts. Yet somehow CCN's comment section has managed to turn the mere presence of a drag performer around children into evidence of sexual predation.
The comments don't establish that PPS endangered children. They don't establish that Poison Waters harmed a child. They don't establish that Poison Waters behaved inappropriately toward a child. They establish that some people saw a drag performer and immediately reached for the words "groomer" and "pedophile."
That's their assumption, not evidence.
The Pedophilia Conspiracy Theory
Then we get to the comments that jump straight from "drag queen" to "pedophilia." One commenter claimed that people have been secretly pushing to mainstream pedophilia for years and that it is now moving "at a faster pace" and becoming openly visible.
A drag performer is allowed to participate in a children's event and suddenly we're supposedly witnessing the secret mainstreaming of pedophilia?
There isn't a logical connection between those things. There is, however, a very obvious connection between this kind of rhetoric and the way LGBTQ+ people have been portrayed for years by people who want to make their existence sound inherently threatening to children.
Drag queen, gay, sexual, pedophile. Some people seem to think those are all interchangeable words. They aren't. Being LGBTQ+ does not make someone a pedophile. Being a drag performer does not make someone a pedophile. Reading a children's book does not make someone a pedophile. Wearing clothing associated with another gender does not make someone a sexual predator.
If you actually care about protecting children, you should probably be able to distinguish between an identity, an occupation, an activity and a crime.
"Poison Waters Is Poisoning Children's Minds"
Another commenter declared that Poison Waters is "poisoning kids' minds."
That's a pretty extraordinary accusation to make about someone based on the fact that they are a drag performer participating in a children's event. What exactly is being poisoned? A child's ability to read? Their ability to think? Their ability to understand that different kinds of people exist?
If the mere sight of somebody who doesn't conform to your preferred gender presentation is enough to "poison" a child's mind, children are going to need an awfully large bubble. Eventually they're going to encounter people who are gay, transgender, atheist, Jewish, Muslim, divorced, interracial, gender-nonconforming or simply different from what they grew up around.
That's called living in the real world.
Children aren't harmed simply by discovering that people who are different from their families exist. Learning how to interact respectfully with people who aren't exactly like you is one of the basic skills required to function in society.
"This Is Inappropriate for School"
There are also people insisting that Poison Waters is simply inappropriate for schools. One commenter wrote that this was "inappropriate for school" and called it "adult content."
That's a perfectly legitimate discussion to have if the person is actually talking about the content of a particular program. The problem is that many of these comments aren't doing that. They're not saying, "I looked at the material and I think this particular book isn't age appropriate." They're saying, "There's a drag queen, therefore something sexual must be happening."
That's a completely different argument.
If the actual content is inappropriate, then talk about the actual content. Explain what the material is, explain why it isn't age appropriate and make the case. If the problem is simply that an LGBTQ+ person is involved, then let's be honest about what the objection actually is.
Meanwhile, There Are Real Problems Affecting Children
One commenter pointed out that there are serious issues involving children in Cowlitz County, including abuse, incest and rape.
That comment was made in the middle of the discussion about Poison Waters, but it actually highlights something important. There are real problems involving children. Child sexual abuse is one of them.
According to RAINN, 93% of juvenile victims of sexual abuse knew their abuser in the Department of Justice data they cite. Fifty-nine percent were abused by acquaintances, 34% by family members and 7% by strangers.
That's important because the people screaming "pedophile" at a drag queen are creating the impression that the greatest threat to children is some strange person who looks different from them. That's not what the data says.
Real child protection means teaching children about boundaries, inappropriate behavior, consent and how to tell a trusted adult when something isn't right. It means taking allegations seriously and paying attention to actual behavior. It does not mean teaching children that an LGBTQ+ person is automatically dangerous.
The "Get Your Kids Out!" Brigade
Then came the inevitable calls to pull children out of school. One commenter told parents, "Get your children out of this. Now. If you can't see it it's too late."
Someone else called it "a great ad for homeschooling."
Another commenter said they were glad their children weren't in school anymore.
One person even claimed they moved from Portland because of drag queens.
Here's the thing: if you don't want your kid participating in something, don't have them participate. That is absolutely your right as a parent. You can opt out, choose another school, homeschool or talk to your kids about your beliefs.
Parents absolutely have the right to make decisions about their own children. Here's where that argument goes off the rails: you don't get to make that decision for everybody else's children.
This Isn't Really About "Protecting Children"
Let's stop pretending this is really about protecting children.
If a parent doesn't want their child around a drag performer, that's their decision. If a parent believes drag is inconsistent with their religion, that's their belief. If a parent doesn't want their child participating in a Pride-related event, they don't have to.
None of that is a problem.
The problem starts when those personal beliefs turn into demands that everyone else's children be subject to the same restrictions. This goes against the personal beliefs of the people driving the outrage, so instead of simply pulling their child out, they want to dictate what happens to everyone else's child.
That's a pretty important distinction.
You don't get to use "parental rights" as an argument for controlling somebody else's parenting. If you don't want Poison Waters around your child, don't send your child. If you want to homeschool, homeschool. If you want to teach your child that drag is wrong, teach them that. If you want to teach your child that LGBTQ+ people are worthy of respect, teach them that.
That's what parental choice actually looks like.
Apparently Jesus Is Education, but Drag Is Indoctrination
Then we get to another interesting part of the comment section. One commenter said, "We need to speak the name of Jesus over all public schools." The sad thing is that Rob probably doesn't understand that he's a hypocrite.
Another argued that schools need more God and biblical values and complained that schools are introducing children to sexuality.
Here's where the hypocrisy becomes almost impossible to miss. Apparently, a drag queen in school equals indoctrination, while Christianity in school equals education.
You cannot spend your afternoon screaming about schools indoctrinating children while simultaneously demanding that your religion be brought into those same schools. Parents can absolutely teach their children about Jesus. They can take their children to church. They can pray with them. They can teach them biblical values.
What they don't get to do is turn a public school into their church because they don't like the idea that somebody else's child might encounter a different worldview.
Public schools serve everybody, not just the people who happen to believe exactly what you believe.
Then Cheryl Wanted Us to Know How Teachers Dressed "Back in Her Day"
One commenter, Cheryl Ellis, reminisced about her days in education and complained that teachers today are dressing a little "loose" compared with how teachers dressed when she was working. She thinks that her appearance shaming actually means something.
This is actually a pretty revealing comment because the issue isn't really just drag. It's discomfort with people who don't fit a particular person's idea of how adults are supposed to look and behave.
First it's the teachers' clothes. Then it's drag queens. Then it's LGBTQ+ people. Then it's "gender ideology." Then suddenly we're talking about how public schools need more God and biblical values.
The target changes, but the underlying message stays the same: "I don't like this, therefore children shouldn't be exposed to it."
That's not child protection. That's an attempt to control what other people are allowed to see.
At Least One Person Managed to Make a Reasonable Argument
Not every comment was completely unhinged. Magdalena Catherine said that she loves Poison Waters but doesn't believe this belongs in schools.
That's a perfectly reasonable position to have. You can disagree about whether a particular event belongs in a school without calling somebody a groomer. You can question a program without accusing an entire group of people of being pedophiles. You can say, "I don't think this belongs in a classroom," without turning the discussion into a conspiracy theory about the secret mainstreaming of child sexual abuse.
That's how adults disagree.
The problem is that reasonable disagreement gets buried when the loudest voices immediately start throwing around accusations of grooming and pedophilia.
Then the Peanut Gallery Showed Up
Some comments weren't even pretending to make an argument. One person wrote, "Burn them to the ground." Nothing like advocating for a little violence, huh? CCN touting that they are such law abiding citizens didn't remove this comment. It just goes to show that they only care about the law when the law benefits them
Another called the situation a "cesspool."
Others simply offered "hard pass," "no" and various versions of "this is disgusting."
These aren't arguments. They're reactions. There is nothing wrong with disliking something. There is something wrong with treating your dislike as evidence that something is dangerous.
That's important because the entire conversation has been framed around fear rather than facts. Show people a picture of a drag queen and tell them this person is around children, and suddenly you've got people screaming "groomer."
That's not evidence. That's conditioning.
Who Exactly Is Poison Waters?
This is another thing that seems to get conveniently left out of the outrage.
Poison Waters has been part of the Portland community for decades. Portland State University honored her with an honorary degree in 2025 and recognized her work with students, community organizations and charitable causes.
There are also posts documenting her participation in community events, Pride celebrations and storytime programs involving children and families.
There is a post from the International School of Portland describing Poison Waters as a special guest for a library after-school read-aloud event.
None of that means that every drag performers should automatically be invited into every classroom. That's not the argument.
The point is that there is a gigantic difference between saying, "I don't think this particular event belongs in school" and saying, "This person is a groomer and pedophile because she performs in drag."
One is an opinion. The other is an accusation. Those aren't interchangeable.
The "She Shouldn't Be Around Kids" Argument
This is where CCN's framing becomes especially revealing.
The argument isn't simply that a particular book or event might be inappropriate. The argument is that Poison Waters herself should not be around children because she is a drag performer.
That is a completely different standard.
If someone believes Poison Waters has done something inappropriate, then identify the behavior. If someone believes a particular book isn't age appropriate, identify the book and explain why. If someone believes PPS violated a policy, identify the policy. If someone believes a child was harmed, provide the evidence.
What doesn't work is starting with the conclusion that drag performers are inherently inappropriate around children and then working backward to find something, anything, that can be used to justify it.
That's not investigation. That's confirmation bias with a Facebook account.
The Irony Is Almost Too Much
The people making these accusations are very concerned about children being exposed to the wrong influences. They're also very concerned that schools aren't teaching enough Christianity.
That seems like a convenient distinction.
When they want to expose children to their religious beliefs, that's called values. When someone else exposes children to a different worldview, suddenly it's indoctrination.
Let's flip the situation around for a minute. Imagine an actual person with a documented history of sexually abusing children sitting in a church classroom with a Bible and a group of children. Would these people suddenly decide that reading the Bible around children is inherently dangerous?
Probably not. They would presumably understand that the Bible isn't the problem. The individual who abused children is.
That's exactly how this is supposed to work. The behavior matters. The evidence matters. The individual matters. Not whether someone is wearing a dress. Not whether someone is Christian. Not whether someone is gay. Not whether someone is a drag performer.
The irony is that these commenters are demanding that everyone else use a standard they don't seem particularly interested in applying to themselves.
"I Pray for My Grandchildren"
One commenter wrote, "I say the same thing every time I see or read about shit like this. I pray for my grandchildren every time."
I have absolutely no problem with someone praying for their grandchildren. What I do have a problem with is pretending that calling LGBTQ+ people groomers somehow constitutes protecting those children.
It doesn't.
Children need adults who will teach them what inappropriate behavior actually looks like. They need to know that they can say no. They need to know that they can tell someone when an adult makes them uncomfortable. They need adults around them who will listen when they report something.
None of that requires teaching children that people who perform in drag are automatically predators.
Besides, I'd be more concerned about saying you'll pray for them while saying "shit" in the same sentence.
The Shoe on the Other Foot
The most telling part of all of this is that I suspect a lot of the people screaming the loudest would have a very different reaction if the person in the room looked and behaved like someone they approved of.
Put an actual predator in a church classroom with a Bible and children, and I doubt these same people would suddenly conclude that Bible reading is inherently dangerous. They would probably focus on the predator.
That's exactly what they should do.
The fact that someone is LGBTQ+ or performs in drag tells you absolutely nothing about whether that individual is a danger to children. The fact that someone is a Christian tells you absolutely nothing about whether that individual is a danger to children either.
People should be judged by what they actually do.
What a radical concept.
This Is What Real Child Protection Looks Like
If we're genuinely concerned about children, then let's focus on the things that actually protect them.
Teach children about boundaries. Teach them that adults aren't entitled to touch them inappropriately. Teach them that they can say no. Teach them that they can tell a trusted adult when something makes them uncomfortable. Listen when children disclose abuse. Investigate allegations seriously. Pay attention to behavior rather than judging people based on their appearance, sexuality or gender expression.
That's child protection.
Calling every drag performer a groomer isn't.
The Real Problem With "Parental Rights"
The people making these arguments keep invoking parental rights as though it gives them authority over everyone else's children.
It doesn't.
Parental rights mean parents get to make decisions for their children. They don't mean one parent gets to dictate what another family is allowed to believe, see, read or participate in.
If you don't want Poison Waters around your child, that's your choice. If another parent doesn't have a problem with Poison Waters being around their child, that's their choice.
You don't have to agree with that parent. You just don't get to make their decision for them.
That's the part that seems to get lost.
What This Is Really About
After going through all of these comments, there's one thing that becomes pretty hard to ignore: they tell us a whole lot more about CCN's followers than they do about Portland Public Schools or Poison Waters.
They don't establish that Portland Public Schools endangered children. They don't establish that Poison Waters sexually abused anyone. They don't establish that a child was harmed. They don't even establish that the particular story or event was inappropriate for children. What they do show is how quickly some people jumped from "drag performer" to "groomer," "pedophile," "indoctrination" and "sexualization" without providing any evidence that any of those things actually occurred.
That's the part CCN should probably be more embarrassed about.
What's happening here is that people don't want to admit their bigotry, so rather than simply pulling their own kids out of something they disagree with, like a normal person would, they have to manufacture this elaborate storyline about how their poor kids are somehow being endangered because they might miss out on something fun that the majority of the other kids get to participate in.
In other words, they're taking their own prejudice and dressing it up as concern for children. They're essentially grooming their own kids with that bigotry under the guise of protecting all kids. It's ridiculously transparent when you actually stop and look at what's happening. If their kids aren't allowed to participate in something because of their parents' shitty worldview, then apparently no kids should be allowed to participate. Rather than admit, "I don't want my kid around a drag performer because I don't approve of drag or LGBTQ+ people," they project that discomfort onto the school, onto Poison Waters and onto every other child and parent involved.
Then the whole thing gets wrapped in this ridiculous story about protecting children from something that, in reality, they're simply offended by. They aren't protecting everyone else's kids from some demonstrated danger. They're trying to make sure their own beliefs determine what everyone else's kids are allowed to experience.
That's a pretty convenient way to avoid admitting what the actual objection is.
Parents have every right to decide what their own children participate in. They can opt out. They can homeschool. They can choose a different school. They can teach their children whatever religious or moral values they want. What they don't get to do is turn their personal discomfort into a rule for everybody else's children.
The irony is especially rich when you consider how differently some of these people would likely react if the person around their children were someone they considered acceptable. They seem perfectly capable of understanding that being a Christian, reading a Bible or participating in a church activity doesn't automatically make someone safe or unsafe. The individual person's behavior is what matters.
That same standard should apply to everyone.
A drag performer isn't automatically a predator. An LGBTQ+ person isn't automatically a danger to children. A Christian isn't automatically a danger to children either. The only intellectually honest standard is to look at what the person actually did.
So, that brings us right back to CCN.
The outrage isn't really about a story being read. It isn't about a book. It isn't even about Poison Waters. It's about the fact that a drag performer is being allowed to exist around children without being treated as a threat.
That's not child protection.
That's bigotry dressed up as parental concern.
The outrage machine didn't just drive into the ditch.
It apparently decided to stay there and start a Facebook comment section.
Comments
Post a Comment