You mean:
(B) That is intended to appeal to the prurient interest;
It seems as loosely defined as they could make it, so that it would be easy to hassle anyone. If they wanted it to be obvious they would have said it.
[RD] Trans Erasure
- Thread starter Cloud_Strife
- Start date
(B) That is intended to appeal to the prurient interest;
It seems as loosely defined as they could make it, so that it would be easy to hassle anyone. If they wanted it to be obvious they would have said it.
sophie
Break My Heart
It’s literally just the wording from the supreme court’s ruling on what constitutes obscene materials (and is therefore subject to state regulation.)
If you’re looking for a law that explicitly states “no trans people on stage,” then you won’t find that; it would be a clear violation of the 14th amendment. But as has long been the case with anti queer law, the point is to create a pretext that allows for de facto bans on trans people. All it takes is for a cop or member of the public who believes transness is inherently sexual (which a great many people do), or predicated on luring or enticing impressionable young people into their hedonistic and lascivious lifestyle (which even more do) and suddenly they have an easy pretext to arrest any trans person for appearing anywhere in public, because hey, what reason could they possibly have to dress up like that if not to appeal to the purient interest or lure minors?
Last edited:
I would argue we are historically in an era of greater acceptance than there ever has been before.
I don't agree it is getting worse.
I don't agree it is getting worse.
I agree, and with that has come an increase in visibility, and with that has come a strengthening of reactionary sentiment.
I have long thought this topic was beyond my personal experience. I live in one of the most progressive cities in one of the most progressive countries on this issue. I've been married for more than 15 years, so I'm not out in society a lot. I don't party. I'm not dating. When I go anywhere, it's places I choose to go to, because I have the luxury of owning a car. Yet, for the last year, the woman who lives across the hall has taken to screaming "pedophile!" at me through her door when I'm coming and leaving my apartment. Come to learn recently, she's made that accusation to my neighbours as well. It should go without saying how reckless that is of her. I don't think my personal safety is in jeopardy, but I really have no idea. I spent New Year's Eve filing a police report instead of celebrating.
I appreciate things are getting better, and I absolutely believe that the vast majority of people are either accepting or apathetic. That's good! But the angry ones are a lot angrier than they once were, and that's scary on an individual level.
Last edited:
Ajidica
High Quality Person
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2006
- Messages
- 22,482
What is the actual discussion topic of this thread? Is it about how genocide is understood, or for us to all agree that these anti-drag/trans laws are ridiculous, stupid, and blatantly unconstitutional?
Like, it is fairly common on Saturday Night Live for comedians to perform as people different than their gender; like Melissa McCarthy as Sean Spicer. Was NBC broadcasting pornography? Is a Duran Duran concert prohibited because Nick Rhodes frequently wears makeup when performing? It's ridiculous.
Like, it is fairly common on Saturday Night Live for comedians to perform as people different than their gender; like Melissa McCarthy as Sean Spicer. Was NBC broadcasting pornography? Is a Duran Duran concert prohibited because Nick Rhodes frequently wears makeup when performing? It's ridiculous.
I take it you live in an apartment building? Is there anything in the lease about not being allowed to harass the other tenants? If so, you might be able to get her evicted.
It appears you're right.
There is an honest debate to be had about sex change and minors, but laws like these make it clear that this debate was not being held in good faith.
Ridiculous, horrible Puritanism.
sophie
Break My Heart
I don’t really see what honest debate there is to be had. The gender affirming approach is the only one I’m aware of that centers the needs and happiness of the individual child, isn’t grounded in the transphobic assumption that cis is the “good” outcome and trans is the “unfortunate, but medically necessary” outcome, and doesn’t call for unethical and traumatizing “reparative” treatments and medical gatekeeping that have already been tried and already horribly failed while needlessly harmed children.
A short but succinct summary of the “debate”, such as it is:
https://juliaserano.medium.com/detr...derstanding-transgender-children-993b7342946e
A short but succinct summary of the “debate”, such as it is:
https://juliaserano.medium.com/detr...derstanding-transgender-children-993b7342946e
Snowygerry
Deity
Interesting link, for those like me who have no direct experience with the issue...
I imagine this is the aspect that is still up for debate :
Being "horrified" at age 10 is no ground for medical treatment imho, I would question the doctors judgement in this case yes.
I imagine this is the aspect that is still up for debate :
Being "horrified" at age 10 is no ground for medical treatment imho, I would question the doctors judgement in this case yes.
Last edited:
I am not wanting to belittle, but doesn't everyone experience confusion and wobbles during puberty? Your body is morphing before your very eyes. Obviously most ride it out, but for others the discomfort is clearly more pervasive and permanent.
I think the doctor's judgement is the best we can have in any case.
Cloud_Strife
Deity
Let me guess, you're cis
Attempting to compare a cis and non-cis' experience of puberty is exactly the kind of gap in understanding that for some reason seems to be core to a lot of disagreement (I say this as a cis guy).
Snowygerry
Deity
Cis or not - if your 10-year old wants medical treatment like proposed in this example, you are going to have to make a judgement call, I know of no legislation anywhere that allows them to make their own decisions in that regard.
That is of course where the debate starts.
That is of course where the debate starts.
Cloud_Strife
Deity
So you are cis, got it
In the example, it's presented as an aesthetic issue.
Like, um, braces.
We would let a ten year old get treatments that affect aesthetics.
The actual conversation is way more complicated than aesthetics, obviously, and the research is both very hard and underfunded.
If this child does not get medical intervention, the child will be stuck with a body that looks male and a birth certificate (and life experience) saying she is female, which is going to put her in a bad situation in places that are not trans-friendly, which is pretty much everywhere right now. Is this what you would choose for your child?
It seems to me that this should be the easiest sort of situation for cis people to understand. Making the connection to the situation of trans people is perhaps trickier, sadly.
It seems to me that this should be the easiest sort of situation for cis people to understand. Making the connection to the situation of trans people is perhaps trickier, sadly.
Perhaps if you only want to discuss this with non-cis folks, you would be better off elsewhere?
- Joined
- Sep 21, 2012
- Messages
- 952
I can only discuss the words as written. If you say "they can mean whatever they want it to mean", then I'm not here to do that; I can't look into other people's hearts but only the letter of the law as proposed.
To me it seems that the Arkansas legislature want to lump drag performances of a sexual nature into the same as strip clubs and such, so that children would have less chance of witnessing them.
So in my mind, if you don't want strips clubs with scantily-clad women (or men) near schools and such, then in my mind you shouldn't want men pretending to be women (or vice versa) doing the same acts near schools either...
Does this logic follow?
Bold/red/lineout mine. They consider ALL drag performances to be of a sexual nature. They tend to consider ALL transgender identity presentation to be of a sexual nature, for that matter.
Imagine having your appearance, your image - regardless of whether you're dancing, walking down the street, doing your taxes, whatever - all being labeled 'rated R for sexual innuendo' by law and something children should be shielded from.
Similar threads
