Bugs Bunny and Drag

Yes, drag has been a part of our culture for a long time, but it has a specific purpose

When debating issues like the logic (or lack thereof) of transgenderism or the blatant immorality in the exploitation of children by drag queens, one of the arguments that inevitably surfaces points out the long-accepted existence of gender-fluidity and cross-dressing in our popular culture. There are many examples that tend to surface, such as Robin Williams in Mrs. Doubtfire or John Travolta in Hairspray. But one example that seems to always find its way into the conversation is the beloved animated series, Looney Tunes, with its iconic character of Bugs Bunny. Bugs, with his cross-dressing antics, is regularly waved around as indisputable evidence of hypocrisy. Clearly, people who love Bugs Bunny but oppose Drag Queen Story Hour at their local library or the forced acceptance of infinite pronouns are nothing more than insufferable, bigoted hypocrites!

Much like the logic of transgenderism, the logic in these kind of arguments is utterly absent. Context, seemingly is wholly irrelevant to any analysis on the subject. The idea that children watching Looney Tunes is somehow equivalent to children attending a drag show where a man dressed up as a grotesque caricature of a woman twerks on a pole is asinine. The differences are obvious and numerous. These differences, however, are largely ignored for the sake of the tu quoque, or an appeal to hypocrisy. As with all progressive pursuits, the goal is not to establish truth. The goal is to force people into accepting and normalizing some degenerate behavior, in this case, by challenging their history of upholding their own value system and attempting to manipulate them with their own beliefs. It is a common tactic of progressivism to attempt to pervert and distort one’s own beliefs and values and then use those beliefs and values against them, even though the progressive doesn’t even believe in or care about any of it. A good example of this is attempts to use the Bible against Christians to affirm progressive dogma - proclaiming Jesus was a socialist, for example, (which he was not) in an attempt to manipulate Christians into embracing socialism. The fact that the progressive does not believe in or care about either Jesus or the Bible is ignored. Here, we are seeing something similar. These people are attempting to manipulate conservatives who love Bugs Bunny into embracing the degeneracy of radical gender theory and the sexualization of children. It has nothing to actually do with Bugs. They don’t care at all about Looney Tunes. It is nothing more than a tool of manipulation.

Inevitably, these attempts at manipulation always rely on false representation. Jesus was not a socialist, love does not mean acceptance or affirmation of any and everything, compassion does not mean I have to do what you want me to do without regard for my own convictions. In much the same way, the problems people have with drag queens and the problems people have with the contemporary gender issues have absolutely nothing to do with the history of cross-dressing in pop culture. They are two completely separate topics. It isn’t difficult to recognize that Bugs Bunny, Mrs. Doubtfire, and Edna Turnblad are beloved characters because they all have something in common. That something is called comedy. It is a joke, a gag, a bit - something that is meant to make the audience laugh at the absolute ridiculousness of it all. It is not meant to be taken seriously and it is not meant to be affirmed, embraced, or championed as somebody’s “truth” or heralded as if it is some form of biological (or even psychological) reality. When you watch Bugs Bunny dress up as Brunhilde in order to trick Elmer Fudd, you don’t accept this new identity as authentic. You recognize it as an outrageous disguise that is meant to, yet again, make a fool of Elmer Fudd. This is extended to the fact that Elmer Fudd is only able to look like a fool to the audience because of his comical inability to recognize the clear, obvious differences between a male and a female. Because he is easily tricked by Bugs’ disguise, it makes him look like an utterly clownish buffoon. Perhaps, there is a lesson there.

When people bring up these sort of characters as examples for why their own false identity should be embraced, I do wonder if they recognize that the reason these characters are loved and why their antics are accepted is because they are funny. Do you want people to think of you as a joke? Do you want your identity to be a punchline? Because that’s what Bugs as Brunhilde was. Not sure people have thought it through if they want their own cross-dressing or gender identity to be treated the same as Bugs Bunny.

It should also be noted that cross-dressing, itself, is not remotely the problem. As a theatre actor, I have dressed up as female characters on multiple occasions, myself. In the world of theatre, this sort of cross-dressing is relatively common. We already mentioned Edna Turnblad in Hairspray and another good example is Miss Trunchbill in Matilda who is usually played by a male actor. What stands out is that these sort of roles are usually cast that way, again, for comedic effect. When I played a female character, it was for the purpose of comedy. It was not meant to be taken seriously and it certainly was not meant to influence the perceptions of children in regards to cross-dressing men, let alone cross-dressing men who emphasize female sexuality when dressing as a woman in front of children.

What it ultimately comes down to, however, is that such antics remain within the confines of the stage and the story - that is, it is confined to the realm of fiction. There is no pretense that what you are seeing is any kind of representation of truth. When Bugs Bunny dons lipstick and a wig, there is no indication that what is happening is in any way real or that it represents anything real. The depiction actually goes out of its way to highlight just how false and disconnected from reality and truth it actually is. In fact, the more outrageously removed from reality it is, the funnier it is when others appear to be fooled. Robin Williams as Mrs. Doubtfire in his clearly fake falsetto voice makes us laugh because we recognize the ridiculousness of it. In Anger Management, when Woody Harrelson (in drag) suddenly abandons his “girly” voice and uses a deep manly voice, we laugh at both because we recognize the ridiculousness of it. This may be the most fundamental issue. It seems that those who support drag queens and the exploitation of children have no such ability to discern fact from fiction. And this apparent inability to separate lies from the truth extends well beyond the issues of drag queens and gender dysphoria. Nearly every issue underneath the progressive umbrella suffers from this same dysfunction. Whether we are talking about race, economics, healthcare, abortion, etc. the same disordered thought patterns emerge. For them, the line between true and false has been nearly blurred out of existence.

Regardless, the fundamental point is that progressivism’s exploitation of children is absolutely unacceptable. Period. You can accuse me of stochastic terrorism if you want to. I don’t care. You can accuse me of being a hypocrite because I let my kids watch Bugs Bunny. I don’t care. It doesn’t matter. I reject it. It’s one thing to be disconnected from reality, yourself, but using children to affirm, promote, and normalize your degeneracy is unacceptable. And this is a constant in progressivism. That, alone, sets off the alarms. We must oppose it at every turn. We must stand by our convictions and refuse to abandon reality for fiction. It is more important than ever that we fight for the truth and draw our line in the sand, refusing to be manipulated by people so removed from reality that they can’t even define the word “woman.”

The growing inability to discern lies from the truth has become the theme of our current culture. Bigots are now defined as those who challenge this lack of discernment. Because we accepted comedic cross-dressing in a fictional context, we now must accept children being sexualized and exposed to drag queens in real life or else we are terrible humans who lack compassion. We must simply make the leap from “because you accepted this over here, you must also accept that over there,” which is, incidentally, a perfect representation of the dangers of the slippery slope. If the acceptance of a certain thing in the past means that we must accept something else entirely in the future, particularly where context is ignored, then there is no line to be drawn and such justifications can feasibly continue indefinitely. So, the question becomes, what will we be told we must accept next?

So, leave the cartoons alone. Leave the children alone. Bugs Bunny is clever and hilarious. Some 40-year-old dude twerking in front of a 10-year-old? Not so much.