LGBTQ+ 6 -- It's a Rainbow of Flavors

[Varysblackfyre321]

Ah some say she’s catastrophizing, and some may keep saying it until the exact thing she was warning about proves true—and many who minimized the conservatives bigoted goals will proceed to justify it.

Like the don’t say gay bill

[Varysblackfyre321]

@TrackerNeil I hope you read this thread and the article.

I hope you can agree bigots often don’t lead in with their most radical or evil beliefs in polite or unsympathetic company or when they’re trying to convince people to let them something that would further their ambitions.  It’s critical that the likely outcomes and intent be recognized and attacked before they’ve shifted the public to where when they up the ante to something that would have been more controversial  won’t seem bad or at least that bad.

https://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/ohio-house-bill-aims-to-ban-drag-shows-from-public-places-with-children-present/LCY7KS3DI5GH5LR2CGX4V3RPNQ/
 

This would effectively ban social transitioning for trans people in public. This would have been-major news condemned by near everyone a couple years ago as too extreme. And the type of thing progressives predicted when the culture war around trans people ramped up but brushed off as fearmongering. But because the public has inoculated with a deluge of more ‘reasonable’  attacks on trans people and trans rights, this sort of thing barely gets any media attention. 

 

 

Edited July 26, 2023 by Varysblackfyre321

[TrackerNeil]

40 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

@TrackerNeil I hope you read this thread and the article.

I hope you can agree bigots often don’t lead in with their most radical or evil beliefs in polite or unsympathetic company or when they’re trying to convince people to let them something that would further their ambitions.  It’s critical that the likely outcomes and intent be recognized and attacked before they’ve shifted the public to where when they up the ante to something that would have been more controversial  won’t seem bad or at least that bad.

https://www.springfieldnewssun.com/news/ohio-house-bill-aims-to-ban-drag-shows-from-public-places-with-children-present/LCY7KS3DI5GH5LR2CGX4V3RPNQ/
 

This would effectively ban social transitioning for trans people  in public. This would have been-major news condemned by near everyone a couple years ago as too extreme. And the type of thing predicted as likely but brushed off as fearmongering.

Prohibitions on drag are simply absurd and one such prohibition in Tennessee was nixed by a federal judge. As it should have been. I hope any others that have been enacted fall as well. According to the article, though, this bill would seem to apply to entertainers, so I am not sure how this would affect average people who simply dress in a way that does not conform to gender stereotypes.

Edited July 26, 2023 by TrackerNeil

[Ran]

27 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

This would effectively ban social transitioning for trans people  in public.

The article doesn't say anything like that, so I wonder where you get that idea from? Is there some analysis somewhere of the bill that indicates that? The article itself seems clear that the bill is concerned with adult cabaret performers performing acts that are considered "obscene" under the law in the presence of children, which seems to have very little to do with social transitioning. I've tried to get the actual text of the bill, but as usual state government websites are ass.

ETA: Legiscan has a copy of the bill, for those who want to read it.

Edited July 26, 2023 by Ran

[mormont]

The bill classifies "performers or entertainers who exhibit a gender identity that is different from the performer's or entertainer's gender assigned at birth using clothing, makeup, prosthetic or imitation genitals or breasts, or other physical markers" as being "entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest" and "adult cabaret performance". It then goes on to say that to "recklessly engage" in such performance other than in a specified location is a crime.

I can see why one might point to the 'performers or entertainers' part and say 'see, it's not about social transitioning'. But I can't see why one would say 'it doesn't say anything like that', because it is certainly capable of being read quite like that. Particularly as the bill doesn't seem to define the term 'performers or entertainers'.

ETA - I would also hope we can all agree that to see a bill legally define drag as inherently of prurient interest is naturally of some concern to people who are socially transitioning. One of the biggest issues in the US for trans people is that their whole existence is portrayed or perceived as being about sexual deviance - that they are trans for sexual thrills.

Edited July 26, 2023 by mormont

[karaddin]

31 minutes ago, mormont said:

Particularly as the bill doesn't seem to define the term 'performers or entertainers'.

Which tends to be one of the key traits of persecution like this. Leave enough room for interpretation by law enforcement to drive a 747 through and then they can enforce it whenever they like against only the people they dislike.

[Ran]

45 minutes ago, mormont said:

The bill classifies "performers or entertainers who exhibit a gender identity that is different from the performer's or entertainer's gender assigned at birth using clothing, makeup, prosthetic or imitation genitals or breasts, or other physical markers" as being "entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest" and "adult cabaret performance". It then goes on to say that to "recklessly engage" in such performance other than in a specified location is a crime.

You've flipped things around for some reason. It does not in fact define drag performers as actually being entertainers that appeal only to prurient interests and their performances as adult cabaret. 

Quote

(4) "Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a
location other than an adult cabaret that is harmful to
juveniles or obscene and that features topless dancers; go-go
dancers; exotic dancers; strippers; performers or entertainers
who exhibit a gender identity that is different from the
performer's or entertainer's gender assigned at birth using
clothing, makeup, prosthetic or imitation genitals or breasts,
or other physical markers; or other similar performers or
entertainers who provide entertainment that appeals to a
prurient interest, regardless of whether or not the performance
is for consideration.

The law is defining  adult cabaret performances as requiring two elements: performances that are primarily of obscene or prurient nature, and performers of various types. As Peter Sherman, a professional drag queen notes, drag shows do not actually have to be prurient and can be all-ages, which near as I can tell would not run afoul of the law as presently constituted. 

And it really says nothing about social transition being made impossible, as Varys asserts. This is very narrowly about public performances.

As Tracker notes, the "obscene" part is going to be tough to survive judicial review, because of the First Amendment. But the bill itself does not do what Varys alleges.

ETA: And if this is just the idea that by leaving out what constitutes the definition of a "performance" or "entertainer" that anyone trans person can be defined as doing such just by existing, from what I can Google (again, the actual website sucks and I can't get the code diectly) that is covered in other parts of Ohio's Revised Code.

Edited July 26, 2023 by Ran

[Derfel Cadarn]

They’re trying to ban *adult* entertainment featuring men and women dressed up as the gender they weren’t assigned at birth?

Wait until they see that most traditional of UK children’s entertainment, the pantomime…

Men playing women, women playing men, a male actor/character dialling the camp up to max, lots of sexual innuendo…

And this is for young children every Christmas! And hasn’t done any harm.

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, Ran said:

The article doesn't say anything like that

Sodomy laws generally don’t explicitly concern themselves with the sexuality of the people committing anal or even oral sex.

It still has a funny way of targeting gay people. By funny I mean an inevitability and intention of such laws.

When republicans began crafting legislation to allow public employees to not officiate gay marriages  or provide the proper paperwork are you going to act like this isn’t an attempt to lay the groundwork to go after Obergfell and eventually Lawrence?

 

1 hour ago, mormont said:

ETA - I would also hope we can all agree that to see a bill legally define drag as inherently of prurient interest is naturally of some concern to people who are socially transitioning.

Yeah to be clear the bill by itself is horrific(the nebulousness of what is drag by  itself allows a crackdown of gender non-conformity) but there’s no carved out exception for trans people.

1 hour ago, mormont said:

One of the biggest issues in the US for trans people is that their whole existence is portrayed or perceived as being about sexual deviance - that they are trans for sexual thrills.

Making any and all their acts involving others while dressed the way they feel most comfortable an perverted exhibition.

41 minutes ago, karaddin said:

Which tends to be one of the key traits of persecution like this. Leave enough room for interpretation by law enforcement to drive a 747 through and then they can enforce it whenever they like against only the people they dislike.

Yeah this shit is happening with how republicans are outlawing Abortion too.

They give exceptions with no hard guidelines to which doctors have to interpret individually. Doctors who don’t want to go to prison for baby murder.

Hey the bill doesn’t say arrest trans women or men or butch lesbians, or feminine looking men when they march in a pride parade—but a cop with what the law says wouldn’t be unreasonable to do so.

36 minutes ago, Ran said:

law is defining  adult cabaret performances as requiring two elements: performances that are primarily of obscene or prurient nature, and performers of various types

Conservatives have made it very clear they view people crossdressing as obscene in its nature and trans people as simply mentally ill crossdressers.

 

36 minutes ago, Ran said:

And it really says nothing about social transition being made impossible, as Varys asserts. This is very narrowly about public performances.

 

Your reaction is frustrating. Because it’s well-intentioned. 

but it’s so short sighted—the endpoint and goal isn’t to stop the very few examples of a drag shows on the level of a strip club it’s the erasure of degenerates.
You also seem project  your own sense of obscenity must be the one that has to win out in the courts

36 minutes ago, Ran said:

As Tracker notes, the "obscene" part is going to be tough to survive judicial review, because of the First Amendment. But the bill itself does not do what Varys alleges.

The bill by itself may not survive—it does help normalize the notion of trying to criminalize gnc and transitioning in general and makes other bills that furtherance that goals seem much more a compromise.

Edited July 26, 2023 by Varysblackfyre321

[Varysblackfyre321]

1 hour ago, TrackerNeil said:

.

I genuinely hope you looked up the Twitter thread I linked to you and take some time to reflect on its contents and the point I was trying to make to you.

 

Edited July 26, 2023 by Varysblackfyre321

[Ran]

6 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

Conservatives have made it very clear they view people crossdressing as obscene in its nature and trans people as simply mentally ill crossdressers.

It doesn't matter what they think, it matters what the law says. Crossdressing is not banned by the bill (in fact, funnily enough, the Ohio Supreme Court in 1975 led the way in ending anti-cross-dressing laws across the country when it rejected local ordinances attempting to ban cross dressing in public). Transitioning is not banned by the bill. Drag is not even banned by the bill. 

 

Edited July 26, 2023 by Ran

[mormont]

35 minutes ago, Ran said:

You've flipped things around for some reason. It does not in fact define drag performers as actually being entertainers that appeal only to prurient interests and their performances as adult cabaret. 

The law is defining  adult cabaret performances as requiring two elements: performances that are primarily of obscene or prurient nature, and performers of various types. As Peter Sherman, a professional drag queen notes, drag shows do not actually have to be prurient and can be all-ages, which near as I can tell would not run afoul of the law as presently constituted. 

No, it really does. That's the plain reading. I'm genuinely puzzled why you aren't reading it that way?

The first part of the two part test is not 'of obscene or prurient nature', it's 'harmful to juveniles or obscene'. The only reference to 'prurient' is after a list of examples including drag, where it says 'or other similar performers or entertainers who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest'. That is clearly characterising drag as appealing to 'a prurient interest'.

ETA - and even if we were to parse the words in some way that does not directly say drag is prurient, the bill includes drag on a list of activities that are otherwise exclusively sexual in nature. There's nothing unreasonable in reading that as suggesting that drag is also inherently sexual.

Edited July 26, 2023 by mormont

[TrackerNeil]

31 minutes ago, Varysblackfyre321 said:

I genuinely hope you looked up the Twitter thread I linked to you and take some time to reflect on its contents and the point I was trying to make to you.

Varys, to be perfectly clear, I don't know what point you are trying to make. If it is that people often try to illegalize things by degrees then, yes, I think that is a thing that happens in the world. If it is that these sorts of laws might be used against trans people, then, again, yes, I think that is possible. However, since (as I have stated) I think these laws are absurd and likely unconstitutional, and that I oppose them, I don't care how they will be used. I want them not to pass. I want them repealed. I want them struck down by federal courts. I can't be clearer than that.

Edited July 26, 2023 by TrackerNeil

[Ran]

I don't understand the pretense that drag shows is not in its origin and its history predominantly an adult entertainment. There's a reason they started up in bars and nightclubs, places where children were not permitted. But, again, they don't have to be. So an exotic dancer can in fact go and freely do a charming (clothed) Busby Berkley routine on the stage anywhere in Ohio, a performer in drag can freely perform anywhere in Ohio so long as the performance is not obscene or prurient. And, again, what constitutes "Obscene" is often heavily debated. I doubt the bill will stand, and I suspect those putting it forward know that.

As to "harmful to juveniles," that is also defined by Ohio as being:

Quote

(E) “Harmful to juveniles” means that quality of any material or performance describing or representing nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sado-masochistic abuse in any form to which all of the following apply:

Cross-dressing does not by its nature contain any of that. Drag performances don't need to have them either.

This is, of course, culture-war stuff. I understand that. But the bill, again, does not do what Varys says, which is what I specifically called into question. It does not end transition or cross-dressing or drag performances.

Edited July 26, 2023 by Ran

[Varysblackfyre321]

31 minutes ago, Ran said:

It doesn't matter what they think, it matters what the law says. Crossdressing is not banned by the bill (in fact, funnily enough, the Ohio Supreme Court in 1975 led the way in ending anti-cross-dressing laws across the country when it rejected local ordinances attempting to ban cross dressing in public). Transitioning is not banned by the bill. Drag is not even banned by the bill. 

 

entertainers
who exhibit a gender identity that is different from the
performer's or entertainer's gender assigned at birth using
clothing, makeup, prosthetic or imitation genitals or breasts,
or other physical markers; or other similar performers
 

Can we at least agree that ‘entertainers’ are barred from doing things that would be generally describe as drag and trans people in the midst of transitioning would be more at risk of getting ‘entertaining’ whilst out in entertaining that’s only for  adult?

Can we at least agree that the primary goal of such stunts by the reactionaries who push them is to eventually try to explicitly outlaw what they see as degeneracy(trans  people and gender non-conformity)

13 minutes ago, Ran said:

Cross-dressing does not by its nature contain any of that

This again feels like projecting your personal sense of decency, what seems common sense, onto religious fanatics who’ve made very clear when they see a person who was born with a dick wearing a dress reading to kids they see predator and who’ve spent decades trying to fill the upper echelons of the court system with people who agree with them.

Edited July 26, 2023 by Varysblackfyre321

[mormont]

12 minutes ago, Ran said:

I don't understand the pretense that drag shows is not in its origin and its history predominantly an adult entertainment. There's a reason they started up in bars and nightclubs, places where children were not permitted.

Yes, but that was more to do with them being shocking in terms of being socially transgressive then them being sexual in nature. Many non-sexual entertainments started in bars and nightclubs for that reason.

[karaddin]

31 minutes ago, Ran said:

Quote

(E) “Harmful to juveniles” means that quality of any material or performance describing or representing nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sado-masochistic abuse in any form to which all of the following apply:

Cross-dressing does not by its nature contain any of that. Drag performances don't need to have them either.

You're only correct if these terms are interpreted reasonably, but if someone believes that all cross gender behavior is fundamentally about sexual excitement then you cannot be engaging in anything involving that activity without it also being about sexual excitement. Stop applying a reasonable person standard to things that won't be enforced by a reasonable standard.

Edited July 26, 2023 by karaddin
Corrected financially to fundamentally

[karaddin]

I should give the disclaimer that my comment is based off prior iterations of this kind of shit and comments in this thread. I cannot deal with actually going and reading the law right now, so in the (imo extremely unlikely) event that this legislation actually provides precise definitions for every term used in it such that it's not vulnerable to unreasonable interpretation by those enforcing it then this objection would not apply.

[Ran]

4 minutes ago, karaddin said:

You're only correct if these terms are interpreted reasonably, but if someone believes that all cross gender behavior is fundamentally about sexual excitement then you cannot be engaging in anything involving that activity without it also being about sexual excitement. Stop applying a reasonable person standard to things that won't be enforced by a reasonable standard.

A lot of these things have already been legislated and tried on in the past, so there's plenty of existing precedent for what is considered lewd or sexual. Pretending that there's this void of context makes no sense to me.

It's certainly the case that some person may try to use the law to stop a performance that is in fact okay. And that police may even agree with stopping it, because there's uncertainty from them. But there's a whole court system to adjudicate these things.

I'm just using an appropriate American standard for how these things go. The Tennessee law, which at first glance looks very similar to the Ohio law, was ruled as over-broad and rejected by a judge (one appointed by Donald Trump, no less). No doubt they will go to the drawing board... or maybe they'll just show their constituents that they tried and tell them to donate more to their campaigns.

 

[Varysblackfyre321]

46 minutes ago, TrackerNeil said:

Varys, to be perfectly clear, I don't know what point you are trying to make.

That it’s silly to snidely mock people as being arrogant for intuiting a person/group’s ambitions or beliefs based on their rhetoric or actions.

That they literally have to say they are x bad thing or for y bad cause before any labeling can be given. Unfortunately you’ve been rather obstinate on addressing any of my examples to illustrate the absurdity of this tactic both in hypotheticals and real examples.

2 minutes ago, Ran said:

I'm just using an appropriate American standard for how these things go. The Tennessee law, which at first glance looks very similar to the Ohio law, was ruled as over-broad and rejected by a judge (one appointed by Donald Trump, no less). No doubt they will go to the drawing board... or maybe they'll just show their constituents that they tried and tell them to donate more to their campaigns.

And shift the public discourse on what positions are acceptable and/or mainstream.

Edited July 26, 2023 by Varysblackfyre321