A new bill drafted by Oklahoma state Rep. Kevin West and introduced to the state House on Thursday would ban all drag performances that “could be viewed by a person under the age of majority.”
The bill would outright ban Drag Queen Story Hours for children. But the bill’s wording is so broad that it would also ban female performers from adopting “flamboyant … female personas.”
The bill would make it illegal for “a male or female performer” to adopt “a flamboyant or parodic feminine persona with glamorous or exaggerated costumes and makeup.” Violations would be punishable by imprisonment for more than thirty days and a fine of up to $20,000.
So basically, the bill would outlaw the character Mimi of the Drew Carey show, famous for her exaggerated makeup and blue eyeshadow.
Like many such proposed bills, the legislation defines any drag performance–including sitting and reading a book to children–as an “adult cabaret performance” equivalent to a strip show.
So would Oklahoma TV stations running reruns of the Drew Carey show be subject to this law? After all, they do feature a female performer adopting a “flamboyant or parodic feminine persona with glamorous or exaggerated costumes and makeup.” And since the reruns are on TV, any child could watch them. What of a video store (if there are any of those still around) renting or selling DVDs of the Drew Carey show? How about Absolutely Fabulous? Patsy’s pretty over the top with her “feminine persona.” Where does this all end? Will watching Mrs. Doutfire, with an actual male drag queen, become a capital offense?
There are a number of bills like this being introduced in state houses across the country by Republicans. It would all be hilarious if it weren’t so serious.
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.
There goes Dolly Patton’s Imagination Library.
David, I think you missed the important one:
http://www.wvlegislature.gov/Bill_Text_HTML/2023_SESSIONS/RS/bills/sb252%20intr.pdf
§61-8A-1, whose definition of “obscene matter” would be changed to include the existence of trans people:
If a school kid sees a trans person, and that trans person is within half a mile of a school, under this bill it would be a felony and the trans person would be imprisoned up to 5 years upon conviction.
I’m crying a lot today.
GOP candidate loses and hires hitmen to kill Democrats
I notice it doesn’t include flamboyant *male* personas. So if you want to be a drag king packing like a Tom of Finland drawing it’s all good.
I guess Bette Midler isn’t going to be going to Oklahoma either.
Meanwhile, speaking of drag queens:
https://twitter.com/wesleybonner/status/1616429324550426625?cxt=HHwWgsDS5YH62u4sAAAA
Yet another lie exposed, and more proof of Republican projection.
They’ve been breathing in too many coal fumes if they think that will pass constitutional muster. But really, maybe it’s time for a federal law pre-empting all similar state laws and firmly establishing trans and GNC persons as protected classes under federal anti-discrimination law?
Since it specifies “flamboyant or parodic” and “glamorous or exaggerated,” the law as written would ban anyone from portraying a flamboyant feminine character with glamorous costumes and makeup. Which would ban a staggering percentage of performances and public appearances by women who are actors, musicians, or performers of any type. Including cis women. Anything even remotely Old Hollywood in style would be banned. No Roaring 20s-themed dinner-theater murder mysteries, no community stage productions of…just about anything, no red-carpet appearances by anyone who’s excessively glamorous or insufficiently butch.
Full Metal Ox: There goes Dolly Parton’s entire persona as we’ve known it.
Hell’s teeth!
What’s going to happen with the cheap and cheerful catalogues of old – The Goodies, Cabaret etc – and newer – Priscilla Queen of the desert, Mrs Browns Boys TV reruns of movies and well known series.
I remember a ballet show my mother took me to when I was 12. It has almost an entire male dance cast. We’re in the front row right. Half of those guys are not wearing dancer straps or any long tunics. So the only thing keeping me from seeing cock and balls is a thin layer or dancer tights. It got so bad my mom and I left after the first act.
I’ve been a dancer almost all my life. That shit was obscene and was for “children of all ages”
Maybe ban that shit before you ban someone dressed up as a princess reading to kids or theater performers
I should sue my old school for allowing me to audition for the part of Widow Twanky in the school panto. And also for not getting the role.
@Unty M:
You realize that the “flamboyant or parodic” and “glamorous or exaggerated” clauses would also condemn child beauty pageants. Heck, female-presenting beauty pageants in general.
@Crip Dyke
jesus. how would this even work in actual reality?
As someone who is happily not well-versed in US law, how likely is it that this bill could actually get through?
This seems consistent with the long American tradition of overly-broad laws that _could_ be applied to many people but only _will_ be applied to specific groups.
They’ll still be able to show the Handmaid’s Tale and what decent woman would want to wear anything more glamorous than that anyway. I’m sure there’ll make an exception for Hooters if pressed.
This would be much funnier if Tammy Faye Bakker or Jan Crouch were still in business.
The ones with “transgender exposure to children” turning into a felony concern me, a lot.
A felony would make it impossible to keep my job, and I couldn’t even pass as my assigned at birth sex consistently even before I started transitioning.
I’m in a state that’s safe-ish but that could change. And there’s so many folks in states that AREN’T even safe-ish.
As someone who is happily not well-versed in US law, how likely is it that this bill could actually get through?
At Mish, different states are different. I don’t watch West Virginia that closely, but it is a VERY fucked up state.
So what I’m watching is for the bill to get out of committee. If it gets out of committee, then I’ll expect it to pass the legislature. And if it passes the lege, then I’ll expect a firestorm of media attention pressuring the governor.
The question at that point is how much of the firestorm will be queer press vs. mainstream press and how much will be in-state vs. national. If the governor doesn’t get local, straight press pushing back, they’ll sign it.
So the real question is, will this get out of committee, and since there hasn’t been action on it (it was just introduced this week, so there hasn’t been time) we just don’t know.
Hopefully this person doesn’t even want to pass the bill and is just introducing it so he can go back to his jerkwad friends and brag about how much he hates trans people? But we just don’t know. And frankly I think that introducing a bill as an official act shouldn’t be let off the hook if the person says they were only trolling.
If you’re using the power of your office to be a jackass, then you can’t be trusted with the powers of your office. I mean, I think it should disqualify him if he just gave a speech where he said he was going to introduce such a bill, but take away my political positions and one could argue that anyone can say anything. That’s not technically an abuse of office.
But this is, and I think the national media should be covering it right now rather than waiting to see if it passes the lege.
I just don’t know what to think b/c I’m a long way from West Virginia, but this is a country that has a fucked up history. We’ve made it illegal for people to exist while black after sundown, so why not make it illegal to exist while trans within 1/2 mile (technically 2500 feet) of a school?
Right now I’m putting 40% odds on this becoming a law, but that’s only a rough guess. Unfortunately for me and especially for the trans people who live in WV, we’re just going to have to wait in fear to see what they do. (and then, of course, see how the courts respond.)
I don’t think the part about convicting a trans woman for a child witnessing her is likely to be ruled constitutional. That said, I wouldn’t put much faith in super-partisan judges ruling accurately. But even so, I would not expect a conviction to be upheld ultimately. But one of these laws is going to pass, and then a homophobic DA will try to apply it as broadly as possible, so I fear we will quickly learn how bad it will get before a higher court might uphold sense and order.
Oh gods… One of my first trans friends lives in WV now. We stopped talking a while back (and for good reason), but this makes me terrified for them.
@Dave
Nah, we already have utterly callous treatment of minorities both on and off the books. And even if it got ruled unconstitutional eventually, between passing and that ruling it would ruin many people’s lives.
Also? You can bet that if it went to SCOTUS, they would rule it constitutional.
Do they not realise that exactly nothing prevents a 15-year-old from watching The Rocky Horror Picture Show?
Oh no wait that movie is restricted over there. Which means that they could easily…just see it with their parents.
Oh, and it also bans Ruthless!, because Sylvia is played by a man (apparently not by design, but it is a thing—the character, however, is female) and the character is on stage with a child.
To expand upon the concept of performative Traditional™ Gender Roles And Presentations As Ordained By Nature™ And/Or God™: here’s a brilliant rhetorical Aikido flip on the subject by Beau of the Fifth Column:
So much for the constitutional right of freedom of expression, eh?
And trying to ban trans people from existing near schools, including trans kids (who are provably born that way)…
Is this because they’re still mad about desegregation? Because it honestly feels like that’s what this is about.
Oh wow, I just realised… this will effectively ban Kat Kerr from states with those laws. XD
@Moxie:
Oh wow, I just realised… this will effectively ban Kat Kerr from states with those laws. XD
Whereupon I had to Google her; my instantaneous reaction was, “An aging Jem gets religion.”