• cricket97@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Read the bill. It explicitly says "sexually oriented performance". And only in front of minors.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      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."

      • cricket97@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

            • Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              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.

              • cricket97@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                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

                • Solar Bear@slrpnk.net
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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.

                  • cricket97@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    I don't buy your criticism in this instance. This is what you originally said:

                    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.

                    This is quite the statement with absolutely 0 to back it up. "Yeah I know it doesnt actually ban dragshows, but it actually just means they're going to eventually ban all of them and also ban trans people!" is not really a coherent. I think your view on the intent of this bill is poisoned by the main stream media which constantly insists that this is banning drag shows, when in reality it just been gratuitous sexuality when children are around.