skirtcafe.org

ScotL wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 12:12 am What happened to people, like the ones backing this bill, screaming for the government NOT to tell me what I can and cannot do

This is why I like states that have a good balance of right/left politics. Either extreme is subject to greatly restrict individual liberty.

Of course, technically, Tennessee isn't saying you can't be a drag queen, they're just saying you can't do it in public view and/or in front of children.

Also, the Tennessee GOP insist that this isn't targeting "Mrs. Doubtfire", trans, enbies, or even men in skirts....

We'll just have to see how it pans out.

@moonshadow. I agree. Debate is what’s needed, not the polarized shouting matches that serve to do nothing but suppress free speech. Both sides decry cancel culture but use it to suppress the other. We should be able to discuss things, debate why we think the way we do, freely state our opinions of why we disagree with another’s opinion (not call it wrong mind you) and sometimes just agree to disagree, but civilly.

ScotL wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 11:50 amDebate is what’s needed, not the polarized shouting matches that serve to do nothing but suppress free speech. Both sides decry cancel culture but use it to suppress the other.

I tend to look at these as separate, but related, problems. Proper civil debate is precisely what's needed in situations like this, but proper civil debate is a formal process that not many people understand any longer nor possess the skills to undertake. This leads us to the inevitable "shouting matches" and ultimately into "cancel culture" as each "side" tries to forcibly suppress the other instead of engaging in rational discourse.

There are times I seriously wonder if I'm living in a civilised culture any longer. There are still individuals -- most of them older -- who can civilly "agree to disagree", discuss things cogently, and even if nobody "wins" leave on a handshake. However, people like that are getting rare as they die off -- and the world needs more of them, not fewer.

All right, now I've had time to read over the bill itself and the ensuing discussion here (good marks all round for keeping it civil!) and put some thought into it, here's my take on it:

First, I'm ambivalent about the whole drag queen topic. Considering my own highly nonstandard clothing choices and my support for transwomen wearing whatever they need to in order to externally align with their internal identity and blend in with other women, I feel a bit of a hypocrite with my distaste for drag performers. The thing is, it's not about the fact that it's a man doing the performance. I wouldn't want someone who is AFAB performing in front of my children wearing an exaggerated, hypersexualised caricature of womanhood either, any more than I would want a performer of either sex in front of children with a massive phallic attachment barely contained by the fabric of his or her trousers. For me, at least, it's not about the closing so much as about a sex show in THE most inappropriate venue possible, and I don't mind supporting legislation to put an end to that.

Unfortunately I can't see any way to word such legislation carefully enough that it would keep the sex performers out of children's venues and not lay a hand on transwomen, female-presenting men who crossdress in a non-sexual way (that is, in conformity with community standards for appropriate clothing), or men who present as men but wear skirts and dresses. Word it too strictly and the drag queens will find a loophole that lets them technically adhere to the letter of the law while completely demolishing the spirit of the law; word it too broadly (ha, no pun intended) and it can indeed capture crossdressers up in the net.

As it is now, the bill even with its amended wording is still likely to go the way of obscenity laws of the 60's. Who determines what is and isn't "prurient"? Like they used to say back at the time "I can't define pornography but I know it when I see it." What if it has "socially redeeming value"? The first time someone is arrested for violating this law, the challenges will practically write themselves.

My other thought on the heels of all this goes back to my objection that drag performances are inappropriate for children because of the sexual caricature of women that they portray. Which means I'd be OK with a man in a modest, business-appropriate dress reading to them, but I wonder if that distinction would change any minds of the people who support the bill as it is currently worded?

Ralph wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 9:16 pm My other thought on the heels of all this goes back to my objection that drag performances are inappropriate for children because of the sexual caricature of women that they portray. Which means I'd be OK with a man in a modest, business-appropriate dress reading to them, but I wonder if that distinction would change any minds of the people who support the bill as it is currently worded?

I agree with you. We don't take any other adult-themed industry and dial it down and repackage it for children. You could argue that guns, gambling, smoking, drinking are adult themed and often dialed down - but they aren't sexual in nature or performance.

As for them looking at MIS and hating us equally? I have no doubt they would lump us in the same bucket in their minds, or trans, or nb, gnc, etc... When conservative media outlets do hit piece videos on anything non-traditional when it comes to clothes, they very clearly state that "we have no problem with men wearing dresses... but look how weird/non-masculine they are. Who in their right mind would want to do that?"

Clearly, the mere thought someone might differ from the pack sartorially... it's too much to bear! Why, they might see a guy's ankle!

I wonder how this drag queen story hour thing got started anyway?

moonshadow wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2023 2:45 am I wonder how this drag queen story hour thing got started anyway?

2015 in San Francisco (wikipedia).
What are the origins of the hatred anyway? If we can resolve that, then we can tell wether or not we can do anything about it. I mean look at it with their eyes for an instant.
When I was a boy there was hatred against black people. I remember it well. When you are that age you go along with what you are told and it stays with you. I'm pleased to say I have put that behind me. I still remember it though.

Ralph wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 9:16 pm The thing is, it's not about the fact that it's a man doing the performance. I wouldn't want someone who is AFAB performing in front of my children wearing an exaggerated, hypersexualised caricature of womanhood either, any more than I would want a performer of either sex in front of children with a massive phallic attachment barely contained by the fabric of his or her trousers. For me, at least, it's not about the closing so much as about a sex show in THE most inappropriate venue possible, and I don't mind supporting legislation to put an end to that.

The thing is, drag is not inherently sexual though. If I do a google image search for "drag queen story hour" I don't see anything you could describe as sexual. Even if I look at Ru Pauls Drag Race, the clothing is unusual and extreme, but I wouldn't call it sexual (there's probably exceptions but the general gist looks fine). If you consider all those thing sexually tinted, I think that says more about American culture than drag as such. It probably does have a sexual tint when done in adult locations, but then everything does there, even the things that involve no crossdressing. Nothing to do with drag.

(Yes, it's well known that (Western?) Europe is much more relaxed about these things than puritan America).

And if we're worried about kids seeing barely constrained phallic attachments, they should be forbidden from watching the Tour de France, because those bike shorts leave little to the imagination.

Ralph wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 9:16 pm Unfortunately I can't see any way to word such legislation carefully enough that it would keep the sex performers out of children's venues and not lay a hand on transwomen, female-presenting men who crossdress in a non-sexual way (that is, in conformity with community standards for appropriate clothing), or men who present as men but wear skirts and dresses. Word it too strictly and the drag queens will find a loophole that lets them technically adhere to the letter of the law while completely demolishing the spirit of the law; word it too broadly (ha, no pun intended) and it can indeed capture crossdressers up in the net.

Bingo! That's because there is no objective difference, the difference is in the minds of the people looking. They are either choosing to be offended, or have been trained to consider it offensive. There are places in the world where bare-breasted women on the street are perfectly normal. Culture cannot be easily legislated, and I would argue you shouldn't try.

(When Napoleon formulated his Code, one of the goals was to avoid codifying anything that regulated interpersonal relationships. So nothing about homosexuality, nothing specific on publicly decency, etc. It's probably one of the reasons it spread so far, because it avoided all the cultural minefields).

It sounds likt this bill will have unintended consequences unless defined very, very carefully. Two recent examples from Scotland. Sturgeon brought in rent controls ( freeze ) in order to stabilise things for renters. Just at a time when increasing costs caused private landlords to sell up, decreasing the rental stock and pushing up rents. The other is the passage of a bill allowing self determination of gender. This brought her resignation.

Sinned wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 9:16 pm The other is the passage of a bill allowing self determination of gender. This brought her resignation.

That's not my impression. She was quite explicit in her resignation statement that she was not responding to any particular current political circumstance. Anyway, why would she resign from her position in the Scottish parliament over a bill which she supported and they passed by a sizable majority? If anything, the fact that the bill was then overruled by the UK (national) parliament played in favour of her pro-independence argument that the UK government was acting against the democratic will of the Scottish people.

Myopic Bookworm wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 9:54 pm

Sinned wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 9:16 pm The other is the passage of a bill allowing self determination of gender. This brought her resignation.

That's not my impression. She was quite explicit in her resignation statement that she was not responding to any particular current political circumstance. Anyway, why would she resign from her position in the Scottish parliament over a bill which she supported and they passed by a sizable majority? If anything, the fact that the bill was then overruled by the UK (national) parliament played in favour of her pro-independence argument that the UK government was acting against the democratic will of the Scottish people.

If you believe that, you’ll believe anything. The gender fiasco was the last straw, alienating many of her potential supporters.

I disagree to an extent. The bill had cross party support. It had been amended to get it through. It wasn’t perfect, but I note that Spain is going the same way (see vote today).

Only the tories held out, bless them.

I don’t know why Sturgeon resigned, but she always had integrity. Unlike Johnson, Rees-Mogg, Zahawi, Cummings, Kwateng, Raab, Corbyn and many more.

Indeed, Scotland at one point had three party leaders of integrity - Sturgeon, Davidson, Dugdale.

Shane that Westminster remains a cesspit of toxic moral turpitude.

Ray wrote: ↑Thu Feb 16, 2023 10:48 pm[...] a cesspit of toxic moral turpitude.

Blessed be good vocabularies!

You are very kind, Carl.

I just love interesting vocabulary!

Well well well...

Turns out old big shot governor Bill Big Time Ban It Lee was....wad..... wait for it....

A female impersonator back in 1977....

https://www.tennessean.com/story/news/p ... 951107007/

Ain't that like a southern Christian politician....?

Do as I say, not as I do!

So now that this legislation races towards becoming law, my realistic expectations of this are that I don't expect to be harassed by law enforcement, but I imagine I'll have the cops called on me occasionally.

They'll probably show up and just ask me to leave various places for causing a disturbance. And when that starts time happen I'm going to start reporting every single woman I see wearing pants.