Senate Bill 12 would have prohibited performers from dancing suggestively or wearing certain prosthetics in front of children. Critics sued the state, saying it violated the First Amendment.
In Oregon it came to a head because of 2 cases, a topless roller skater in downtown Portland, and another dude, I don't remember the town, who was fond of going to his mailbox nude.
In both cases it was ruled that nudity is not necessarily sexual.
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.
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
most drag queens are sexually explicit and I'm tired of pretending they're not.
I kind of wish people stopped equating drag queens with drag. They're two different things.
The government shouldn't be able to force people to dress in any way or not to dress in any way.
What? You realize public nudity is illegal right?
Depends on the jurisdiction. It's not a universal law. Even in my state:
https://www.oregonlive.com/entertainment/2015/06/public_nudity_in_oregon.html
All the major cities it's illegal though. But to my point, you said:
So you disagree with the ability for a state to make a law against public nudity?
Not my quote, different user. ;)
In Oregon it came to a head because of 2 cases, a topless roller skater in downtown Portland, and another dude, I don't remember the town, who was fond of going to his mailbox nude.
In both cases it was ruled that nudity is not necessarily sexual.
So every year, we get the World Naked Bike Ride:
https://www.travelportland.com/events/naked-bike-ride/
ah true my bad
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?