The “moral panic” over drag shows seems to have reached a disturbing inflection point. 33 GOP House members have just introduced a federal “Don’t Say Gay, Don’t Say Trans” bill that could ban institutions getting federal funding from hosting drag shows or making books featuring gay people available to children.
And in Idaho, Republicans plan to introduce a bill to ban all public drag shows outright in a bill that, depending on its wording, could conceivably also make it illegal to cross-dress in public.
On the federal level, the misleadingly named “Stop the Sexualization of Children Act” would ban federal funding for developing, promoting, or hosting any “program, event, or literature” that would supposedly expose children under ten to what the bill calls “sexually-oriented material.” But the bill defines “sexually oriented” material so broadly that it includes not just things like “lascivious dancing” and racy books but also “any topic involving gender identity, gender dysphoria, transgenderism, sexual orientation, or related subjects.”
This would presumably include family-friendly drag queen story hours and children’s books that feature gay parents.
The bill’s sponsor, Rep. Mike Johnson of Louisiana has made it plain that the target isn’t just sexually explicit material but ideas themselves, declaring in a statement that the bill was designed to prevent children from encountering not just “sexual imagery” but also what he called “radical gender ideology,” which would presumably include any “ideology” that defends trans people’s right to exist — or even simply acknowledges that they do exist.
In a thread on Twitter Harvard Cyber Law Clinic instructor Alejandra Caraballo shows why the law would be even more draconian than Florida’s notorious “Don’t Say Gay” law.
In a separate tweet, she points out that the law could be the first step down a very slippery slope.
Meanwhile, Idaho Family Policy Center president Blaine Conzatti told the Idaho Capital Sun that state Republicans are planning to introduce a bill banning all public drag shows. And while the text of the legislation isn’t yet available, the Family Policy Center petition that got the ball rolling on this proposed bill gives some hints as to what the nature of the bill will be:
[T]he state legislature carries the responsibility of enacting legislation that promotes morality, public virtue, and the purity of the home.
Therefore, we call on our state lawmakers to implement legal reform that would prohibit drag performances in public places where children are present.
The petition claims that cross-dressing is inherently sexual and fetishistic.
Our concerns stem from the proliferation of public drag events that are now taking place in our communities. Perhaps most alarmingly, these aberrant sexual exhibitions are regularly marketed toward impressionable and vulnerable children.
Like strip shows or adult magazines, drag culture is inherently sexualized. In fact, cross-dressing is classified as an erotic fetish, and drag performers often become sexually aroused when they imitate sexualized behaviors of the opposite sex in public.
Our children’s innocence—and public virtue—must be protected. Please update state laws to ensure children are not exposed to sexual exhibitions like drag shows in public places.
And in his interview with the Capital Sun, Conzatti insists that
no child should ever be exposed to sexual exhibitions like drag shows in public places, whether that’s at a public library or a public park.
Given the sweeping nature of the group’s language, it is hard not to wonder if the bill itself will be worded in such a way that it could effectively ban cross-dressing in a library or public park, or indeed, anywhere else where human beings and their children can be found.
Which is just a step away from banning the public existence of trans people. After all, anti-trans activists also like to argue that living and dressing as a trans woman embodies a sexual fetish called, with pseudoscientific pretension, “autogynephilia.”
Whether or not this proposed bill will make trans existence illegal, that seems to be the endgame here. And Caraballo reminds us just how quickly Russia slid down this slippery slope. Can it happen here? Politically, we need to act as if it could — because otherwise, I fear, it will.
Follow me on Mastodon.
Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.
We Hunted the Mammoth relies on support from you, its readers, to survive. So please donate here if you can, or at David-Futrelle-1 on Venmo.
The best part of the Idaho effort for me was the attempt to ground its constitutionality in the Idaho constitution — which of course ignores the rights to free expression in the US federal constitution which the Idaho constitution does not supersede.
Aside from that, though, there was also the text of Sect. 24:
So the very first concern of good government is laid out in section ONE? No? Maybe one was a preamble? Section two?
Hold on, you waited until section TWENTY-FOUR to lay out your FIRST CONCERN?
It’s kinda hard, you know, by the definitions of words and shit, for something to be your first concern and your twenty-fourth concern at the same time.
But oh, then there’s that text, whence I’m sure Michael Palin drew inspiration:
This is basically a rewording of part of the Idaho State Constitution: “The first concern of all good government is the virtue and sobriety of the people, and the purity of the home. The legislature should further all wise and well directed efforts for the promotion of temperance and morality.”
Regardless of how you interpret this (and people will interpret this in a variety of ways) you can’t use it to justify laws or policies which override rights granted by the federal government… at least not if you want them enforceable.
Incidentally I’m a little creeped out by the phrase “purity of home”. There are so many interpretations of that which, even if benign in intention, are a recipe for empowering abusers.
[Semi-ninja’d by Crip Dyke]
So. Half a dozen Shakespeare plays off the playbill. Some US comedy movies off our screens – Some Like It Hot, superb, Tootsie, Mrs Doubt-fire and the other also-rans in this category.
There wouldn’t be much British comedy , whether good or bad, left once you get rid of Monty Python, Xmas pantomime, Benny Hill, Peter Sellers, Spike Milligan and all the post WW2 crowd and the Peter Cook, Dudley Moore 1960s inheritors of their tradition.
Perhaps I’m underestimating the care and caution that would go into the drafting and the impact of such a policy. Naaah. I’ll believe that if I ever see it.
You forgot Bob Hope.
And Milton Berle.
Of course, “any topic involving gender identity…[or] sexual orientation” would include anything involving cisgender (or any) gender identity, heterosexuality or heterosexual relationships. It remains to be seen whether they’ll change this language (making it more blatant that the intent of the law is discriminatory) or keep the “neutral” language and then enforce it exclusively against people who aren’t both cis and het. The latter fits with the current conservative doctrine that selective enforcement is completely legitimate as long as the law is written neutrally, even if the selectiveness is on openly and blatantly discriminatory grounds.
I note that most websites are privately owned, so that they can’t entirely stop kids from getting information off of the internet. I suppose the courts of Idaho could declare that the internet as a whole is a “public space”, but then they’d have to ban the entire internet, because other states and countries aren’t going to respect a single state telling them what to do. On a national level… I am not looking forward to the prospect of a US-only internet with severe content restrictions, and one which even using a VPN can’t bypass (like China is working towards), if it ever comes to that.
@Unty M: I don’t think they need to go that far, so long as it remains on the state level. The courts in conservative states will just rule “cis and het aren’t ‘identities’, quit trying to troll the courts” and if pushed further with evidence “you know exactly what we meant, so we’re slapping you with a huuuuge fine” (except more formal-sounding, obvs) and that will be that.
Yeah, counting on the courts to fairly enforce the law in a way that would backfire on cishet is a losing battle. The intent of the law is obviously to harm queer and GNC people, and that’s how it will be interpreted, right up until they’re defending the constitutionality of the law, at which point “it’s not discrimination because it applies to cishet people too!”
Same goes for the laws trying to ban gender-affirming care. The Alabama legislature defines “biological sex” as what you would observe if you hopped in a time machine and traveled back to when someone was a baby and looked at their genitals. Their idea of “biological sex” is completely divorced from any aspect of your actual real body now. They then ban any medical care which “tries to change someone’s sex.” But HRT and GCS don’t attempt to change your time-machine-genitals: they change the actual observable reality of your body. From a purely textualist standpoint, a doctor could comply with the healthcare ban by saying “Remember, I don’t have a time machine, so I’m not changing your ‘sex.’ I’m just helping change the features of your body that can actually be observed.”
But obviously, the Republican courts would interpret it differently, because the <i>intent</i> of the law is to cause as much harm to children as possible, and that means banning health care.
@bcb
Trans lawyers exist, and we’ve been strategizing this stuff for a long time. We know how to put appeals courts into a pickle in which they’re fucked no matter how they rule.
So… relying on courts’ fairness is not a good plan, but that’s not our plan.
What’s the relationship between a state law and the federal constitution, up there? I know here, in some, specific, areas of the law, federal over-rides state so any conflicting laws are resolved via what the fed one says.
But what’s the situation in the US? Like it seems that this bill might conflict with the federal constitution?
Because of the “Supremacy Clause”, the Feds rules over the states.
It’s a little bit complicated in its application. For example it doesn’t give the feds the power of veto over state legislation. Also if a federal law requires an action the states can test whether that federal law itself passes constitutional muster. Since statutes are subject to negation by the constitution, if the Feds pass a law that the constitution doesn’t give them the power to pass, then that law does not bind the states — but the reason isn’t some state immunity. It’s because the federal statute was incompatible with the federal constitution (and in a statute vs. constitution battle, statute wins).
Also, for various reasons, it has been interpreted on occasion to mean that treaties are a higher law than statutes, but a lower law than the constitution itself. So a treaty which violates the constitution is nullified, as is a statute that violates a treaty. (This latter bit though is… not straightforward. It can happen like that, but it doesn’t always because of exceptions. It’s weird and I don’t understand it all. You’d need to talk to a specialist on that one.)
The ability of federal statute ruling over state constitution rarely comes up anymore. When it did come up most often was in the aftermath of the Civil War (1865 – 1890/1895 or something) a period that includes what we call “Reconstruction” but is not limited to Reconstruction. Federal law generally won back then, but some of the victories IIRC had language in them about the post-CivilWar context, so I think that courts today would be more careful about drawing compromises.
That said, we don’t see those conflicts often anymore, though we still see conflicts between the FedCon and state cons (see Romer vs. Evans).
FedStatute vs. StateStatute is also not supposed to be a context, but I think that courts right now are so screwed up that in a lot of cases they would probably want to try to craft some arcane compromise where fed statute wins, but they reinterpret the fed statute so that it just doesn’t happen to apply in the case before the court, so the conflict between state & federal statute is only theoretical, allowing the state statute to prevail in reality.
The shit brought up by Idaho here, though, is straightforward FedCon vs. state statute. That’s much harder for the courts to ignore. But they’ll try. Believe me, they’ll try.
I’d like to say that it’s easy to predict how the case would go, but I can’t.
I do know that Idaho would lose at the appellate level immediately below SCOTUS, since the Circuit Court of Appeal that has jurisdiction over Idaho is the 9th, which is liberal as CCAs get in the USA given that it is also the CCA with jurisdiction over California.
But … win at the 9th or not, SCOTUS is a total crapshoot. We’ll just have to see.
I forgot to check. Is everyone up to date with Randy Rainbow’s take on this shit. “Let’s bask in the splendours
Of all shades and genders.’ are great words to live by, specially when you’re wearing your shiny pink glasses. I usually watch him on YouTube, but I’d expect most people to use twitter
Cheers me up no end.
frightening but unsurprising coming from people who fetishize the founding fathers yet forget that most of them wore wigs, stockings, and high heels.
BTW an AZ GOP candidate was caught masturbating in front of a preschool.
But we trans folk are the real danger to children, y’all.
I wonder what they’d propose to do to those of us transes who are parents to kids under 10? I wonder what “guarantee” we have that they wouldn’t increase the age limit to 18 or 21 later, or even a full-on ban for being “indecent” for existing in public?
This is why I got the fuck out of Idaho. It was only a matter of time
“Purity of the home”? Yikes. Under his eye. May the Lord open.
I heard about this yesterday and when they got to the hospitals part, my immediate thought was: but some people get their period before 10. I can easily see a situation where a LGBT+ doctor is providing proper medical counseling to a child, the parent takes offense, and says that it’s nasty sexualization and sues them to oblivion.
It’ll result in (more) improper medical care. I’m sure there are more such situations like this if I had a head for thinking of dirty tricks.
Really bad bill, even for the straights, is what I’m saying.
… like, isn’t pretty much everything a fetish to somebody, though?
Feet are a fetish. Some people become sexually aroused when they see bare feet, or high heels, or people stepping on things. Should feet be banned from public view?
Pregnancy is a fetish. Some people become sexually aroused at the sight of pregnant people, or even the very thought of breeding a partner into pregnancy (and pregnancy is an open indication that someone had most likely been engaging in sexual activity). Should pregnant people be banned from being seen in public?
Marks of ownership are a fetish. Some people become sexually aroused by their partners wearing temporary or permanent visual indicators of their sexual relationship. Should wedding rings, name tattoos, day collars, and even BFF necklaces be banned?
Butts are a fetish. Some people become sexually aroused when in the presence of a person with a fat, juicy ass. Should everyone with a plump posterior be banned from appearing in public?
@Seth S: His defense is that he was looking at interracial porn on his phone, and forgot that the school was even there. Which, even if true, probably wouldn’t help him much, as public masturbation in the general vicinity of young children is in most places treated very harshly regardless of why you’re doing it. He also apparently tried to call in a favor with another cop he knew in order to keep this quiet, but clearly it didn’t work.
Once again the party of freedom and small government is neither!
@Crip Dyke, thanks so much for that thorough response – really appreciate your time and effort there.
It’s downright terrifying what’s happening; much solidarity to US mammotheers. I’m guessing Idaho won’t be the only state to try this 🙁
“Republicans” are all ow either openly racist fascists or racist-fascist enablers.
They’re simply the enemies of anyone who doesn’t want to live in a totalitarian dystopia which would soon collapse economically – and in every other way as well.
They’re simply fascists – and fascists want to harm, destroy and kill before dying themselves. They are civilizations final tumor.
When will those god-damned mofos finally stfhu about it being “for the children”? They don’t give a shit about children! All they care about is the stick they got stuck up their asses, their precious military (which they actually need the children for…), and making life miserable for everyone they don’t like, and almost everyone else they do like (or at least find tolerable/can’t do without). They are such pathetic little worms…
@KMB: Exactly. They say they care about children, yet more of them are child molesters than other political groups are (probably combined). And they don’t want kids to have free meals at school, which would make them healthier in the short and long run and they’d learn better, nor free healthcare so they’d grow up stronger.
The only way they actually think of children is as their property.
@KMB: Sometimes “for the children” actually means attacking people they don’t like through their kids, in which case they definitely don’t care about the kids because they’re just a means to the end. But other times, it’s definitely for the children, namely their own, just not in a way some might expect.
As far as they’re concerned, the only good and right future for their children is one where they are conforming*, obedient*, sharing the same values or close enough, and in the case of those with strong religious motivations, not burning in hell after they die. And in order to insure that their children achieve that future, children’s rights as individuals must be disrespected to at least some extent, and other people cannot be allowed to openly live as counterexamples to the one true way™, because it might tempt their children off the straight and narrow. While not typically being their main focus, it’s a definite bonus (in their eyes) when other people’s kids can be forced to achieve that “only” good and right future as well. As far as they’re concerned, having a good life is meaningless and possibly evil if you’re doing it “wrong”, and is thus a secondary or even minor consideration in their children’s futures.
*Unless they’re destined for a high-level leadership position, obviously.
There’s also a more subtle element to this: if they fail to keep their own children on the “correct” path, then it’s going to harm their own reputation, and possibly even cast them down to a lower social tier. That’s an additional bit of motivation which liberals don’t typically consider because our chosen social environments either have very fuzzy social tiers or nonexistent ones, and ideally we don’t judge people by their children, parents, or other relatives (“ideally” because some of us forget that occasionally).
…And that’s when they’re being genuine. There are also people who embrace conservatism because it potentially offers a much greater degree of control over their “social inferiors” free of accountability or meaningful consequence, and their children are both under their direct control and at the bottom of the social hierarchy… I don’t expect, as GSS ex-noob implied while I was writing the previous post, that people with conservative-leaning personalities are inherently more likely to be child abusers, just that their philosophies strongly tend to result in the type of communities where abuse of any sort is more easily hidden and excused. Or I might be wrong, maybe having too much power over someone inherently corrupts, but I tend to think it’s more true that the promise of power attracts the corruptible.