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

    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.

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

      If they view all drag as sexual why didn't they ban all drag?

      but are not arguing against the idea that they view all drag as sexual. I’m forced now to assume this is on purpose.

      They probably view most drag as sexual yeah. because it often is. but instead of banning drag entirely, they banned specifically sexual drag in front of children. That seems like the right thing to do in this circumstance.

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

        If they view all drag as sexual why didn't they ban all drag?

        If they view all drag as sexual performances, then banning sexual performances is effectively a ban on drag, with the added benefit that useful idiots will happily deploy smokescreens for you. This isn't complicated, you are simply engaging in willful ignorance. This is why I keep repeating that laws do not enforce themselves, but you have such a naive view of how government works that I don't think I can get through to you.

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

          I would flip it around and say if you don't view drag as inherently sexual, then banning sexual drag wouldn't equate to banning all drag. The fact that you think this law is an issue demonstrates that not only do you view drag as sexual, but you think it's okay for children to consume. Those laws will be enforced if someone breaks them, and you can only break them if you do something sexual in front of children. I wish you would just be honest and say "I don't think sexual drag in front of children is an issue" and I would respect your point of view a lot more, even if I disagree.

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

            Those laws will be enforced if someone breaks them

            Laws are enforced when the enforcer's perception is that the law has been broken, not when the law is actually broken. Laws do not enforce themselves, they are enforced by humans, and those humans have beliefs. For example, many believe all drag is sexual. This means that the law will be enforced as such. Do you understand? This is the last time I will attempt to get you to acknowledge this simple fact of reality before I give up and assume you are either too stupid to understand this, or do understand it and are simply lying.

            I'm choosing to be very kind by letting your attempted pedojacketing of me slide, as long as you finally acknowledge this.

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

              I don't accept your premise. I've said this numerous times. The bill clearly defines sexual conduct, it isn't going to be up to some individual thinking all drag is sexual, you have to actually violate one of the clearly laid out descriptions of what constitutes sexual nature.

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

                Okay, let's go down that rabbit hole, if only to prove you are not actually principled on the matter. Tell me what is defined to be "sexual gesticulations", as referenced in section 43.28, subsection 1E. This should be easy to resolve if the boundaries of the law are as clearly defined as you keep saying it is.

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

                  You should post the full sentence. The fact that you are leaving it out suggests that you aren't being entirely honest with your arguments.

                  the exhibition of sexual gesticulations using accessories or prosthetics that exaggerate male or female sexual characteristics.

                  Using accessories or prosthetics. Basically don't mimic sex using props. Seems pretty straightforward.

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

                    That… doesn't answer my question at all, and I'm beginning to suspect you aren't good at paying attention.

                    That doesn't define what a "sexual gesticulation" is. It just defines that it is illegal when done with those prosthetics. So what is a sexual gesticulation?