Things are bad; I’m not going to argue that things aren’t bad. I’m not a lawyer, I eat crayons.
That Ohio bill hasn’t been passed yet. I don’t know how likely it is to pass. Too likely, I guess.
It also doesn’t dictate a blanket ban on cross-dressing. What it does do is put “performers or entertainers who exhibit a gender identity that is different from the performer’s or entertainer’s biological sex” into the category of adult entertainments like stripping, meaning it’s restricted in the same ways. No kids allowed. That’s lines 153 to 165 here.
That’s very big, it’s very bad, it’s very stupid, it’s mean, it’s anti-freedom. Un-American, I’d say. It would seem to create problems with Bugs Bunny, Harpo Marx, Monty Python, etc. But the most obvious thing it’s targeting is “Drag Queen Story Hour.”
But it isn’t a ban on cross-dressing in general. Yet.
I don’t see a definition in the bill. I don’t know if there’s a standard legal definition for that or not.
Even a good-faith interpretation of “performer” could leave some gray areas, I’d think. A song-and-dance number for an audience gathered for the purpose is a performance with a performer, sure. What about an appearance on a talk show, an interview, a forum discussion, a podcast?
Unfortunately, “performance” is a bit of jargon for a specific, unrelated concept in contract law.
The reservations your question suggests are very reasonable. I don’t intend to dampen anyone’s alarm at this absurd effort to implement legal, systemic bullying over nothing. I just so happened to be reading about the Ohio bill shortly before I came across FreshParsnip’s comment.
Things are bad; I’m not going to argue that things aren’t bad. I’m not a lawyer, I eat crayons.
That Ohio bill hasn’t been passed yet. I don’t know how likely it is to pass. Too likely, I guess.
It also doesn’t dictate a blanket ban on cross-dressing. What it does do is put “performers or entertainers who exhibit a gender identity that is different from the performer’s or entertainer’s biological sex” into the category of adult entertainments like stripping, meaning it’s restricted in the same ways. No kids allowed. That’s lines 153 to 165 here.
That’s very big, it’s very bad, it’s very stupid, it’s mean, it’s anti-freedom. Un-American, I’d say. It would seem to create problems with Bugs Bunny, Harpo Marx, Monty Python, etc. But the most obvious thing it’s targeting is “Drag Queen Story Hour.”
But it isn’t a ban on cross-dressing in general. Yet.
Edit: If you live in Ohio, you can find and contact your state Senator regarding House Bill 249, the “Indecent Exposure Modernization Act,” through this page.
What color crayon is your favorite?
The red ones taste like my favorite glue.
the green ones slide further up my nose.
I’d be fine with it as long as they include the church.
A small sacrifice for the greater good.
How are they defining performer or entertainer?
Walking in public
I don’t see a definition in the bill. I don’t know if there’s a standard legal definition for that or not.
Even a good-faith interpretation of “performer” could leave some gray areas, I’d think. A song-and-dance number for an audience gathered for the purpose is a performance with a performer, sure. What about an appearance on a talk show, an interview, a forum discussion, a podcast?
Unfortunately, “performance” is a bit of jargon for a specific, unrelated concept in contract law.
The reservations your question suggests are very reasonable. I don’t intend to dampen anyone’s alarm at this absurd effort to implement legal, systemic bullying over nothing. I just so happened to be reading about the Ohio bill shortly before I came across FreshParsnip’s comment.