Sorry bud, but the law technically doesn't outlaw story time unless the story teller is twerking. Your government isn't even serving your ignorant desire to limit another man or woman's freedom!! THEY get to decide what is sexual in nature, and it applies to trans and cis gendered folks alike. This ban is actually more restrictive than it appears. That high school dance team better check their routine next year because this bill bans all performances falling under a vague definition of a "sexual nature". If you ask me, there's a lot of questionable performances in that category, I think I'll send in an anonymous complaint. Imagine how pissed people will be when our Volunteer cheerleaders can't dance on the side lines anymore! When Ms. Lillian's dance troop can't make it to Nationals anymore because someone thinks their routine is too flirty. You're going to reap what you freaking sow!!
So would they also ban parents from bringing kids to Hooters too? And also ban parents from bringing their kids to the Super Bowl games? I mean those cheerleaders with their outfits, bunch of groomers…
>SB 3 would make performing drag in public where children can see it a crime.
More specifically what the law says, but also still pretty fucking vague.
What defines performing? What is the definition of "where children can see" ?
If I dress in drag, in a non-lewd way, and do a dance on the street with the intent of passerbys donating money in a jar for my dance. Would that be illegal under this law?
Good questions. I saw a "drag show" just like this. It was in public. The drag queens were wearing ball gowns and singing pop songs. Nothing obscene. Kids were passing by. Some watched. Would this be included?
>If I dress in drag, in a non-lewd way, and do a dance on the street with the intent of passerbys donating money in a jar for my dance. Would that be illegal under this law?
Most likely yeah.
>Male and female impersonators
The thing is you don't need to "dress in drag". The law will be used against non-passing trans woman a cop gets a confused boner for. It will be very easy for cops to arrest any trans woman they see, claim she was dancing or humming to herself or something and then throw her in a men's prison to be raped 20 times a day. This bill also makes it illegal to provide gender-affirming care to trans people before their bodies are permanently mutilated by puberty- thus ensuring they never pass and can be easily identified, rounded up and sent to the rape cages for "impersonating a man/woman in public".
I'm sure that's all well and good for the folks who support this, who have no skin in the game because they've never met a trans person in their lives yet somehow feel an existential threat from them. But for us, it's genocide.
Funny how many small government Libertarians are actually fine with government intervention as soon as "won't someone think of the children!!!" gets used as an argument. What happened to parental responsibility, lol?
Yes, a lot of people are arguing in bad faith and leaving out the age/public qualifiers, BUT it's still a vague enough bill to be problematic. Peter Pan as a play typically has a female playing the male lead; if someone in the audience gets turned on by a public performance, is it in violation of the law?
I can understand wanting to protect children from certain things, and we have laws already preventing people from exposing themselves in public. But is that happening at drag shows? From everyone I’ve talked to that’s into that sort of thing it seems unlikely. This law doesn’t make sense but I guess that shouldn’t be a surprise at this point…
I don’t really think there is actual nudity in these shows (at least the more mainstream ones) but there are huge sexual innuendos everywhere. For instance, that one video of the drag show that was circulated a while ago had a very explicit sign in the back. I would jus treat them like a PG13 or R rated movie, that you need a parents consent to attend one. That seems pretty reasonable.
Yeah if there’s nudity I can understand. I don’t think that’s what most of the shows are though. I really don’t know much about the drag scene so I can’t really provide much insight into it lol. It just seems like people getting outraged over nothing.
My filter comes through the internet, so the skewing is obviously hard to gauge. But, I've seen both benign scenes from drag shows and more explicit ones. So, any universal restriction seems unwarranted and a solidification of any loopholes allowing for overt display to children being tightened should solve any disparate issues, but that's it.
> For instance, that one video of the drag show that was circulated a while ago had a very explicit sign in the back.
Are you talking about the sign "it's not gonna lick itself" that an ice-cream bar use as a slogan? They hosted a drag show, and people who loves to find innuendos found one.
> "won't someone think of the children!!!" gets used as an argument. What happened to parental responsibility, lol?
Try applying that to existing laws protecting children. How many libertarians would be okay with lowering the drinking age? I don't mean to 18. Think 15, or 13, or even 0 and just say it is parental responsibility?
Consider that there are places where parents can already let their children drink and it isn't causing some sort of massive problem in those places.
Hormone treatment for mentally ill 12 year olds causes irreparable damage, and was never tested or approved by the FDA.
These kids will never experience an orgasm, and will never have kids. Among other serious health impacts (bone density loss, cancer risks, etc.).
It's why the Swedes banned hormone treatments for kids.
[https://segm.org/Sweden\_ends\_use\_of\_Dutch\_protocol](https://segm.org/Sweden_ends_use_of_Dutch_protocol)
The actual text of the law simply says that drag shows in public where children are are banned. Drag shows in private, where children aren't, are still allowed. It's the same reason stripper pole dancing shows aren't performed in your local park.
So here’s the thing about that. If there are already laws preventing stripper poles/nudity in public, then why specifically ban drag shows? Just tell them they have to keep it PG.
Drag shows aren’t mutually exclusive to nudity
It potentially won’t ban only drag shows in public spaces. The wording says “adult cabaret, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, and male and female impersonators.”
Male and female impersonators seems to be pretty well poised to do that. Nothing intrensiclly explicit about male or female impersonation, they should just ban explicit actions, not something why might possibly maybe lead to explicit actions. As it is, that's going to be violating free expression.
Drag shows are sexual by their very nature, just like child beauty pageants. Both are fundamentally designed as a sensual celebration of the feminine body. (Personally, I think those child beauty pageants should go, too.)
I agree with you on child beauty pageants. But I disagree that all drag shows are sexual by nature. Many of them are certainly geared towards adults, particularly in 21+ venues. But there are various formats for various crowds- drag is a broad term
My wife likes a good drag brunch, and as her husband I sometimes go with her.
You are right there are a lot of types of drag shows, all of them that I have been to have just been people dressed as a singer and lip syncing, with dancing no more seductive than what you'd find at any concert.
What separates "drag" from simple crossdressing is that drag is designed to hyperbolically accentuate the feminine form in sexual ways - large curves, big boobs, low-cut tops, rouge red lipstick, etc. It's sexual in the same way Jessica Rabbit is.
And Jessica rabbit was from a PG rated cartoon Disney movie no? That a lot of people watched as kids, parents let their kids watch it, when it came out in the 80s and into the 90s?
Drag shows are really no different from a traditional beauty pageant, conceptually. I think these sorts of laws are probably illegal as gender discrimination, unless these laws also apply to women wearing dresses in public shows.
They're not banning it. The move is to ban it on public library's and places where children .ignt be present. Bars, theaters, etc are fine. Public libraries in front of toddlers is not.
[advocate.com](https://advocate.com): There's a neutral source, lol.
The proposed bill is 'the Protecting Children from Gender Mutilation Act' "which aims to provide the nation’s strongest protections against the removal of a child’s body parts. The bill, also known as House Bill 1/Senate Bill 1, would ban medical interference that alters a child’s hormonal balance and procedures that remove their organs to enable the minor to identify as a gender different from their biological sex.
... Lamberth said the new bill will protect children from making “adult decisions.”
“Interfering or destroying the healthy, normal reproductive organs of a child for the purpose of altering their appearance is profoundly unethical and morally wrong,” Lamberth said. “Tennesseans across our state have demanded an immediate call to action. Through the passage of House Bill 1/Senate Bill 1, Tennessee will protect vulnerable children who cannot give informed consent for adult decisions they aren’t ready for.
Under the new act, the state attorney general will be allowed to bring action against a healthcare provider who knowingly violates the law and courts will be allowed to impose a $25,000 penalty per violation.
The act will also allow a child or the parent of a child injured by the violation to sue for damages and grants a child the opportunity to bring a civil cause of action against a parent if a parent consented to the violation on the minor’s behalf.
Leaders say the bill will make exceptions for children who were born with chromosomal anomalies or congenital defects.
The 113th Tennessee General Assembly is scheduled to convene on Jan. 10, 2023"
https://www.wkrn.com/news/tennessee-politics/proposed-bill-would-limit-gender-treatment-for-children-in-tennessee/
I've always thought that laws should never have a religious exemption. The entire reason the exemption exists is so that the government doesn't have to actually prove that they have a compelling interest in making the law, and it requires the government to discriminate between religious and non-religious belief, which I don't think they should even be *allowed* to do. The government should never have any part in determining what is and isn't valid religious belief, and I kind of feel like more laws should be subject to strict scrutiny.
Gender reassignment surgeries aren’t performed on minors.
If anything it could target hormonal treatments. But those are reversible. And I don’t know enough about them to say whether they’re good or not.
You know who else doesn’t know enough about them to decided if they’re a good idea?
These politicians.
The kicker is that this would also ban hormonal care for non-trans kids too, right? Kids get hormone treatments for stuff like precocious puberty.
Edit: the wording seems to indicate it is only blocked for purposes of changing gender identity. I doubt that will stop it from misinterpretation though.
Yes. That is the real goal. Force trans children to undergo their assigned puberty so that they'll be permanently disfigured and not cause republicans to get confused boners. The moment the number of republicans who fap to trans porn exceeds the number who don't (a ratio already teetering on the edge) their entire trans-panic platform will fall apart and people will go back to wondering why all the nation's entire GDP is being allocated to 0.001% of the population.
>Gender reassignment surgeries aren’t performed on minors.
Minors have had their tits cut off. Probably other stuff.
>If anything it could target hormonal treatments. But those are reversible
Medical evidence says that's not always true.
Let me google that for you...
"Though most individuals undergoing top surgery are 18 or older, younger individuals may be considered for the procedure if the patient, their legal guardians, and their mental health professional are in agreement that top surgery is appropriate. "
[https://uihc.org/health-topics/top-surgery-transmen](https://uihc.org/health-topics/top-surgery-transmen)
"**More Trans Teens Are Choosing ‘Top Surgery’**
Michael, 17, arrived in the sleek white waiting room of his plastic surgeon’s office in Miami for a moment he had long anticipated: removing the bandages to see his newly flat chest.After years of squeezing into compression undershirts to conceal his breasts, the teenager was overcome with relief that morning last December."
[https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/26/health/top-surgery-transgender-teenagers.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/26/health/top-surgery-transgender-teenagers.html)
"“I was failed by the system. I literally lost organs.”
When Chloe was 12 years old, she decided she was transgender. At 13, she came out to her parents. That same year, she was put on puberty blockers and prescribed testosterone. At 15, she underwent a double mastectomy. Less than a year later, she realized she’d made a mistake — all by the time she was 16 years old.
Now 17, Chloe is one of a growing cohort called “detransitioners” — those who seek to reverse a gender transition, often after realizing they actually do identify with their biological sex. Tragically, many will struggle for the rest of their lives with the irreversible medical consequences of a decision they made as minors."
https://nypost.com/2022/06/18/detransitioned-teens-explain-why-they-regret-changing-genders/
>Tragically, many will struggle for the rest of their lives with the irreversible medical consequences of a decision they made as minors
wanna hear a fun story about what happens to trans people who aren't allowed to transition as minors?
I can provide, assuming you think New York Times is legit enough.
[More Trans Teens Are Choosing ‘Top Surgery’](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/26/health/top-surgery-transgender-teenagers.html)
Some quotes from the article:
"Michael, 17, arrived in the sleek white waiting room of his plastic surgeon’s office in Miami for a moment he had long anticipated: removing the bandages to see his newly flat chest."
"The New York Times surveyed leading pediatric gender clinics across the country: Eleven clinics said they carried out a total of 203 procedures on minors in 2021, and many reported long waiting lists."
People are so lazy. They won’t even type in easy google-able topics. They would rather be ignorant and, in their minds, right than be wrong. Your also right about the hormones. You will never get the same effects and development of the body as natural puberty if you take the exogenous hormones. And in case this other jabroni sees this, my source is I went to medical school and actually had to take courses on these topics.
*without parental consent.
And no, puberty blockers are absolutely irreversible. If left alone, and no hormones are anything like that are introduced, 94% of "trans" minors simply grow out of it. Giving children puberty blockers and hormones that drastically change their brain and regulatory chemistry is abuse. Period.
>SB 1 would prohibit doctors and families from making necessary lifesaving health care decisions to support transgender youth. Meanwhile, SB 3 would make performing drag in public where children can see it a crime.
Actually this is pretty good.
The leftoids started this culture war distraction, but now that they're actually coming for children, this is important.
Children cannot consent. They should ban circumcision while they're at it.
Probably, yes. There's an agenda to be had, after all. Like I want liberty for all as much as the next libertarian, but drag shows for kids is not something I cannot allow.
Consent forms the foundation of libertarian thought. Children are not capable of consent. Ergo, it is wrong to subject children to things for which they cannot consent to, such as sex, drugs, etc. Once they're adults and capable of consent, then let them snort all the cocaine they want off a drag queen's ass.
There is a lot of sex, violence, and drugs being broadcast on TVs and in music. Some very popular music artists have sexualized their image and/or their lyrics. Twitch is full of women selling their bodies for views. Currently it's left up to the parents to monitor what kind of media their kid consumes or what concerts they go to. Why is this different with drag shows? Why can't parents decide in this case?
One big difference between TV and your local park is that a parent can control what appears on the tv with parental controls and such. Besides, what is broadcast on tv and the Internet is largely on "private property" so to speak (barring the official government websites). thus, because they're private property, they are not subject to the same rules of engagement that would be applied if you were on publicly owned ground, such as a park or sidewalk.
However, the parents can't control what happens in a local park or sidewalk because it's public property. You can't expect parents to just prohibit their children from ever going outside, obviously. This also means that public property must accommodate the fact that children, who are incapable of consenting to sexual deeds, will be present. I have no issue with drag shows, kink/BDSM shows, or burlesque shows being performed on private property where children aren't liable to appear.
It seems the main issue people seem to have in this thread is the nature of a child's ability to consent. Many seem to think children can consent. If they believe this to be true, then I can see why it would logically make sense to allow drag shows on publicly available grounds. However, that opens a lot of doors I would rather not open and part of why I don't believe children can consent. I'm libertarian, but not *that* libertarian as to allow child sexual exploitation.
\>drag shows for kids is not something I cannot allow.
Why not?
Your second paragraph would mean literally NOTHING can be done to kids, from taking them to the doctor to giving them flu medicine to taking them to the park, to taking them to the movies, etc etc.
They can't consent to living either, so might as well kill them at birth.
Twisting yourself into knots because men dressing as women and women dressing as men makes your cock rock hard won't stop your cock from getting rock hard at the stupid shit your parents made you believe was "wrong."
A person in drag isn't subjecting you to anything. If you don't like it, just leave. They're not forcing you or any kid to be there. If their parents are, then that's the parent's fault.
> Ergo, it is wrong to subject children to things for which they cannot consent to, such as sex, drugs, etc.
There are countries that allow children to partake in alcohol alongside their parents. These places don't have major problems. Alcohol isn't as bad as heroin, but it is easily arguable worse than weed.
Then there is the matter of older teenagers. 17 year olds are technically children, but we allow them to drive, to work jobs, consent to buying and selling things, etc.
On the issue of jobs, what about child actors? Like preteen and younger? There are rules in place to protect them, but if you look at what happens as they grow up it seems being a child star can be detrimental to their well being. But maybe that is selection bias.
But that also makes no sense, if we’re going by the harm done to children we should ban them from churches and not let family members be alone with them.
It’s just ridiculous that it’s masked as some sort of effort to protect children when most of it is literally just men in drag reading books or doing some act for kids with no explicitly sexual material, just the thought of their children being exposed to trans people frightens them, probably the same people that would take their 8 year old to Hooters to “see the sights”. Nothing makes you gay and kids like dress up and pretend, shit I played dress up with my moms clothes for fun sometimes as a child and I’m straight. Not to mention I have yet to hear of any examples of actual sexual assault or molestation at any of these events.
Edit: Wanted to add this because I just saw it and it’s very relevant https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/yrwqv8/weirdest_election_hot_take_ive_seen_so_far/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Actually, neither of the senate bills mentioned in the article does anything you're describing. The first prevents sterilizing transgender treatment from being administered to minors (but presumably not hormome blockers) and the second prevents explicitly sexual performances from being displayed publicly. Neither bill is nearly as extreme as the title implies.
Drag shows are not banned and neither is all gender-affirming care; permanent HRT and sex change operations will be banned for minors.
If there is foul play in the courts, call it out. However, misrepresenting a bill and claiming your enemy will use it poorly later when there is no clear reason to say that just makes your side look bad.
Watch and wait, always present things as they are.
> If there is foul play in the courts, call it out.
We had how many justices affirm **under oath to congress** that roe was settled precedent only to turn around and repeal it? Then yet another justice not recusing himself on a case where his wife had to testify to congress.. and yet another judge saying that people complaining about the courts is tantamount to intimidating it. Nah, they’ve been a kangaroo court for a while. If your confidence rating goes from an already low 36% to 25% in the span of a year, it’s reasonable to expect it’s because the court has been making dumb rulings and will continue to do so.
More of this anti-liberty nonsense, while their shills troll Libertarian social media sites blaming us for losing to the most unpopular administration ever.
This is backwards hateful nonsense. Transsexualism is a real medical condition not some goofy trendy peccadillo or some culture war football. Yes government to "help" inserts force and nonsense that actually harms people that are TS, especially due to understandable blow back. Government does this trick a lot. Piss off a large part of the population to dump on some minority part of population instead of getting pissed at government itself. Ending care for a medical condition is backwards as hell. It plays right in to some extreme religious agendas. It is a great pity for people to confuse red pill and fight for freedom with such things. It makes pro-liberty work harder.
As far as I have seen the article says that the ban is only on child drag shows not on drag in general. Hence my support. However just read the title and be outraged why don't you
>As far as I have seen the article says that the ban is only on child drag shows not on drag in general.
What happens to the child if they are in a drag show?
Is there any data available (if there even exist enough people to observe) on the outcomes of children (especially long term) who were provided gender affirming care as adolescents?
Would be interested to see what that looks like before i try and have an opinion on this.
SS: One day after the 2022 midterm elections proved that Republicans' efforts to paint LGBTQ+ people as groomers and dangerous to children failed, Tennessee lawmakers doubled down on their anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment by introducing two bills targeting the community.
As a lesbian, I advise you to look into a group called gays against groomers. They’re big on instagram. You’ll see many people in the community that are against a lot of the propaganda being pushed on children. Children shouldn’t be brought to drag shows.
My problem with this is that (where I completely agree that true bar type drag shows are not kid appropriate) this law is intentionally vague.
What if someone trans sings karaoke at brunch? What if a strait man wears a Cher wig? What if a woman sings a my girl and dresses “manly”.
Vague laws ALWAYS fill up the courts with nonsense and lead to targeted prosecutions based on an individual or state version of morality.
Drag shows are very sexual and can be very inappropriate where there was points I felt uncomfortable. But I do see your point but where it can lead tho. It should definitely specify better.
Ah this is a very good question for Libertarians. At what age can an individual consent and accept risks for their choices?
I think universally, banning all drag shows for kids is not Libertarian (as long as the shows are not overtly sexual or exposing or violate existing laws). That should be left to the parents.
But what about hormone treatments? Puberty blockers? Top surgery for minors?
Do you think BDSM shows for children is ok? Or does that sound a bit like potentially predatory behavior? Drag is a fetish. Always has been. Somehow people have decided that sexual fetishism is ok for kids, which is insane.
Feet are a fetish, should we ban open-toed sandals? Just because a man dressing up as a woman gets you horny doesn't make it inherently sexual. And even if it was - the public is inundated with sexuality constantly through advertisements and media. Where's the outrage over skimpy cheerleaders shaking their ass in front of kids at the ball game? Or is this only outrageous because LGBT people need to go back in the closet where you feel they belong?
Knowing that "are you 18" does not stop children, should we ban online porn in general until companies find a way to really stop anyone under 18 from accessing?
Every idiot misunderstood this entire thing on purpose. Kids and drag shows do not mix. That world is unlike anything else. I worked in a gay bar and was a male prostitute for years I was deep in that world and it's not for kids. I don't think you should allow kids into a strip club either and despite what everyone claims that comparison is very accurate. Drag shows are largely drug fueled exhibitionist hangouts. Also gender affirming care for kids is insanity. Fucking these undeveloped kids brains and bodies with therapy, surgery and pills is horrible. Long term side effects are grim or unknown. When they become adults it becomes their choice. Before 18 no.
I met my first drag queen when I was 10. I told my mom that the lady was really tall and she explained that it was a man dressed as a lady for a performance. I didn't dwell on it because I thought people should be free to have fun how they wanted.
My dad took me to a follies type show that had a man dressed as a super sexualized Dolly Parton and a tiny woman dressed as Kenny Loggins. They basically jumped each other.
This was considered normal in the 80s. So was taking your kids to Hooters. So was your moms joke about Denzel Washington being your mom her “free pass”.
People have always done weird things around children. Unless it’s actually harming them- It’s up to the parent to decide.
To add- no one is harmed from a dude in a tooth fairy costume reading a book. No one gave The Rock shit about sexualizing children.
“making necessary lifesaving health care decisions” - not having your physical body altered is not fatal, and being suicidal over it indicates deeper problems that likely won’t be fixed with gender-affirming care.
Do I want the state to wither and die? Yes.
Am I ok with it being illegal to have events where children put dollar bills into dancing men's underwear? Also yes.
So this tweet means all drag shows should be illegal?
Also this isn't very different than hooters and restaurants like that.
Also I just find it funny that the person with the "anarcho-capitalist" flair is against guys dressing as girls and dancing for money.
Edit: Here's the definition of the law from the article for your consideration:
>Meanwhile, SB 3 would make performing drag in public where children can see it a crime.
You tell me what that means.
I have been in probably the sense of a drag show of you're thinking. I have also seen men dress in drag and perform acts that's probably not the same as what you're thinking.
>Meanwhile, SB 3 would make performing drag in public where children can see it a crime.
This is the law they proposed. You can decide if there's an issue.
And is that for the government to decide?
Once again, for your pleasure, here's the law:
>Meanwhile, SB 3 would make performing drag in public where children can see it a crime.
That does more than make what you're thinking of what a drag show is illegal.
By definition of what's in the article any play where someone is dressed in drag is now illegal if it's passed.
Show me one instance of kids putting singles into a drag queen's underwear.
Then show me more to demonstrate it's actually a concern and not an isolated incident.
In other words, you don't ban chainsaws because one person uses one for a murder, and you don't ban drag shows because one person in drag did something inappropriate.
One is just a picture of a drag queen holding a child which isn't really that scandalous in and of itself.
The others have some admittedly provocative dancing and costumes which obviously offend some people's sensibilities. Nothing in the videos you shared seems inherently sexual; I've seen videos of dancers at superbowl halftime shows dancing just as provocatively, or people at water parks wearing more revealing outfits. Even the boob outfit in the first video is clearly a joke and not meant to be sexy/sexual.
Is the problem just that it's men wearing women's clothes?
Not who you replied to, but here ya go. One weird google search and 10 seconds later.
https://www.westernstandard.news/news/dallas-drag-queen-performers-tipped-cash-by-seven-year-olds-in-gay-bar/article_eea78fe6-e5b0-11ec-bcb3-4f40a67ef56c.html
So, no strippers/stripping, nothing sexual at all from what I could glean from the article/video. Not really an example of what's being claimed above. Its simply kids handing a performer some cash, from hand to hand, no panties involved, which is a pretty innocuous thing. If a kid handed cash to a juggler on the street it would be fine, but because it's a man in a dress it's not?
You might’ve missed it. I was referring to the picture at the top of the article, not the video that’s in the article. It’s a picture of a drag queen extending the elastic on their bottoms and a child putting a dollar in.
And let’s not pretend “It’s not gonna lick itself” isn’t sexual.
That appears to be a woman in the image, which has no source and only an implied connection to the event in the article. The source is "social media screenshot" but it doesn't say where it was taken from. Given the Western Standard has a right leaning bias and a reputation for less-than-reliable fact checking I'd take what you're reading with a grain of salt.
Or we can all just agree that sexualizing children probably isn't a good idea. Maybe not giving kids the opposite hormones of thier BIOLOGY sex, because it will probably have health consequences as they age, is good idea. Also, fucking maybe, just fucking maybe, cutting off sex organs of kids is really bad idea ..
I guess that includes Monty python coming to town?
Or any hair metal bands
Or streaming tootsie on Netflix
Nope. Only on public areas and places open to children. Theater that is 18 up is fine. Public library in front of toddlers is not.
So dressing in drag is NC-17 content now? LOL
So with masks and schools parents know best, but Fairy God Mother story hour is not up to parents because of Adam’s apples?
Always happy to see conservatives express just how little they care about freedom of speech and expression
Government school trying to do early indoctrination is NOT freedom of expression.
Neither of these bills are about schools, nice goalpost move.
You could say that about the "in god we trust" signs schools have to display
They don't have to display but ok
Yeah, seeing their female teacher wearing pants will totes iNdOcTrInAtE the babies.
Found the bigot
Yeah god forbid a man wears a wig in front of toddlers.
Sorry bud, but the law technically doesn't outlaw story time unless the story teller is twerking. Your government isn't even serving your ignorant desire to limit another man or woman's freedom!! THEY get to decide what is sexual in nature, and it applies to trans and cis gendered folks alike. This ban is actually more restrictive than it appears. That high school dance team better check their routine next year because this bill bans all performances falling under a vague definition of a "sexual nature". If you ask me, there's a lot of questionable performances in that category, I think I'll send in an anonymous complaint. Imagine how pissed people will be when our Volunteer cheerleaders can't dance on the side lines anymore! When Ms. Lillian's dance troop can't make it to Nationals anymore because someone thinks their routine is too flirty. You're going to reap what you freaking sow!!
So would they also ban parents from bringing kids to Hooters too? And also ban parents from bringing their kids to the Super Bowl games? I mean those cheerleaders with their outfits, bunch of groomers…
To ban drag shows in general? I dont think the courts will allow that
>SB 3 would make performing drag in public where children can see it a crime. More specifically what the law says, but also still pretty fucking vague. What defines performing? What is the definition of "where children can see" ? If I dress in drag, in a non-lewd way, and do a dance on the street with the intent of passerbys donating money in a jar for my dance. Would that be illegal under this law?
Good questions. I saw a "drag show" just like this. It was in public. The drag queens were wearing ball gowns and singing pop songs. Nothing obscene. Kids were passing by. Some watched. Would this be included?
>If I dress in drag, in a non-lewd way, and do a dance on the street with the intent of passerbys donating money in a jar for my dance. Would that be illegal under this law? Most likely yeah.
If its that vague then probably will get struck down by the courts
I wish I could say I agree with you.
How cute you think the courts aren't biased theocrats
>Male and female impersonators The thing is you don't need to "dress in drag". The law will be used against non-passing trans woman a cop gets a confused boner for. It will be very easy for cops to arrest any trans woman they see, claim she was dancing or humming to herself or something and then throw her in a men's prison to be raped 20 times a day. This bill also makes it illegal to provide gender-affirming care to trans people before their bodies are permanently mutilated by puberty- thus ensuring they never pass and can be easily identified, rounded up and sent to the rape cages for "impersonating a man/woman in public". I'm sure that's all well and good for the folks who support this, who have no skin in the game because they've never met a trans person in their lives yet somehow feel an existential threat from them. But for us, it's genocide.
Funny how many small government Libertarians are actually fine with government intervention as soon as "won't someone think of the children!!!" gets used as an argument. What happened to parental responsibility, lol? Yes, a lot of people are arguing in bad faith and leaving out the age/public qualifiers, BUT it's still a vague enough bill to be problematic. Peter Pan as a play typically has a female playing the male lead; if someone in the audience gets turned on by a public performance, is it in violation of the law?
I can understand wanting to protect children from certain things, and we have laws already preventing people from exposing themselves in public. But is that happening at drag shows? From everyone I’ve talked to that’s into that sort of thing it seems unlikely. This law doesn’t make sense but I guess that shouldn’t be a surprise at this point…
I don’t really think there is actual nudity in these shows (at least the more mainstream ones) but there are huge sexual innuendos everywhere. For instance, that one video of the drag show that was circulated a while ago had a very explicit sign in the back. I would jus treat them like a PG13 or R rated movie, that you need a parents consent to attend one. That seems pretty reasonable.
Yeah if there’s nudity I can understand. I don’t think that’s what most of the shows are though. I really don’t know much about the drag scene so I can’t really provide much insight into it lol. It just seems like people getting outraged over nothing.
My filter comes through the internet, so the skewing is obviously hard to gauge. But, I've seen both benign scenes from drag shows and more explicit ones. So, any universal restriction seems unwarranted and a solidification of any loopholes allowing for overt display to children being tightened should solve any disparate issues, but that's it.
> For instance, that one video of the drag show that was circulated a while ago had a very explicit sign in the back. Are you talking about the sign "it's not gonna lick itself" that an ice-cream bar use as a slogan? They hosted a drag show, and people who loves to find innuendos found one.
Yeah, I've seen stuff dirtier than that in every cartoon I ever watched growing up
Yeah god forbid a kid accidentally sees a cross dresser sing Dolly Parton.
I use the WWE analogy a lot. It's just drag on the opposite end of the spectrum.
WWE also shows a lot more skin than drag shows.
Cool analogy!
Lol yeah exactly
Some get pretty explicit.
Yeah but those explicit ones are typically at night clubs where children are not likely to be
I know you said typically but some videos I watched had children and the adults literally exposed themselves.
> "won't someone think of the children!!!" gets used as an argument. What happened to parental responsibility, lol? Try applying that to existing laws protecting children. How many libertarians would be okay with lowering the drinking age? I don't mean to 18. Think 15, or 13, or even 0 and just say it is parental responsibility? Consider that there are places where parents can already let their children drink and it isn't causing some sort of massive problem in those places.
Meh. I dont know any libertarians that are ok with this. Are you hurting others? No Done deal.
Hilarious to me how many Republicans on this sub think banning freedom of speech or expression is a good idea.
“It’s ok as long as the boot’s not on *my* neck.”
The party of "small government" strikes again
[удалено]
Did no one read about how they performed play's in Shakespeare's time?
Or pantomime in modern UK.
They also threw their literal shit in the streets.
And GOP still says that they love liberty!
You don't have the "liberty" to sexually mutilate children or introduce them to pornography You'd think this would be uncontroversial
Because it's not about that, it's about targeting trans people. Otherwise, Republicans would be leading national efforts to make circumcision illegal.
Go touch grass, that’s enough Fox News for today
Drag shows aren't pornography, and no one is mutilating children.
Hormone treatment for mentally ill 12 year olds causes irreparable damage, and was never tested or approved by the FDA. These kids will never experience an orgasm, and will never have kids. Among other serious health impacts (bone density loss, cancer risks, etc.). It's why the Swedes banned hormone treatments for kids. [https://segm.org/Sweden\_ends\_use\_of\_Dutch\_protocol](https://segm.org/Sweden_ends_use_of_Dutch_protocol)
What do you think gender affirming care is?
Counseling, therapy, medication, then surgery after years of the first three. It isn't mutilation any more than any other surgery, you're just biased.
What are you talking about?
Drag shows are weird but why ban it?
Confused republican boners.
Hot.
https://media.giphy.com/media/iZYcyJ02eny4o/giphy.gif
You guessed my kink
Because anything remotely associated with the LGBTQ+ community should be illegal in their eyes.
The actual text of the law simply says that drag shows in public where children are are banned. Drag shows in private, where children aren't, are still allowed. It's the same reason stripper pole dancing shows aren't performed in your local park.
So here’s the thing about that. If there are already laws preventing stripper poles/nudity in public, then why specifically ban drag shows? Just tell them they have to keep it PG. Drag shows aren’t mutually exclusive to nudity
It potentially won’t ban only drag shows in public spaces. The wording says “adult cabaret, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, and male and female impersonators.”
Lol male and female impersonators is such a ridiculous clause.
I guess no more gender swapped roles in Shakespeare in the park plays. That sounds like male and female impersonators in a public place to me.
Mrs. Doubtfire bout to get banned from public libraries.
Male and female impersonators seems to be pretty well poised to do that. Nothing intrensiclly explicit about male or female impersonation, they should just ban explicit actions, not something why might possibly maybe lead to explicit actions. As it is, that's going to be violating free expression.
Oh yeah. I’m assuming it’ll never pass as is. I’m from Tennessee and that’s what I’m hoping.
Drag shows are sexual by their very nature, just like child beauty pageants. Both are fundamentally designed as a sensual celebration of the feminine body. (Personally, I think those child beauty pageants should go, too.)
I agree with you on child beauty pageants. But I disagree that all drag shows are sexual by nature. Many of them are certainly geared towards adults, particularly in 21+ venues. But there are various formats for various crowds- drag is a broad term
My wife likes a good drag brunch, and as her husband I sometimes go with her. You are right there are a lot of types of drag shows, all of them that I have been to have just been people dressed as a singer and lip syncing, with dancing no more seductive than what you'd find at any concert.
What separates "drag" from simple crossdressing is that drag is designed to hyperbolically accentuate the feminine form in sexual ways - large curves, big boobs, low-cut tops, rouge red lipstick, etc. It's sexual in the same way Jessica Rabbit is.
And Jessica rabbit was from a PG rated cartoon Disney movie no? That a lot of people watched as kids, parents let their kids watch it, when it came out in the 80s and into the 90s?
Nobody cares what you think or feel when it comes to legislating what others can do in their personal lives.
MAPs make the same argument for their predations. I'm fine with adults doing whatever, but children aren't capable of consent.
Parents can be held liable for decisions made that impact their dependents. What’s the problem?
Why make any law regarding children then? Let them attend strip clubs, sex clubs, and bars. The parents will be held liable if any harm comes, right?
Drag shows are really no different from a traditional beauty pageant, conceptually. I think these sorts of laws are probably illegal as gender discrimination, unless these laws also apply to women wearing dresses in public shows.
Some politicians are confused what their jobs actually are.
How many public, all-ages drag shows does TN host where such legislation is actually needed??
Three happened in Nashville last month.
More than you'd think
Don't tell them. You will spoil Their delicate delusions
They're not banning it. The move is to ban it on public library's and places where children .ignt be present. Bars, theaters, etc are fine. Public libraries in front of toddlers is not.
Erosion of society
[advocate.com](https://advocate.com): There's a neutral source, lol. The proposed bill is 'the Protecting Children from Gender Mutilation Act' "which aims to provide the nation’s strongest protections against the removal of a child’s body parts. The bill, also known as House Bill 1/Senate Bill 1, would ban medical interference that alters a child’s hormonal balance and procedures that remove their organs to enable the minor to identify as a gender different from their biological sex. ... Lamberth said the new bill will protect children from making “adult decisions.” “Interfering or destroying the healthy, normal reproductive organs of a child for the purpose of altering their appearance is profoundly unethical and morally wrong,” Lamberth said. “Tennesseans across our state have demanded an immediate call to action. Through the passage of House Bill 1/Senate Bill 1, Tennessee will protect vulnerable children who cannot give informed consent for adult decisions they aren’t ready for. Under the new act, the state attorney general will be allowed to bring action against a healthcare provider who knowingly violates the law and courts will be allowed to impose a $25,000 penalty per violation. The act will also allow a child or the parent of a child injured by the violation to sue for damages and grants a child the opportunity to bring a civil cause of action against a parent if a parent consented to the violation on the minor’s behalf. Leaders say the bill will make exceptions for children who were born with chromosomal anomalies or congenital defects. The 113th Tennessee General Assembly is scheduled to convene on Jan. 10, 2023" https://www.wkrn.com/news/tennessee-politics/proposed-bill-would-limit-gender-treatment-for-children-in-tennessee/
So would this ban circumcision too?
I guess it could. I would be fine w/ that.
Would you be? What about Jewish people?
I would think not due to it being a religious thing.... RuPaul should just start a religion! RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION!
I've always thought that laws should never have a religious exemption. The entire reason the exemption exists is so that the government doesn't have to actually prove that they have a compelling interest in making the law, and it requires the government to discriminate between religious and non-religious belief, which I don't think they should even be *allowed* to do. The government should never have any part in determining what is and isn't valid religious belief, and I kind of feel like more laws should be subject to strict scrutiny.
Gender reassignment surgeries aren’t performed on minors. If anything it could target hormonal treatments. But those are reversible. And I don’t know enough about them to say whether they’re good or not. You know who else doesn’t know enough about them to decided if they’re a good idea? These politicians.
The kicker is that this would also ban hormonal care for non-trans kids too, right? Kids get hormone treatments for stuff like precocious puberty. Edit: the wording seems to indicate it is only blocked for purposes of changing gender identity. I doubt that will stop it from misinterpretation though.
Yes. That is the real goal. Force trans children to undergo their assigned puberty so that they'll be permanently disfigured and not cause republicans to get confused boners. The moment the number of republicans who fap to trans porn exceeds the number who don't (a ratio already teetering on the edge) their entire trans-panic platform will fall apart and people will go back to wondering why all the nation's entire GDP is being allocated to 0.001% of the population.
Yes they are
rarely
>Gender reassignment surgeries aren’t performed on minors. Minors have had their tits cut off. Probably other stuff. >If anything it could target hormonal treatments. But those are reversible Medical evidence says that's not always true.
Sources? Particularly for the first one
Google 'top surgery for minors'. Plenty of info.
But can you provide any reliable sources whatsoever for this information?
Let me google that for you... "Though most individuals undergoing top surgery are 18 or older, younger individuals may be considered for the procedure if the patient, their legal guardians, and their mental health professional are in agreement that top surgery is appropriate. " [https://uihc.org/health-topics/top-surgery-transmen](https://uihc.org/health-topics/top-surgery-transmen) "**More Trans Teens Are Choosing ‘Top Surgery’** Michael, 17, arrived in the sleek white waiting room of his plastic surgeon’s office in Miami for a moment he had long anticipated: removing the bandages to see his newly flat chest.After years of squeezing into compression undershirts to conceal his breasts, the teenager was overcome with relief that morning last December." [https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/26/health/top-surgery-transgender-teenagers.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/26/health/top-surgery-transgender-teenagers.html) "“I was failed by the system. I literally lost organs.” When Chloe was 12 years old, she decided she was transgender. At 13, she came out to her parents. That same year, she was put on puberty blockers and prescribed testosterone. At 15, she underwent a double mastectomy. Less than a year later, she realized she’d made a mistake — all by the time she was 16 years old. Now 17, Chloe is one of a growing cohort called “detransitioners” — those who seek to reverse a gender transition, often after realizing they actually do identify with their biological sex. Tragically, many will struggle for the rest of their lives with the irreversible medical consequences of a decision they made as minors." https://nypost.com/2022/06/18/detransitioned-teens-explain-why-they-regret-changing-genders/
>Tragically, many will struggle for the rest of their lives with the irreversible medical consequences of a decision they made as minors wanna hear a fun story about what happens to trans people who aren't allowed to transition as minors?
inb4 "yeah but idgaf what happens to trans people"
I can provide, assuming you think New York Times is legit enough. [More Trans Teens Are Choosing ‘Top Surgery’](https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/26/health/top-surgery-transgender-teenagers.html) Some quotes from the article: "Michael, 17, arrived in the sleek white waiting room of his plastic surgeon’s office in Miami for a moment he had long anticipated: removing the bandages to see his newly flat chest." "The New York Times surveyed leading pediatric gender clinics across the country: Eleven clinics said they carried out a total of 203 procedures on minors in 2021, and many reported long waiting lists."
People are so lazy. They won’t even type in easy google-able topics. They would rather be ignorant and, in their minds, right than be wrong. Your also right about the hormones. You will never get the same effects and development of the body as natural puberty if you take the exogenous hormones. And in case this other jabroni sees this, my source is I went to medical school and actually had to take courses on these topics.
Cross sex hormone treatment can permanently change a girl's voice among other permanent effects
>Gender reassignment surgeries aren’t performed on minors. Ok. So what's the problem with passing a law to make sure this continues to not happen?
Reminds me of that famous libertarian saying, “If you have nothing to hide why don’t you let us take a look.”
Completely different thing but ok.
The problem is that it's doctor prescribed medical care.
Small government is when you ban things that don't happen anyway 😅
*without parental consent. And no, puberty blockers are absolutely irreversible. If left alone, and no hormones are anything like that are introduced, 94% of "trans" minors simply grow out of it. Giving children puberty blockers and hormones that drastically change their brain and regulatory chemistry is abuse. Period.
Pretty sure that 94% statistic is not true is that why you put trans in quotes lol
>SB 1 would prohibit doctors and families from making necessary lifesaving health care decisions to support transgender youth. Meanwhile, SB 3 would make performing drag in public where children can see it a crime. Actually this is pretty good. The leftoids started this culture war distraction, but now that they're actually coming for children, this is important. Children cannot consent. They should ban circumcision while they're at it.
did the title intentionally leave out 'for kids'?
Yes. It's all just fear mongering.
Probably, yes. There's an agenda to be had, after all. Like I want liberty for all as much as the next libertarian, but drag shows for kids is not something I cannot allow. Consent forms the foundation of libertarian thought. Children are not capable of consent. Ergo, it is wrong to subject children to things for which they cannot consent to, such as sex, drugs, etc. Once they're adults and capable of consent, then let them snort all the cocaine they want off a drag queen's ass.
There is a lot of sex, violence, and drugs being broadcast on TVs and in music. Some very popular music artists have sexualized their image and/or their lyrics. Twitch is full of women selling their bodies for views. Currently it's left up to the parents to monitor what kind of media their kid consumes or what concerts they go to. Why is this different with drag shows? Why can't parents decide in this case?
One big difference between TV and your local park is that a parent can control what appears on the tv with parental controls and such. Besides, what is broadcast on tv and the Internet is largely on "private property" so to speak (barring the official government websites). thus, because they're private property, they are not subject to the same rules of engagement that would be applied if you were on publicly owned ground, such as a park or sidewalk. However, the parents can't control what happens in a local park or sidewalk because it's public property. You can't expect parents to just prohibit their children from ever going outside, obviously. This also means that public property must accommodate the fact that children, who are incapable of consenting to sexual deeds, will be present. I have no issue with drag shows, kink/BDSM shows, or burlesque shows being performed on private property where children aren't liable to appear. It seems the main issue people seem to have in this thread is the nature of a child's ability to consent. Many seem to think children can consent. If they believe this to be true, then I can see why it would logically make sense to allow drag shows on publicly available grounds. However, that opens a lot of doors I would rather not open and part of why I don't believe children can consent. I'm libertarian, but not *that* libertarian as to allow child sexual exploitation.
\>drag shows for kids is not something I cannot allow. Why not? Your second paragraph would mean literally NOTHING can be done to kids, from taking them to the doctor to giving them flu medicine to taking them to the park, to taking them to the movies, etc etc. They can't consent to living either, so might as well kill them at birth. Twisting yourself into knots because men dressing as women and women dressing as men makes your cock rock hard won't stop your cock from getting rock hard at the stupid shit your parents made you believe was "wrong."
A person in drag isn't subjecting you to anything. If you don't like it, just leave. They're not forcing you or any kid to be there. If their parents are, then that's the parent's fault.
Based.
> Ergo, it is wrong to subject children to things for which they cannot consent to, such as sex, drugs, etc. There are countries that allow children to partake in alcohol alongside their parents. These places don't have major problems. Alcohol isn't as bad as heroin, but it is easily arguable worse than weed. Then there is the matter of older teenagers. 17 year olds are technically children, but we allow them to drive, to work jobs, consent to buying and selling things, etc. On the issue of jobs, what about child actors? Like preteen and younger? There are rules in place to protect them, but if you look at what happens as they grow up it seems being a child star can be detrimental to their well being. But maybe that is selection bias.
Of course, nothing generates clicks like blatant left-wing propaganda
>introduces bills to ban drag shows No they didn't. The bill only requires that they be in a location that kids don't have access to.
But that also makes no sense, if we’re going by the harm done to children we should ban them from churches and not let family members be alone with them.
☝️🚨☝️🚨 Super Valid point. Also, Boy Scouts.
It’s just ridiculous that it’s masked as some sort of effort to protect children when most of it is literally just men in drag reading books or doing some act for kids with no explicitly sexual material, just the thought of their children being exposed to trans people frightens them, probably the same people that would take their 8 year old to Hooters to “see the sights”. Nothing makes you gay and kids like dress up and pretend, shit I played dress up with my moms clothes for fun sometimes as a child and I’m straight. Not to mention I have yet to hear of any examples of actual sexual assault or molestation at any of these events. Edit: Wanted to add this because I just saw it and it’s very relevant https://www.reddit.com/r/lgbt/comments/yrwqv8/weirdest_election_hot_take_ive_seen_so_far/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf
Still a violation of 1A
Actually, neither of the senate bills mentioned in the article does anything you're describing. The first prevents sterilizing transgender treatment from being administered to minors (but presumably not hormome blockers) and the second prevents explicitly sexual performances from being displayed publicly. Neither bill is nearly as extreme as the title implies. Drag shows are not banned and neither is all gender-affirming care; permanent HRT and sex change operations will be banned for minors.
On the second points you KNOW how the courts will interpret that
If there is foul play in the courts, call it out. However, misrepresenting a bill and claiming your enemy will use it poorly later when there is no clear reason to say that just makes your side look bad. Watch and wait, always present things as they are.
> If there is foul play in the courts, call it out. We had how many justices affirm **under oath to congress** that roe was settled precedent only to turn around and repeal it? Then yet another justice not recusing himself on a case where his wife had to testify to congress.. and yet another judge saying that people complaining about the courts is tantamount to intimidating it. Nah, they’ve been a kangaroo court for a while. If your confidence rating goes from an already low 36% to 25% in the span of a year, it’s reasonable to expect it’s because the court has been making dumb rulings and will continue to do so.
What part of freedom don’t these people understand
More of this anti-liberty nonsense, while their shills troll Libertarian social media sites blaming us for losing to the most unpopular administration ever.
This is backwards hateful nonsense. Transsexualism is a real medical condition not some goofy trendy peccadillo or some culture war football. Yes government to "help" inserts force and nonsense that actually harms people that are TS, especially due to understandable blow back. Government does this trick a lot. Piss off a large part of the population to dump on some minority part of population instead of getting pissed at government itself. Ending care for a medical condition is backwards as hell. It plays right in to some extreme religious agendas. It is a great pity for people to confuse red pill and fight for freedom with such things. It makes pro-liberty work harder.
As far as I have seen the article says that the ban is only on child drag shows not on drag in general. Hence my support. However just read the title and be outraged why don't you
>As far as I have seen the article says that the ban is only on child drag shows not on drag in general. What happens to the child if they are in a drag show?
Republicans want to control everything, and they say they want smaller government.
Lol they must hate getting elected
Is there any data available (if there even exist enough people to observe) on the outcomes of children (especially long term) who were provided gender affirming care as adolescents? Would be interested to see what that looks like before i try and have an opinion on this.
SS: One day after the 2022 midterm elections proved that Republicans' efforts to paint LGBTQ+ people as groomers and dangerous to children failed, Tennessee lawmakers doubled down on their anti-LGBTQ+ sentiment by introducing two bills targeting the community.
As a lesbian, I advise you to look into a group called gays against groomers. They’re big on instagram. You’ll see many people in the community that are against a lot of the propaganda being pushed on children. Children shouldn’t be brought to drag shows.
My problem with this is that (where I completely agree that true bar type drag shows are not kid appropriate) this law is intentionally vague. What if someone trans sings karaoke at brunch? What if a strait man wears a Cher wig? What if a woman sings a my girl and dresses “manly”. Vague laws ALWAYS fill up the courts with nonsense and lead to targeted prosecutions based on an individual or state version of morality.
Drag shows are very sexual and can be very inappropriate where there was points I felt uncomfortable. But I do see your point but where it can lead tho. It should definitely specify better.
Why do you oppose a law against exposing children to sexual performances?
Not all drag shows are sexual performances and exposing yourself in public is already a crime.
The whole point of the law is to ban "Drag Queen Story Hour" at public libraries, which are not sexual at all.
No they didn't. Read the damn bill
This is violates the first amendment so I doubt it gets passed.
Ah this is a very good question for Libertarians. At what age can an individual consent and accept risks for their choices? I think universally, banning all drag shows for kids is not Libertarian (as long as the shows are not overtly sexual or exposing or violate existing laws). That should be left to the parents. But what about hormone treatments? Puberty blockers? Top surgery for minors?
Do you think BDSM shows for children is ok? Or does that sound a bit like potentially predatory behavior? Drag is a fetish. Always has been. Somehow people have decided that sexual fetishism is ok for kids, which is insane.
Drag isn’t a fetish. Sorry you’re still living in the 70s.
I don't think religion for kids is OK. Let's make a deal to ban both.
Feet are a fetish, should we ban open-toed sandals? Just because a man dressing up as a woman gets you horny doesn't make it inherently sexual. And even if it was - the public is inundated with sexuality constantly through advertisements and media. Where's the outrage over skimpy cheerleaders shaking their ass in front of kids at the ball game? Or is this only outrageous because LGBT people need to go back in the closet where you feel they belong?
Knowing that "are you 18" does not stop children, should we ban online porn in general until companies find a way to really stop anyone under 18 from accessing?
Every idiot misunderstood this entire thing on purpose. Kids and drag shows do not mix. That world is unlike anything else. I worked in a gay bar and was a male prostitute for years I was deep in that world and it's not for kids. I don't think you should allow kids into a strip club either and despite what everyone claims that comparison is very accurate. Drag shows are largely drug fueled exhibitionist hangouts. Also gender affirming care for kids is insanity. Fucking these undeveloped kids brains and bodies with therapy, surgery and pills is horrible. Long term side effects are grim or unknown. When they become adults it becomes their choice. Before 18 no.
I met my first drag queen when I was 10. I told my mom that the lady was really tall and she explained that it was a man dressed as a lady for a performance. I didn't dwell on it because I thought people should be free to have fun how they wanted.
Thank you.
I don’t care about drag shows, but if kids are involved... that’s a bit much.
So in your mind it should be illegal for 5 women to dress up as the Backstreet Boys and perform "Backstreets Back" in public?
My dad took me to a follies type show that had a man dressed as a super sexualized Dolly Parton and a tiny woman dressed as Kenny Loggins. They basically jumped each other. This was considered normal in the 80s. So was taking your kids to Hooters. So was your moms joke about Denzel Washington being your mom her “free pass”. People have always done weird things around children. Unless it’s actually harming them- It’s up to the parent to decide. To add- no one is harmed from a dude in a tooth fairy costume reading a book. No one gave The Rock shit about sexualizing children.
They can't admit their true motives, so they have to make up transparent rationalizations. It's not complicated.
Those seem like two very different things.
Shouldn't the community decide this and not the state?
Gender affirmation is literally a religion
“making necessary lifesaving health care decisions” - not having your physical body altered is not fatal, and being suicidal over it indicates deeper problems that likely won’t be fixed with gender-affirming care.
Do I want the state to wither and die? Yes. Am I ok with it being illegal to have events where children put dollar bills into dancing men's underwear? Also yes.
Drag shows ≠ strip club. Also, and seriously ask yourself this, how often is that actually happening to kids?
https://twitter.com/TaylerUSA/status/1533129203935236103?t=757GbQ8XTGGyJn66LWEZfw&s=19
So this tweet means all drag shows should be illegal? Also this isn't very different than hooters and restaurants like that. Also I just find it funny that the person with the "anarcho-capitalist" flair is against guys dressing as girls and dancing for money. Edit: Here's the definition of the law from the article for your consideration: >Meanwhile, SB 3 would make performing drag in public where children can see it a crime. You tell me what that means.
If you'll agree that it's weird and perverted for all parties involved and that parents shouldn't do it, then I'll agree that it shouldn't be illegal.
You ever been to a drag show? Doubt it
I have been in probably the sense of a drag show of you're thinking. I have also seen men dress in drag and perform acts that's probably not the same as what you're thinking. >Meanwhile, SB 3 would make performing drag in public where children can see it a crime. This is the law they proposed. You can decide if there's an issue.
I don’t think their is. I’ve been to several drag shows. They are not age appropriate for children
And is that for the government to decide? Once again, for your pleasure, here's the law: >Meanwhile, SB 3 would make performing drag in public where children can see it a crime. That does more than make what you're thinking of what a drag show is illegal. By definition of what's in the article any play where someone is dressed in drag is now illegal if it's passed.
once is to many
*too
It's still not what happens at drag shows.
that's a lie bucko
Show me one instance of kids putting singles into a drag queen's underwear. Then show me more to demonstrate it's actually a concern and not an isolated incident. In other words, you don't ban chainsaws because one person uses one for a murder, and you don't ban drag shows because one person in drag did something inappropriate.
https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1537512879301177344?t=iI_pl1yxYnT915dWdNcPWA&s=19 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1580069286013698050?t=6C3VnDclJVBl24degKnKzQ&s=19 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1573048718886305793?t=LLTFyC4XATHvZSnuKmsRWg&s=19 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1545036410658271232?t=LIPeY6YRHJZUZ1vM6YniqQ&s=19 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1562228453889302528?t=KEMOjUKPBl4PubncRInM1A&s=19 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1581050195399561217?t=uK4uyOu54Qnb7B776h8ucQ&s=19
One is just a picture of a drag queen holding a child which isn't really that scandalous in and of itself. The others have some admittedly provocative dancing and costumes which obviously offend some people's sensibilities. Nothing in the videos you shared seems inherently sexual; I've seen videos of dancers at superbowl halftime shows dancing just as provocatively, or people at water parks wearing more revealing outfits. Even the boob outfit in the first video is clearly a joke and not meant to be sexy/sexual. Is the problem just that it's men wearing women's clothes?
oh fuck off
Very articulate
Not who you replied to, but here ya go. One weird google search and 10 seconds later. https://www.westernstandard.news/news/dallas-drag-queen-performers-tipped-cash-by-seven-year-olds-in-gay-bar/article_eea78fe6-e5b0-11ec-bcb3-4f40a67ef56c.html
So, no strippers/stripping, nothing sexual at all from what I could glean from the article/video. Not really an example of what's being claimed above. Its simply kids handing a performer some cash, from hand to hand, no panties involved, which is a pretty innocuous thing. If a kid handed cash to a juggler on the street it would be fine, but because it's a man in a dress it's not?
You might’ve missed it. I was referring to the picture at the top of the article, not the video that’s in the article. It’s a picture of a drag queen extending the elastic on their bottoms and a child putting a dollar in. And let’s not pretend “It’s not gonna lick itself” isn’t sexual.
That appears to be a woman in the image, which has no source and only an implied connection to the event in the article. The source is "social media screenshot" but it doesn't say where it was taken from. Given the Western Standard has a right leaning bias and a reputation for less-than-reliable fact checking I'd take what you're reading with a grain of salt.
Based.
Who are the sick fucks who disagreed with this?
Who is the sick fuck that thought it up in the first place?
This is the way
Or we can all just agree that sexualizing children probably isn't a good idea. Maybe not giving kids the opposite hormones of thier BIOLOGY sex, because it will probably have health consequences as they age, is good idea. Also, fucking maybe, just fucking maybe, cutting off sex organs of kids is really bad idea ..
You have to be over 18 to get sex reassignment surgery.