Senate Bill 12 would have prohibited performers from dancing suggestively or wearing certain prosthetics in front of children. Critics sued the state, saying it violated the First Amendment.
I don’t buy your criticism in this instance. This is what you originally said:
Laws must be viewed wholistically. You cannot simply examine the text as if it somehow came into being on its own and enforces itself as a perfectly neutral rule of nature. It is written and applied by humans. So, you must also look at the framers who wrote it and those who will apply it.
And if we do, we see that they mean all drag shows are sexual. You clearly do agree with this interpretation so I’m not sure why you’re trying to deploy this smokescreen. They intend to use this as a ban on children being “exposed” to drag in any form, and it’s hardly a stretch to argue it will be expanded to include trans people.
This is quite the statement with absolutely 0 to back it up. “Yeah I know it doesnt actually ban dragshows, but it actually just means they’re going to eventually ban all of them and also ban trans people!” is not really a coherent. I think your view on the intent of this bill is poisoned by the main stream media which constantly insists that this is banning drag shows, when in reality it just been gratuitous sexuality when children are around.
No, you have confirmed that you do not in fact understand me. I’m not saying “eventually it will ban them all.” I’m saying the people writing and enforcing the law believe that all drag shows are sexual and thus this right now effectively makes it illegal to perform drag in front of children, because that is how the law will be applied in reality.
You keep repeating that it only bans sexual performances in front of children, but are not arguing against the idea that they view all drag as sexual. I’m forced now to assume this is on purpose.
Fun fact: it is the majority opinion among conservatives that being trans is a fetish and therefore sexual as well. That is what will be the focus in the future.
If they view all drag as sexual why didn’t they ban all drag?
but are not arguing against the idea that they view all drag as sexual. I’m forced now to assume this is on purpose.
They probably view most drag as sexual yeah. because it often is. but instead of banning drag entirely, they banned specifically sexual drag in front of children. That seems like the right thing to do in this circumstance.
If they view all drag as sexual why didn’t they ban all drag?
If they view all drag as sexual performances, then banning sexual performances is effectively a ban on drag, with the added benefit that useful idiots will happily deploy smokescreens for you. This isn’t complicated, you are simply engaging in willful ignorance. This is why I keep repeating that laws do not enforce themselves, but you have such a naive view of how government works that I don’t think I can get through to you.
I would flip it around and say if you don’t view drag as inherently sexual, then banning sexual drag wouldn’t equate to banning all drag. The fact that you think this law is an issue demonstrates that not only do you view drag as sexual, but you think it’s okay for children to consume. Those laws will be enforced if someone breaks them, and you can only break them if you do something sexual in front of children. I wish you would just be honest and say “I don’t think sexual drag in front of children is an issue” and I would respect your point of view a lot more, even if I disagree.
Those laws will be enforced if someone breaks them
Laws are enforced when the enforcer’s perception is that the law has been broken, not when the law is actually broken. Laws do not enforce themselves, they are enforced by humans, and those humans have beliefs. For example, many believe all drag is sexual. This means that the law will be enforced as such. Do you understand? This is the last time I will attempt to get you to acknowledge this simple fact of reality before I give up and assume you are either too stupid to understand this, or do understand it and are simply lying.
I’m choosing to be very kind by letting your attempted pedojacketing of me slide, as long as you finally acknowledge this.
I don’t accept your premise. I’ve said this numerous times. The bill clearly defines sexual conduct, it isn’t going to be up to some individual thinking all drag is sexual, you have to actually violate one of the clearly laid out descriptions of what constitutes sexual nature.
Okay, let’s go down that rabbit hole, if only to prove you are not actually principled on the matter. Tell me what is defined to be “sexual gesticulations”, as referenced in section 43.28, subsection 1E. This should be easy to resolve if the boundaries of the law are as clearly defined as you keep saying it is.
I don’t buy your criticism in this instance. This is what you originally said:
This is quite the statement with absolutely 0 to back it up. “Yeah I know it doesnt actually ban dragshows, but it actually just means they’re going to eventually ban all of them and also ban trans people!” is not really a coherent. I think your view on the intent of this bill is poisoned by the main stream media which constantly insists that this is banning drag shows, when in reality it just been gratuitous sexuality when children are around.
No, you have confirmed that you do not in fact understand me. I’m not saying “eventually it will ban them all.” I’m saying the people writing and enforcing the law believe that all drag shows are sexual and thus this right now effectively makes it illegal to perform drag in front of children, because that is how the law will be applied in reality.
You keep repeating that it only bans sexual performances in front of children, but are not arguing against the idea that they view all drag as sexual. I’m forced now to assume this is on purpose.
Fun fact: it is the majority opinion among conservatives that being trans is a fetish and therefore sexual as well. That is what will be the focus in the future.
If they view all drag as sexual why didn’t they ban all drag?
They probably view most drag as sexual yeah. because it often is. but instead of banning drag entirely, they banned specifically sexual drag in front of children. That seems like the right thing to do in this circumstance.
If they view all drag as sexual performances, then banning sexual performances is effectively a ban on drag, with the added benefit that useful idiots will happily deploy smokescreens for you. This isn’t complicated, you are simply engaging in willful ignorance. This is why I keep repeating that laws do not enforce themselves, but you have such a naive view of how government works that I don’t think I can get through to you.
I would flip it around and say if you don’t view drag as inherently sexual, then banning sexual drag wouldn’t equate to banning all drag. The fact that you think this law is an issue demonstrates that not only do you view drag as sexual, but you think it’s okay for children to consume. Those laws will be enforced if someone breaks them, and you can only break them if you do something sexual in front of children. I wish you would just be honest and say “I don’t think sexual drag in front of children is an issue” and I would respect your point of view a lot more, even if I disagree.
Laws are enforced when the enforcer’s perception is that the law has been broken, not when the law is actually broken. Laws do not enforce themselves, they are enforced by humans, and those humans have beliefs. For example, many believe all drag is sexual. This means that the law will be enforced as such. Do you understand? This is the last time I will attempt to get you to acknowledge this simple fact of reality before I give up and assume you are either too stupid to understand this, or do understand it and are simply lying.
I’m choosing to be very kind by letting your attempted pedojacketing of me slide, as long as you finally acknowledge this.
I don’t accept your premise. I’ve said this numerous times. The bill clearly defines sexual conduct, it isn’t going to be up to some individual thinking all drag is sexual, you have to actually violate one of the clearly laid out descriptions of what constitutes sexual nature.
Okay, let’s go down that rabbit hole, if only to prove you are not actually principled on the matter. Tell me what is defined to be “sexual gesticulations”, as referenced in section 43.28, subsection 1E. This should be easy to resolve if the boundaries of the law are as clearly defined as you keep saying it is.
You should post the full sentence. The fact that you are leaving it out suggests that you aren’t being entirely honest with your arguments.
Using accessories or prosthetics. Basically don’t mimic sex using props. Seems pretty straightforward.