i am not an expert on the subject but i would imagine it’s because it has implications for the safety and legal rights of trans people. if they’re able to pass laws banning drag queens, they might then start (incorrectly) claiming that trans people are drag queens and thus those laws apply to them.
Exactly this.
Step 1) Declare that all drag performances are sexually explicit and therefore shouldn't be allowed near kids. This is false, of course. There are plenty of PG or G rated drag shows where nothing even remotely explicit happens, but they need this lie to be enshrined into law.
Step 2) Declare that trans people, by existing, are "performing drag in public." Again, false, but this would mean that trans people wouldn't be allowed to be dressed in their preferred gender anywhere there might be kids. Even simply walking through the grocery store would be declared "sexually explicit behavior in the presence of children" and could result in criminal charges.
The right will stop at nothing to enforce their radical Christian views on the country and they don't care whose lives they ruin to do this.
Not even just trans people... you know the end game of this kind of shit is to go back to a time where women don't wear pants (because they legally can't).
They're not banning drag queens, they're banning sexually explicit drag shows for children. Drag shows are still 100% legal.
They think all drag queens are sexually explicit and will enforce the law accordingly. The laws are also nearly always written such that they affect any trans person simply being in public.
most drag queens are sexually explicit and I'm tired of pretending they're not.
Which drag shows are you going to, exactly?
There is a difference between burlesque shows and drag shows. There is some overlap in the venn diagram, but not all drag queens are sexually explicit.
The real question to ask, is if they are SOOOO concerned about sexual performances, why aren't they banning heteronormative burlesque performances?
Oh, right, because it's not actually about being sexually explicit.
Read the bill. It explicitly says "sexually oriented performance". And only in front of minors.
It specifically calls out drag shows. If you believe that all drag shows are inherently sexual, there wouldn't be a need to say:
"(B)AAa male performer exhibiting as a female, or a
female performer exhibiting as a male, who uses clothing, makeup,
or other similar physical markers and who sings, lip syncs, dances,
or otherwise performs before an audience; and
(2)AAappeals to the prurient interest in sex."
Maybe theres some confusion here. I don't think that every single drag show out there has sexual elements in it. I'm sure there are some people who can put together a show that is kid friendly enough. But there is a lot of inherent sexuality in drag, people know this but they pretend not to admit it when this conversation comes up. There's some pretty intentionally raunchy shit happening at some of them and a lot of drag queens did not appropriately reform their normal act to be suitable for kids. And i get why, because theres a fuckton of sexual stuff in drag shows. its in the culture.
Thus, if we actually look at the bill, it doesn't outlaw drag shows altogether. it outlaws sexually natured drag shows in front of children.
Thus, if we actually look at the bill, it doesn't outlaw drag shows altogether.
Laws must be viewed wholistically. You cannot simply examine the text as if it somehow came into being on its own and enforces itself as a perfectly neutral rule of nature. It is written and applied by humans. So, you must also look at the framers who wrote it and those who will apply it.
And if we do, we see that they mean all drag shows are sexual. You clearly do agree with this interpretation so I'm not sure why you're trying to deploy this smokescreen. They intend to use this as a ban on children being "exposed" to drag in any form, and it's hardly a stretch to argue it will be expanded to include trans people.
If you're not willing to engage with the honest reality, we're forced to assume you are a disingenuous propagandist and treat you accordingly.
I like how you completely ignored the premise of my criticism of only reading the exact text, and just referenced the exact text again. Incredibly naive view of government, but I can see I won't be able to change that today.
I understand your criticism but I don't think it's informed or accurate. I can see how you would believe it if you only got your news through tabloid headlines. The bill in no way outlaws drag queens or drag shows. If they believed that all drag shows were sexual why did they make specific considerations that allow for drag shows to still exist?
it’s hardly a stretch to argue it will be expanded to include trans people.
I argue it is a stretch. this bill is about sexual performances in front of children. It does not apply to anything else
I don't think you do understand my criticism because you just again did the thing I'm criticizing. I'm saying the text of the law is not the whole picture because the real world application also matters and doesn't always perfectly reflect the literal text, and you just keep referring me back to the text of the law. I'm doing my damnedest to assume good intent from you but you are making it so hard. I don't think you'd be this deferential to government in most other situations.
i am not an expert on the subject but i would imagine it’s because it has implications for the safety and legal rights of trans people. if they’re able to pass laws banning drag queens, they might then start (incorrectly) claiming that trans people are drag queens and thus those laws apply to them.
Exactly this.
Step 1) Declare that all drag performances are sexually explicit and therefore shouldn't be allowed near kids. This is false, of course. There are plenty of PG or G rated drag shows where nothing even remotely explicit happens, but they need this lie to be enshrined into law.
Step 2) Declare that trans people, by existing, are "performing drag in public." Again, false, but this would mean that trans people wouldn't be allowed to be dressed in their preferred gender anywhere there might be kids. Even simply walking through the grocery store would be declared "sexually explicit behavior in the presence of children" and could result in criminal charges.
The right will stop at nothing to enforce their radical Christian views on the country and they don't care whose lives they ruin to do this.
Not even just trans people... you know the end game of this kind of shit is to go back to a time where women don't wear pants (because they legally can't).
They're not banning drag queens, they're banning sexually explicit drag shows for children. Drag shows are still 100% legal.
They think all drag queens are sexually explicit and will enforce the law accordingly. The laws are also nearly always written such that they affect any trans person simply being in public.
most drag queens are sexually explicit and I'm tired of pretending they're not.
Which drag shows are you going to, exactly?
There is a difference between burlesque shows and drag shows. There is some overlap in the venn diagram, but not all drag queens are sexually explicit.
The real question to ask, is if they are SOOOO concerned about sexual performances, why aren't they banning heteronormative burlesque performances?
Oh, right, because it's not actually about being sexually explicit.
Read the bill. It explicitly says "sexually oriented performance". And only in front of minors.
It specifically calls out drag shows. If you believe that all drag shows are inherently sexual, there wouldn't be a need to say:
"(B)AAa male performer exhibiting as a female, or a female performer exhibiting as a male, who uses clothing, makeup, or other similar physical markers and who sings, lip syncs, dances, or otherwise performs before an audience; and (2)AAappeals to the prurient interest in sex."
Maybe theres some confusion here. I don't think that every single drag show out there has sexual elements in it. I'm sure there are some people who can put together a show that is kid friendly enough. But there is a lot of inherent sexuality in drag, people know this but they pretend not to admit it when this conversation comes up. There's some pretty intentionally raunchy shit happening at some of them and a lot of drag queens did not appropriately reform their normal act to be suitable for kids. And i get why, because theres a fuckton of sexual stuff in drag shows. its in the culture.
Thus, if we actually look at the bill, it doesn't outlaw drag shows altogether. it outlaws sexually natured drag shows in front of children.
Laws must be viewed wholistically. You cannot simply examine the text as if it somehow came into being on its own and enforces itself as a perfectly neutral rule of nature. It is written and applied by humans. So, you must also look at the framers who wrote it and those who will apply it.
And if we do, we see that they mean all drag shows are sexual. You clearly do agree with this interpretation so I'm not sure why you're trying to deploy this smokescreen. They intend to use this as a ban on children being "exposed" to drag in any form, and it's hardly a stretch to argue it will be expanded to include trans people.
If you're not willing to engage with the honest reality, we're forced to assume you are a disingenuous propagandist and treat you accordingly.
Idk I think you have absorbed a bit too much of the narrative spin on it. You can read the bill here, it's VERY specific. https://capitol.texas.gov/tlodocs/88R/billtext/pdf/SB00012F.pdf#navpanes=0
I like how you completely ignored the premise of my criticism of only reading the exact text, and just referenced the exact text again. Incredibly naive view of government, but I can see I won't be able to change that today.
I understand your criticism but I don't think it's informed or accurate. I can see how you would believe it if you only got your news through tabloid headlines. The bill in no way outlaws drag queens or drag shows. If they believed that all drag shows were sexual why did they make specific considerations that allow for drag shows to still exist?
I don't think you do understand my criticism because you just again did the thing I'm criticizing. I'm saying the text of the law is not the whole picture because the real world application also matters and doesn't always perfectly reflect the literal text, and you just keep referring me back to the text of the law. I'm doing my damnedest to assume good intent from you but you are making it so hard. I don't think you'd be this deferential to government in most other situations.