You mean the document doesn't start (and end) on 2? Huh...
Ya think?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
U.S. District Judge David Hittner found Senate Bill 12 “impermissibly infringes on the First Amendment and chills free speech.” The struck-down law prohibited any performers from dancing suggestively or wearing certain prosthetics in front of children.
“It is not unreasonable to read SB 12 and conclude that activities such as cheerleading, dancing, live theater, and other common public occurrences could possibly become a civil or criminal violation.”
While SB 12 was originally billed as legislation that would prevent children from seeing drag shows, the final version did not directly reference people dressing as the opposite gender.
In Tuesday's 56-page ruling, Hittner noted a survey of court decisions "reveals little divergence from the opinion that drag performances are expressive content that is afforded First Amendment protection."
U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk said that West Texas A&M University President Walter Wendler acted within his authority when he canceled a campus drag show.
"Today’s ruling is a celebration for the LGBTQ community and those who support free expression in the Lone Star State," GLAAD President and Chief Executive Officer Sarah Kate Ellis.
The original article contains 796 words, the summary contains 179 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Bad bot. Summary references two federal trial level judges with different opinions, without explaining why there are two different trial level judges. I will read full article to see why there are two different judges on the same case. EDIT: not the same case. Summary omits context - different judges ruling differently in different cases concerning drag.
When you think about it, the cons sure are creepy weirdos - obsessed with things like this so very, very much. Wonder why?
Combination of things:
Some are just assholes who hate anything they're told to hate.
Some are self-hating because they're in the closet themselves.
Some have bought into the "groomer" lies.
And some are child molesters who've figured out that if they can get everyone in the first three groups to focus on drag queens, it takes the heat off.
It's a bit tiring that every single infringement on people's rights to exist has to be combatted via 1A because the only thing that trumps dAsTaRdLy BeHaViOr In FrOnT oF cHiLdReN is free speech.
Is that literally the only framework US law sees? Can't it be illegal for lawmakers to force their views on people because they're hateful bigots?
Can’t it be illegal for lawmakers to force their views on people because they’re hateful bigots?
Of course not, because that would violate their 1A rights to be hateful bigots.
Bigoted speech is itself free speech. It’s fundamentally important that the law doesn’t make subjective judgement calls like this on what views are good or bad precisely because it protects the minority.
Key words: "In front of children"
How does it harm children to see someone in prosthetics dancing and lip synching?
I don't think it's good to expose children to grown men in revealing outfits twerking in front of them while kids are encouraged to tuck dollar bills into the dragqueens shirt like a stripper. Which happens and you don't bat an eye. Just because you're sexually desensitized doesn't mean it's okay to expose children to it.
Why are you under the impression that every drag show is like that? Drag story time at a library does not involve any of that.
If I were to present an example of sexually explicit stuff going down at a children's drag queen story hour would you change your mind?
No, because that's anecdotal. My wife is a librarian. I can give you plenty of anecdotes to counter it.
The answer is I'm not under the impression that every drag show is like that, but some definitely are and it seems like you people don't bat an eye or self police in any way.
Oh, well if some of them are, we better ban all of them.
It's not banning drag shows though. Read the bill. It's banning certain actions at a drag show.
Ok, link me to the bill. Because every outlet I have seen says the opposite.
You are being misled by sensationalized media. Bills are not hard to track down.
Then feel free to track it down and show it to me. You made the claim. It's not my job to research it for you.
Go ahead, present to us a video of a drag queen demonstrating: “sexually explicit conduct” meaning actual or simulated— (i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; (ii) bestiality; (iii) masturbation; (iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or (v) lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or pubic area of any person.
In front of 5 year olds, not adults.
You're not gonna.
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1681092876313214976
Here's a video of a drag queen simulating jerking off with children present. Not sure there's five year olds but there's definitely children present. One young girl seems to be clinging on to her mother facing away from it, showing discomfort.
https://twitter.com/SaraGonzalesTX/status/1619507742926077952
"I know theres little babies here, but... close your ears. This is just a tradition that all shows normally do. Cheers to you, cheers to me, cheers to those who lick us where we pee"
I expect you to come back downplaying it. But I think most people can agree this stuff is not appropriate for children.
Lol do you know babies don't understand words? Also the like three 10 year old kids were literally given money by their parents to tip the drag queens in the second video so apparently they thought it was fine. Regardless of what I or you think is appropriate for kids their parents thought it was or they would have left and certainly not given their kids money to tip.
You found two with 99% adults in the audience who were with their parents that made their own decision to not leave and take their kids away.
How many cases have there been in the past year of children getting shot at school or raped by priests though? Spoiler a lot more than 2, and guess what those kids are dead or have ruined lives, not just being grossed out for a few seconds. Most kids see worse on YouTube.
You asked me for examples, I gave you examples, and now you're going off about priests raping kids and kids getting shot at school. Exactly how I expected the response to be tbh.
Doesn't care about kids dying and being raped, only cares about a couple parents deciding it's fine if their kids see something a little racy.
You know what actually happens and none of you bat an eye? Grown men fondling altar boys. You know it happens, but you don't dare address it, so instead you pretend there's a much bigger child abuse problem out there that's more worthy of your time.
But there isn't. Clergy have demonstrably sexually abused children, and their church organizations have covered it up.
So go ahead, keep protecting pedophiles and protecting your disconcert with it onto everything else. When you're ready to value protecting kids over protecting religion, let us know.
I'm not religious. Nice try though. I hate pedophile priests too.
Great, so will you support legislation that suspends all Catholic Church events until they can be thoroughly audited? Churches in general, really.
go back to reddit
You seem to be under the impression that anyone gives a shit about your warped and disturbed world view. You keep telling others to go back to reddit but it's much more your style. Maybe you should start there.
Go ahead, present to us a video of a drag queen demonstrating: “sexually explicit conduct” meaning actual or simulated— (i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; (ii) bestiality; (iii) masturbation; (iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or (v) lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or pubic area of any person.
In front of 5 year olds, not adults.
You’re not gonna.
This was the message I was responding to. I provided exactly what you asked for and you sperged out.
Key words: straw man. Guessing almost zero drag shows happen in front of children
If I were to present you evidence of sexually explicit actions happening at a drag show in front of children would you change your mind?
It would be immaterial, because that is already illegal and can be enforced using existing laws without resorting to a broad ban of a particular kind of performance art.
Clarifications in law for grey areas are common. It's very likely people will downplay any sexual activity, as has already happened.
One time, no. Dozens of times, no I wouldn't change my mind that it's basically a non-issue, but I might believe that it's something that actually happens amongst the hundreds of millions of people that exist in my country.
You can find one example of the most insanely uncommon shit ever and it won't mean it's worth talking about for more than 30 seconds per year
What if I found 5 examples? How many do I need before you'll admit maybe I have a point?
If I can go my entire life and see a handful of articles about something happening, I do not think it's some sort of menace to society. Probably because I don't have a hatred of the people involved bubbling underneath every thought I have concerning the issue.
On January 6th alone I received 1000 times more proof I needed that Republicans are fucked up than decades have given me about trans people.
I am confident you're not canvassing the web with attacks against Republicans
You clearly didn't read. Can you?
What evidence threshold do I have to bypass in order for you to believe that it's not "the most insanely uncommon shit ever"
So no. As a Republican, you are proud of your voluntary dyslexia
It's okay, your mind is 100% made up and you refuse to change it for any reason. You do you.
Lol like your mind is open in the slightest
No. It wouldn't. Because you're a prude, and your definition of "sexually explicit actions" is almost certainly over-the-top pearl-clutching nonsense to me.
Would you say simulating jerking off in front of children is a "sexually explicit action"
I don't give a fuck about your video of a drag performer in Essex pretending the microphone is a phallus. Prude elsewhere.
I know you don't. You don't care about children being exposed to sexually explicit things. Thanks for being honest about it. But understand that some people do give a fuck, and you should respect that. You don't even have kids so you don't really get a seat at this table.
ASSUMER. I am done talking the moment someone assumes something about me without any evidence.
I bet I'm right though
I have a kid, and I have taken my kid to Pride events, because I am not a prude. I have taken her to drag queen story hours, because its fun. I grew up fundie evangelical and given a choice between corn-fed closeted authoritarian men trying to indoctrinate my kid to believe God's divine order makes her subserviant to a male/creep into her pants, vs. a drag queen playing on social constructs of sexuality, I'll take the latter every time.
Alright then I consider you a terrible parent if you don't care about them being exposed to sexually explicit material at a young age. I'm not religious, so your whining about that does not mean anything to me. I simply believe that parents have an obligation to shield their children from shit like this, and you disagree.
given a choice between corn-fed closeted authoritarian men trying to indoctrinate my kid to believe God’s divine order makes her subserviant to a male/creep into her pants, vs. a drag queen playing on social constructs of sexuality,
Those aren't the only two options. You can do neither. Not sure what kind of point you are making. Question, should children be allowed to look at porn?
Yes, you can choose not to take your kids to those events. Versus BAN BAN BAN PERSECUTE BAN FOMENT VIOLENCE and do anything to perpetuate the over-the-top prudishness of a loud minority.
I for one am fucking sick of hearing about this particular subject. Why is anyone talking about this?
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.
You keep hearing about the GOP vilifying and persecuting LGBTQ+ people because it's against the supposed ideals of the country and the GOP keep doing it. If you want news about LGBTQ+ issues to stop, you need to make the GOP stop.
You are being distracted. Focus. You CAN eat your local representative. One bite at a time.
People don't need to know what is in the chilli at the cookout.
Innocent people being villified, persecuted, attacked and oppressed isn't just a "distraction", it's a serious problem that's heading towards genocide.
We can chew bubble gum and walk at the same time, by which I mean deal with this AND their other fuckery.
It's actually very simple. Don't do sexually explicit shit around children. You are free to do it not in front of children and this law has no bearing on that.
Why are you defining drag shows as inherently sexually explicit? If a man wears a flowing dress with bloomers underneath, is it sexually explicit?
You know that's not what drag shows are. I've been to 3 different ones (with a group of a friends, not on my own) and every single one had some serious sexual undertones. The default means of "tipping" was tucking dollar bills down the drag queen's shirt, or simply tossing it at them like a stripper. They twerked with very revealing clothing on, etc. I wish you would just be honest about what drag shows actually consist of most of the time. Of course there are outliers but I think the history of drag shows clearly show demonstrate the inherent sexual nature of it all.
You went to three drag shows for adults. That's not what it's like when kids are there. Just like there are plays for adults and plays for kids or bands that play for adults and bands that play for kids. I saw They Might Be Giants in a bar after their children's album No came out. They swore. A lot. You would go to that show and say they weren't appropriate for children.
One of them had children around there was extensive twerking and other sexually explicit material. "That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal"
One of them. Well we better ban all of them then.
Ugh, this isn't a fucking joke, this is people's lives. You're allowed to focus on more than one thing too, btw
Because your apathy doesn't negate the attacks that marginalized people are facing.
I don't know. You're the one that clicked on the discussion thread. Seems silly to click a link for a discussion on a topic you're bored of. Maybe just keep scrolling next time.
Because republicans keep violating the constitution and trying to marginalize anyone who isn’t white hetero Christian.
funny how people here suddenly care about the constitution when it comes to showing children sexually explicit material.
Then read something else.
This was never a problem until Republicans tried to start banning it. So that's why people are talking about it
Because keeping us fighting over this keeps us from going after billionaires.
We have a winner.
1A issues are important. I'm just sick of misleading or lying headlines.
You’re telling people to back down from fighting back against persecution? Looking like a target, bruh
Because people like you keep trying to raise the suicide rate of an already alarming high rate among the group.
1A baybee
Republicans: “No, not like that!”
You mean the document doesn't start (and end) on 2? Huh...
Ya think?
This is the best summary I could come up with:
U.S. District Judge David Hittner found Senate Bill 12 “impermissibly infringes on the First Amendment and chills free speech.” The struck-down law prohibited any performers from dancing suggestively or wearing certain prosthetics in front of children.
“It is not unreasonable to read SB 12 and conclude that activities such as cheerleading, dancing, live theater, and other common public occurrences could possibly become a civil or criminal violation.”
While SB 12 was originally billed as legislation that would prevent children from seeing drag shows, the final version did not directly reference people dressing as the opposite gender.
In Tuesday's 56-page ruling, Hittner noted a survey of court decisions "reveals little divergence from the opinion that drag performances are expressive content that is afforded First Amendment protection."
U.S. District Judge Matthew Kacsmaryk said that West Texas A&M University President Walter Wendler acted within his authority when he canceled a campus drag show.
"Today’s ruling is a celebration for the LGBTQ community and those who support free expression in the Lone Star State," GLAAD President and Chief Executive Officer Sarah Kate Ellis.
The original article contains 796 words, the summary contains 179 words. Saved 78%. I'm a bot and I'm open source!
Bad bot. Summary references two federal trial level judges with different opinions, without explaining why there are two different trial level judges. I will read full article to see why there are two different judges on the same case. EDIT: not the same case. Summary omits context - different judges ruling differently in different cases concerning drag.
When you think about it, the cons sure are creepy weirdos - obsessed with things like this so very, very much. Wonder why?
Combination of things:
It's a bit tiring that every single infringement on people's rights to exist has to be combatted via 1A because the only thing that trumps dAsTaRdLy BeHaViOr In FrOnT oF cHiLdReN is free speech.
Is that literally the only framework US law sees? Can't it be illegal for lawmakers to force their views on people because they're hateful bigots?
Of course not, because that would violate their 1A rights to be hateful bigots.
Bigoted speech is itself free speech. It’s fundamentally important that the law doesn’t make subjective judgement calls like this on what views are good or bad precisely because it protects the minority.
Key words: "In front of children"
How does it harm children to see someone in prosthetics dancing and lip synching?
I don't think it's good to expose children to grown men in revealing outfits twerking in front of them while kids are encouraged to tuck dollar bills into the dragqueens shirt like a stripper. Which happens and you don't bat an eye. Just because you're sexually desensitized doesn't mean it's okay to expose children to it.
Why are you under the impression that every drag show is like that? Drag story time at a library does not involve any of that.
If I were to present an example of sexually explicit stuff going down at a children's drag queen story hour would you change your mind?
No, because that's anecdotal. My wife is a librarian. I can give you plenty of anecdotes to counter it.
The answer is I'm not under the impression that every drag show is like that, but some definitely are and it seems like you people don't bat an eye or self police in any way.
Oh, well if some of them are, we better ban all of them.
It's not banning drag shows though. Read the bill. It's banning certain actions at a drag show.
Ok, link me to the bill. Because every outlet I have seen says the opposite.
You are being misled by sensationalized media. Bills are not hard to track down.
Then feel free to track it down and show it to me. You made the claim. It's not my job to research it for you.
Go ahead, present to us a video of a drag queen demonstrating: “sexually explicit conduct” meaning actual or simulated— (i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; (ii) bestiality; (iii) masturbation; (iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or (v) lascivious exhibition of the anus, genitals, or pubic area of any person.
In front of 5 year olds, not adults.
You're not gonna.
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1681092876313214976 Here's a video of a drag queen simulating jerking off with children present. Not sure there's five year olds but there's definitely children present. One young girl seems to be clinging on to her mother facing away from it, showing discomfort.
https://twitter.com/SaraGonzalesTX/status/1619507742926077952 "I know theres little babies here, but... close your ears. This is just a tradition that all shows normally do. Cheers to you, cheers to me, cheers to those who lick us where we pee"
I expect you to come back downplaying it. But I think most people can agree this stuff is not appropriate for children.
Lol do you know babies don't understand words? Also the like three 10 year old kids were literally given money by their parents to tip the drag queens in the second video so apparently they thought it was fine. Regardless of what I or you think is appropriate for kids their parents thought it was or they would have left and certainly not given their kids money to tip.
You found two with 99% adults in the audience who were with their parents that made their own decision to not leave and take their kids away.
How many cases have there been in the past year of children getting shot at school or raped by priests though? Spoiler a lot more than 2, and guess what those kids are dead or have ruined lives, not just being grossed out for a few seconds. Most kids see worse on YouTube.
You asked me for examples, I gave you examples, and now you're going off about priests raping kids and kids getting shot at school. Exactly how I expected the response to be tbh.
Doesn't care about kids dying and being raped, only cares about a couple parents deciding it's fine if their kids see something a little racy.
Exactly how I expected the response to be tbh.
Go back to reddit
You know what actually happens and none of you bat an eye? Grown men fondling altar boys. You know it happens, but you don't dare address it, so instead you pretend there's a much bigger child abuse problem out there that's more worthy of your time.
But there isn't. Clergy have demonstrably sexually abused children, and their church organizations have covered it up.
So go ahead, keep protecting pedophiles and protecting your disconcert with it onto everything else. When you're ready to value protecting kids over protecting religion, let us know.
I'm not religious. Nice try though. I hate pedophile priests too.
Great, so will you support legislation that suspends all Catholic Church events until they can be thoroughly audited? Churches in general, really.
go back to reddit
You seem to be under the impression that anyone gives a shit about your warped and disturbed world view. You keep telling others to go back to reddit but it's much more your style. Maybe you should start there.
This was the message I was responding to. I provided exactly what you asked for and you sperged out.
Key words: straw man. Guessing almost zero drag shows happen in front of children
If I were to present you evidence of sexually explicit actions happening at a drag show in front of children would you change your mind?
It would be immaterial, because that is already illegal and can be enforced using existing laws without resorting to a broad ban of a particular kind of performance art.
Clarifications in law for grey areas are common. It's very likely people will downplay any sexual activity, as has already happened.
One time, no. Dozens of times, no I wouldn't change my mind that it's basically a non-issue, but I might believe that it's something that actually happens amongst the hundreds of millions of people that exist in my country.
You can find one example of the most insanely uncommon shit ever and it won't mean it's worth talking about for more than 30 seconds per year
What if I found 5 examples? How many do I need before you'll admit maybe I have a point?
If I can go my entire life and see a handful of articles about something happening, I do not think it's some sort of menace to society. Probably because I don't have a hatred of the people involved bubbling underneath every thought I have concerning the issue.
On January 6th alone I received 1000 times more proof I needed that Republicans are fucked up than decades have given me about trans people.
I am confident you're not canvassing the web with attacks against Republicans
You clearly didn't read. Can you?
What evidence threshold do I have to bypass in order for you to believe that it's not "the most insanely uncommon shit ever"
So no. As a Republican, you are proud of your voluntary dyslexia
It's okay, your mind is 100% made up and you refuse to change it for any reason. You do you.
Lol like your mind is open in the slightest
No. It wouldn't. Because you're a prude, and your definition of "sexually explicit actions" is almost certainly over-the-top pearl-clutching nonsense to me.
Would you say simulating jerking off in front of children is a "sexually explicit action"
I don't give a fuck about your video of a drag performer in Essex pretending the microphone is a phallus. Prude elsewhere.
I know you don't. You don't care about children being exposed to sexually explicit things. Thanks for being honest about it. But understand that some people do give a fuck, and you should respect that. You don't even have kids so you don't really get a seat at this table.
ASSUMER. I am done talking the moment someone assumes something about me without any evidence.
I bet I'm right though
I have a kid, and I have taken my kid to Pride events, because I am not a prude. I have taken her to drag queen story hours, because its fun. I grew up fundie evangelical and given a choice between corn-fed closeted authoritarian men trying to indoctrinate my kid to believe God's divine order makes her subserviant to a male/creep into her pants, vs. a drag queen playing on social constructs of sexuality, I'll take the latter every time.
Alright then I consider you a terrible parent if you don't care about them being exposed to sexually explicit material at a young age. I'm not religious, so your whining about that does not mean anything to me. I simply believe that parents have an obligation to shield their children from shit like this, and you disagree.
Those aren't the only two options. You can do neither. Not sure what kind of point you are making. Question, should children be allowed to look at porn?
Yes, you can choose not to take your kids to those events. Versus BAN BAN BAN PERSECUTE BAN FOMENT VIOLENCE and do anything to perpetuate the over-the-top prudishness of a loud minority.
I for one am fucking sick of hearing about this particular subject. Why is anyone talking about this?
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.
You keep hearing about the GOP vilifying and persecuting LGBTQ+ people because it's against the supposed ideals of the country and the GOP keep doing it. If you want news about LGBTQ+ issues to stop, you need to make the GOP stop.
You are being distracted. Focus. You CAN eat your local representative. One bite at a time.
People don't need to know what is in the chilli at the cookout.
Innocent people being villified, persecuted, attacked and oppressed isn't just a "distraction", it's a serious problem that's heading towards genocide.
We can chew bubble gum and walk at the same time, by which I mean deal with this AND their other fuckery.
It's actually very simple. Don't do sexually explicit shit around children. You are free to do it not in front of children and this law has no bearing on that.
Why are you defining drag shows as inherently sexually explicit? If a man wears a flowing dress with bloomers underneath, is it sexually explicit?
You know that's not what drag shows are. I've been to 3 different ones (with a group of a friends, not on my own) and every single one had some serious sexual undertones. The default means of "tipping" was tucking dollar bills down the drag queen's shirt, or simply tossing it at them like a stripper. They twerked with very revealing clothing on, etc. I wish you would just be honest about what drag shows actually consist of most of the time. Of course there are outliers but I think the history of drag shows clearly show demonstrate the inherent sexual nature of it all.
You went to three drag shows for adults. That's not what it's like when kids are there. Just like there are plays for adults and plays for kids or bands that play for adults and bands that play for kids. I saw They Might Be Giants in a bar after their children's album No came out. They swore. A lot. You would go to that show and say they weren't appropriate for children.
One of them had children around there was extensive twerking and other sexually explicit material. "That didn't happen. And if it did, it wasn't that bad. And if it was, that's not a big deal"
One of them. Well we better ban all of them then.
Ugh, this isn't a fucking joke, this is people's lives. You're allowed to focus on more than one thing too, btw
Because your apathy doesn't negate the attacks that marginalized people are facing.
I don't know. You're the one that clicked on the discussion thread. Seems silly to click a link for a discussion on a topic you're bored of. Maybe just keep scrolling next time.
Because republicans keep violating the constitution and trying to marginalize anyone who isn’t white hetero Christian.
funny how people here suddenly care about the constitution when it comes to showing children sexually explicit material.
Then read something else.
This was never a problem until Republicans tried to start banning it. So that's why people are talking about it
Because keeping us fighting over this keeps us from going after billionaires.
We have a winner.
1A issues are important. I'm just sick of misleading or lying headlines.
You’re telling people to back down from fighting back against persecution? Looking like a target, bruh
Because people like you keep trying to raise the suicide rate of an already alarming high rate among the group.