skirtcafe.org

There's quite a bit of buzz regarding Tennessee Senate Bill 3. Supporters of the bill claim that the bill will prevent the grooming of children by drag queens and other "adult entertainers", in essence, would completely ban events like "Drag Queen Story Hour" not only in Tennessee libraries, but virtually anywhere in the Tennessee Public or even on private property if it's viewable from the public or can be otherwise seen by minors.

This basically eliminates drag queens from participating in PRIDE events statewide as well.. PRIDE parades tend to happen on public streets.

Opponents claim that it basically makes PRIDE events illegal for all intents in purposes, but some more extreme opponents claim this may completely ban transgender women/girls, and may be used to even restrict men from wearing kilts at weddings!

Now the latter sounds pretty far fetched... so rather than invoke a knee jerk reaction... let's lay the political polarizing to the side for a moment and just ask... "what does the actual bill say?"...

Let's find out:

https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/113/Bill/SB0003.pdf

(1) It is an offense for a person to engage in an adult cabaret
performance:
(A) On public property; or
(B) In a location where the adult cabaret performance could be
viewed by a person who is not an adult

Okay... well men in skirts and transgender women aren't what we might consider an "adult cabaret performance"... but what does the law say? Let's find out:

SECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 7-51-1401, is amended by adding
the following language as a new subdivision:
"Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a location other than an
adult cabaret that features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers,
male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient
interest, or similar entertainers, regardless of whether or not performed for consideration;

On the surface this seems pretty straight forward... it sounds like an innocent "no drag queens out in public view" law. Sucks for people like Dee, but shouldn't effect us right?

Probably not, but the actual wording leaves a lot open for interpretation. First of all, it doesn't specifically state "drag queens are banned", it states "male or female impersonators", and I think we all should know that in the eyes of this legislature and the voters that place them in positions of power, transgender women are NOT women, they are female impersonators. And while few people if any would accuse a man wearing a kilt of being a female impersonator, some members on this site do push the envelope a little, and I can imagine might run afoul in the theocracy of Tennessee. Why? Mainly the last line: who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient
interest, or similar entertainers, regardless of whether or not performed for consideration. I'm not a lawyer, but the underlined portion makes me assume that these people will be considered "entertainers" regardless of whether they are actually in the practice of "entertaining" or not, in other words, my understanding is, a "male or female impersonator" simply standing on the sidewalk would be subject to this law.

Where does the typical man in a non-kilt skirt fall on this? *shurgs* I honestly don't know. I don't really think this law targets us, but I do believe there are plenty in the legislature as well as the voting body that think it should, and on that note, I ask, are we on a slippery slope?

Realistically, I imagine that my black Macabi and other similar outfits might be okay, provided I wear a normal tee-shirt with it. I do have a few outfits that are definitely on the flamboyant "femme" side that might put me in the range of "female impersonator" and thus, out of bounds in Tennessee. Some members here I think might be more subject to the ban, Skirts Dad comes to mind, Jeff, possibly Anthony (for his minis), I'm not sure about Carl. He kinda has a unique style. I don't see how he could be accused to being a "female impersonator" since no actual females wear his styles anymore. Coder would probably be okay, provided he keeps his looks on the "dark" side, though I've never seen his head, so if he has long hair, that might put him over the line. Other regulars I've never seen a photo of, so I can't say.

At any rate I don't think I'm going to chance it. It looks like Tennessee is on a fast track to authoritarian madness. Anything not considered "normal" is being banned, and they don't play... we're not talking about a night in the clink, Tennessee goes all the way... we're talking FELONY here. Just like they do the homeless.

This bill is sure to pass with flying colors... actually, bad pun. "flying colors" are probably about to be banned too. For the last couple of years I have endeavored to avoid any travel to Tennessee while off duty (not at work). It is literally turning into capital state of the American Taliban. Sometimes I have to travel to Tennessee for business I can't reasonably conduct anywhere else unless I want to travel to the next metro area (Roanoke VA) which is a three hour drive. I might have to invest in some type of floor length BLACK poncho that states on the front and back "NOT A WOMAN - NOT A FEMALE IMPERSONATOR" for those days I am forced to travel in the theocracy. I'll be sure to wear latex surgical gloves over my hands so my fingernails won't offend anyone.

moonshadow wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 6:44 pmSECTION 1. Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 7-51-1401, is amended by adding
the following language as a new subdivision:
"Adult cabaret performance" means a performance [...] whether or not performed for consideration;

My personal thoughts on this hinge on the words ""performance" and "consideration". Men in skirts should be clear of this because we're not "performers", nor do we ever accept payment ("consideration") for our actions. Also, we're not "impersonating" anyone, and not even trying. That is the distinction I have been pointing up for years now. MIS and trans-* are distinctly separate entities.

Now, your suspicions about the trans-* crowd may be valid, as in the eyes of the local law they may very well be considered "impersonators"

I'm sure that in many places this would pass with a handy majority -- because the majority never thinks "outside the box" that they've been trapped in.

crfriend wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 6:58 pm Also, we're not "impersonating" anyone, and not even trying. That is the distinction I have been pointing up for years now. MIS and trans-* are distinctly separate entities.

This also points up an idea I've gotten into some hot water over with some trans* groups- the clothing one wears need not determine whether one is trans or nonbinary. My thinking is that the whole concept of "gender identity" is a personal matter of the heart (spirit, not the actual organ) and soul. By this logic it is technically impossible for a trans-person to "impersonate" anyone, male or female, because a trans-person is always going to be what they are... a person. It makes no difference what they wear.

Which is what gets me in trouble... for the sake of staying out of legal trouble and getting felonies on their record, I recommend all transwomen state for the record, that they are not impersonating anyone, and that legally they (transgender women in this example) are feminine males. Yes, (and before I get into trouble again): among family and friends, by all means, transgender women are women, but in front of the judge, they are feminine males. The former could legally be interpreted as "female impersonation", the latter simply can not because it is rooted in what is considered traditional understanding of sex and gender. [0]

MIS and trans-* are distinctly separate entities
Of course they are, but in the eyes of states like Tennessee, I'm not so sure. When you wear a garment intended for women with the "women's" tag and sizing, you are crossdressing. That is the textbook definition of what the word means.

Carl, this was the point I was driving to on the other drag thread... yes, I know most of us here are men in skirts, but these folks don't see it that way. Don't get me wrong, they don't think we're women either. You see, it's not about men wearing dresses, drag queens, or transgender women, it has ALWAYS been about returning to what might be considered traditional western Judea-Christian FAMILY values. Frankly the Tennessee state legislature doesn't give a damn what you think of yourself Carl. To them, you're just another queer, and you need to straighten up and dress like a proper man, or at the very least, stay the hell out of their state.

This is not the Tennessee of your youth. This is the Tennessee of the new era. This is the rise of the American Taliban, and I am completely convinced that their view of the future doesn't include drag queens, transgender women, OR men in skirts. And that's just this chapter... next they'll be banning transgender men and eventually women that wear trousers....

[0] Of course this is not legal advice... yada yada... always seek the advice of legal counsel before traveling to or engaging with the Taliban states.

You know what... it probably doesn't help that I've literally got the movie Pleasantville going in the background as I write this...

Perhaps it is the accessorising that defines the impersonisation. Thai is the addition of the padded bra, makeup and wig. Most of us do not go that far and the beards of some members emphasises that the are very definitely male. Perhaps we should all grow beards!

Sinned wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 7:39 pm Perhaps it is the accessorising that defines the impersonisation.

That's the crux of the issue, at what point, legally, does one cease to be their own natural selves and become an impersonator.

Logically, and I hope this is the case, at the very worst, an impersonator is what we all assume it to be... drag queens/kings and the like, in which case, nobody here, not even Jeff or SkirtsDad would qualify, and frankly, nor would transgender women. I think the "spirit" of the law is to target actual performers of these venues.

But the $64k question remains... will it stop there?

I don't know. Time will tell.

A modification of the old writing:

First they came for the Drag Queens, and I said nothing because I wasn't a Drag Queen

Then they came for the transgender women, and I said nothing because I wasn't a transgender woman.

Then they came for the nonbinary, and I said nothing because I wasn't nonbinary.

Then they came for me, and there was nobody left to speak for me.

This bill looks like it will end up getting abused, but I don't know how or where. Will they target trans individuals? And who has a right to enforce this? Does someone just call the cops on a person walking down the street, or does a prosecutor have to get involved?

I feel like, provided the house votes for it, and the governor signs it, the law will be tested very quickly.

moonshadow wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 6:44 pm Coder would probably be okay, provided he keeps his looks on the "dark" side, though I've never seen his head, so if he has long hair, that might put him over the line.

I keep my hair short, but let it grow past my eyes... towards cuttin time I would probably be at risk of being jailed. Or if someone claimed it was a pixie cut.

Coder wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 8:13 pm This bill looks like it will end up getting abused, but I don't know how or where. Will they target trans individuals? And who has a right to enforce this? Does someone just call the cops on a person walking down the street, or does a prosecutor have to get involved?

I feel like, provided the house votes for it, and the governor signs it, the law will be tested very quickly.

I just don't know for sure... you know, readers here who know me know that I have a constant red ass at Tennessee for something or other (it's probably my least favorite state in the union), but on the other other hand, my actual real life experiences in Tennessee really haven't been much different than any other state, even while wearing feminine clothes like skirts.

As far as my rare encounters with law enforcement, in Tennessee, like every state, I've always been treated with a certain level of dignity and honestly, I have no complaints. And I can tell, they really don't seemed bothered by me, I guess I just don't have a very threatening appearance.

But no, I don't realistically expect to have an issue wearing feminine clothes in Tennessee, and I figure trans-women will probably be okay too. I believe the spirit of the law targets exactly what was being described in the other drag thread that many members here were in agreement over. While, granted it's not an opinion I share, I do think it's mainly to combat these Drag Time story hours. I'm betting that PRIDE parades probably won't even be largely effected provided they are properly permitted.

Anyway... unlikely as it may be, should I run afoul of Tennessee law... I guess I'd just have to fire up the old "Declaration of Religious Freedom".

You see... for me, while I consider myself of a "nonbinary" gender, I'm don't believe I am under the current framework of "transgender law and legislation", but rather in a strictly spiritual sense. I am a male, and that is undisputed. Whether I am a "man" or not, I leave up to the public to decide. I take no official position on that. I know the gender of my soul better than anyone else, and nobody else can tell me I'm something or not, nobody else can explain my own soul better than I can.

I explained this once to someone who just couldn't wrap his mind around the concept that the gender of the soul might not match the exact sex of the body thusly: Imagine I die tonight and my soul leaves my body and enters the afterlife. My physical body rots in the ground, along with my anatomy. I asked this man "when your physical body rots in the Earth, what makes you a man?" He pointed his masculine characteristics, and most importantly "he just feels like a man".

I replied "then you know what it's like to experience gender outside of sex, physical attributes like sex and anatomy don't exist in the spiritual body". An "aha!" expression came over his face.

This is my angle... though this is NOT a loophole for me. This is how I genuinely view my gender, as part of the many things that define my spirit... Which is why I believe this is a winning strategy to deal with Taliban states like Tennessee... Gender is spiritual, gender is philosophy, gender is... religion. You beat them at their own game... Checkmate. Oh sure... they could lock me up and throw away the key anyway, but make no mistake, in such an instance, my first amendment right to religious freedom would have been violated.

Galatians 3: 28: There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Actually, that whole chapter is pretty interesting.

"But Andrea, claiming that you wear skirts for religious reasons is pretty weak... nobody would buy that!"

Really? Well, first of all, I'm not "selling" anything, I'm just sharing a little piece of how my spirit functions and the result of my years of soul searching.

Second of all, clothing is very much a part of religious practice. Many women and men dress in certain ways specifically for religious reasons.

It's not as far fetched as it sounds....

Edit: fixed a typo that I'm surprised nobody mentioned...

moonshadow wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 6:44 pm ...
male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient
interest, or similar entertainers,

It looks as though that line has to be taken as a whole, not split into two.  In other words the impersonators that fall foul of the law are the ones that provide prurient entertainment; if they don't do that, they are at liberty to go on 'impersonating'.

I share your worry that this will be abused, probably by some evil-minded religious nutcase, who think that a man in a skirt must be doing this because of some prurient interest.

War on men. This is everyman's fight. He (everyman) might feel like he has nothing in common with this bunch of 'faggots'. They agree with him, in fact they are relying on it.
This is why men are being given subjugated. Through their own misguided, fagile masculinity.

pelmut wrote: ↑Sun Feb 12, 2023 9:01 pmI share your worry that this will be abused, probably by some evil-minded religious nutcase, who think that a man in a skirt must be doing this because of some prurient interest.

I'm more worried about some random copper who has a hair across his backside one day or who "didn't get any" last night. Sadly, these idiots in the US have "license to kill".

What happened to people, like the ones backing this bill, screaming for the government NOT to tell me what I can and cannot do

Those days are long, long gone in the USA.

crfriend wrote: ↑Mon Feb 13, 2023 12:18 am Those days are long, long gone in the USA.

Until you mention governmental regulation of guns and then as they say “they can pry the gun out of their cold dead hand.” It’s duplicity at its best

Indeed, but it's also down to power politics and money. Both of those latter points handily override common sense and rationality when it comes to the shenanigans in DC.