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.
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 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.
No, you have confirmed that you do not in fact understand me. I'm not saying "eventually it will ban them all." I'm saying the people writing and enforcing the law believe that all drag shows are sexual and thus this right now effectively makes it illegal to perform drag in front of children, because that is how the law will be applied in reality.
You keep repeating that it only bans sexual performances in front of children, but are not arguing against the idea that they view all drag as sexual. I'm forced now to assume this is on purpose.
Fun fact: it is the majority opinion among conservatives that being trans is a fetish and therefore sexual as well. That is what will be the focus in the future.
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.
I don't buy your criticism in this instance. This is what you originally said:
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.
No, you have confirmed that you do not in fact understand me. I'm not saying "eventually it will ban them all." I'm saying the people writing and enforcing the law believe that all drag shows are sexual and thus this right now effectively makes it illegal to perform drag in front of children, because that is how the law will be applied in reality.
You keep repeating that it only bans sexual performances in front of children, but are not arguing against the idea that they view all drag as sexual. I'm forced now to assume this is on purpose.
Fun fact: it is the majority opinion among conservatives that being trans is a fetish and therefore sexual as well. That is what will be the focus in the future.