With the right-wing clowns currently infesting the Court?
To make sure they thoroughly go through the “wrong” puberty and maturation so they will be less likely to “pass” and therefore easy to spot in a crowd and target for whatever evil and malice these sad sacks of evil pus have in mind? Because I wouldn’t put that past some of today’s lunatic fringe.
This.
New bill in Arizona; “people dressing opposite of their biological sex at birth” is only allowed in strip clubs.
I remember in one episode of The Office, Michael Scott grabs a suit that’s on sale and wears it to work. He gripes about the lack of pockets on the pants and how the jacket buttons are on the opposite side that he’s used to. It’s pointed out that he’s wearing a woman’s business suit, to the amusement of his employees.
In Arizona, Michael could be a criminal.
(Actually, not really; the bill isn’t just about the clothes but also the behavior of the person wearing them, so your statement isn’t completely accurate.)
Trump and Rudy will have to book a slot in a strip club if they ever want to do this again.
If I’m reading that right, it’s criminalizing being transgender and working in the entertainment industry, no? For example, any new movie with Elliot Page in it would be a de jure drag show using that definition since they’d be engaging in entertainment while dressed in clothing opposite of their gender at birth, right? Existing filmography would still be okay since they still presented as gender assigned at birth in those.
I can’t wait for some school board to decide that every female in the school can only wear dresses from now on because wearing pants means they’re trying to dress like a male and that’s illegal.
Well… not the most recent season of Umbrella Academy… Page’s character also changed gender in that one. But that season should be grandfathered in since it was produced and released before the law was signed.
Unquestionably there are people who desire this. Heck, we have a customer at the store where I work who regularly complains about the female staff being “forced” to wear men’s polo shirts (based on which side of the placket the buttons are on), nevermind the trousers all but a few of us wear (we do have a few female staff who choose to wear dress-code compliant skirts).
So all those paintings and stained glass windows and statues in churches where Jesus and other male Biblical figures are wearing robes that look somewhat like a modern dress-those are all right out now, right? Illegal and must be removed less the children see? Kilts too? Because cultural context and changing mores and fashions aren’t acknowledged as legitimate? Right?
(Sarcasm, in case it’s not not clear).
Hang on. Surely you can see that the blue text is defining the adult entertainment known as Drag Shows.
I don’t see the link between what a Drag show performer is doing and a trans person dressing however they want. They’re not acting, entertaining or putting on a show why would they be at risk?
Yeah, color me also confused by what you are saying here. It looks to me like the bill is seeking to define specifically drag shows as adult content that’s subject to the same restrictions as a strip show.
Not that that’s okay, but it is not (yet) trying to catch any trans or cross-dressing person going about their daily life under the definition of a drag show.
I suspect it’s aimed also at the horror of drag queens doing story time for (gasp! save them!) children.
Except there’s no inclusion of adult material in the definition. Just singing, dancing, monologues, and skits.
So drag queen story time is still allowed, but Angel Schunard is not. It’s terribly written and fucking stupid. Like Arizona Republicans.
That was my thought, yes.
I wasn’t disputing that it’s fucking stupid, just that they are not quite so brazen yet as to attempt to make trans or cross-dressing people “illegal” altogether. But that’s obviously the endgame.
Harry Le Sabre heaves a sigh of relief.
And should said trans person happen to be in the entertainment industry and acting, entertaining or putting on a show for a living? The language of the bill - “gender at birth” - is pretty blatant and heavy handed trans erasure. It’s codifying that being transgender isn’t a real thing, they’re just crossdressers.
Y’know, it occurs to me that most people don’t have a gender at birth, only a sex. Which means that, under this bill, the only possible non-adult entertainers are those who perform naked (you know, not dressed as either gender, just dressed the way they were when they were born).
That’s an excellent observation thanks for pointing it out. As written it seems a blatant disregard of one’s privacy to say the least.
I suspect Eddie Izzard would not be allowed to do stand up in Arizona outside of a strip club under that law.
Which helps illustrate how ridiculous it is.