Arizona Government Thinks It Should Be Able To Decide What You Wear And When

from the injunction-bait dept

Trying to legislate sexual identity is a fool’s errand. Plenty of Arizona state fools are backing a bill that attempts to do that, though. When you can’t figure out how to stop people from outward displays of their sexual identity, you start getting unconstitutional in a hurry.

This bill — now being booted about by the Arizona state legislature — is an unconstitutional mess. The First Amendment right to freely associate is on the chopping block here. The law — highlighted by Erin Reed on Twitter — proposes the state government should be able to tell people how they can dress, depending on who they associate with and (squints at bill [PDF]) when they do it.

The bill is a “response” to an overblown concern by performative hystericists — people who somehow believe the (ultra-rare) appearance of drag queens (to use the legislators’ preferred taxonomy) at public venues somehow presents an issue worth violating the First Amendment to address. These fears of “indoctrination” (which apparently involves showing children sexuality isn’t binary ¯\_(ツ)_/¯) have prompted legislators to get stupid. Behold the unconstitutional mess Arizona legislators are pushing forward — one that would basically criminalize plenty of non-“drag queens at libraries” activities.

The proposed law suggests so-called “drag queens” obtain licenses from the state to perform. Then it limits where they can perform, using language that would outlaw plenty of non-drag queen activity. Please pardon the all-caps, something demanded by the printed copies of proposed alterations to established laws. (Cromulent parts embiggened by the author of this post.)

“DRAG PERFORMER” MEANS A PERSON WHO DRESSES IN CLOTHING AND USES MAKEUP AND OTHER PHYSICAL MARKERS OPPOSITE OF THE PERSON’S GENDER AT BIRTH TO EXAGGERATE GENDER SIGNIFIERS AND ROLES AND ENGAGES IN SINGING, DANCING OR A MONOLOGUE OR SKIT IN ORDER TO ENTERTAIN AN AUDIENCE.

“DRAG SHOW” MEANS A SHOW OR PERFORMANCE FOR ENTERTAINMENT AT WHICH A SINGLE PERFORMER OR GROUP OF PERFORMERS DRESS IN CLOTHING AND USE MAKEUP AND OTHER PHYSICAL MARKERS OPPOSITE OF THE PERFORMER’S OR GROUP OF PERFORMERS’ GENDER AT BIRTH TO EXAGGERATE GENDER SIGNIFIERS AND ROLES AND ENGAGE IN SINGING, DANCING OR A MONOLOGUE OR SKIT IN ORDER TO ENTERTAIN AN AUDIENCE OF TWO OR MORE PEOPLE.

LOL

WTAF

First off, the fuck does “gender at birth” even mean? There’s fluidity in gender and what may be present on a birth certificate doesn’t solidify a person’s gender identity for the rest of their life. And how will law enforcement confirm “opposite of the person’s gender at birth?” Will Arizona residents now be required to carry around their birth certificates in addition to other forms of ID to avoid being rung up on drag queen charges (or whatever the fuck)?

That’s just the logistics side. Then there’s the common sense side. This law, if passed, would outlaw a great deal of heretofore considered “normal” behavior, especially in the field of artistic expression. I mean, if you need to find a marshal for your parade of horrors, there’s no better option than Rudy Giuliani, who once appeared in drag at a charity dinner (for more than two people), an event subsequently covered by TV reporters, spreading his illegal (under this bill) transgression to a wider audience.

The law says a performance like Giuliani’s must be restricted to adult entertainment venues (nightclubs, strip clubs) and only at certain hours legislators think are acceptable for hobnobbing with a future president.

A DRAG SHOW SHALL NOT BE CONDUCTED BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 1:00 A.M. AND 8:00 A.M. ON MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY AND BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 1:00 A.M. AND 12:00 NOON ON SUNDAY.

Yep. Can’t have churchgoers being outshone by men who wear their Sunday best dresses better than Arizona’s perpetually angry Republican housewives.

Under this bill, things that compose a vast amount of pop culture history would be treated as illegal. The legislators backing this bill apparently feel the state would be better off by cutting itself out of the artistic loop. “Dressed in clothing and physical markers opposite of gender at birth” would turn Arizona into a state that can’t stomach Robin William’s performance in “Mrs. Doubtfire” or Diane Keaton’s wardrobe choices in “Annie Hall.” Disney’s “Mulan” violates the law. So does the classic film “Some Like It Hot.” With a law like this in place, Tom Hanks would likely never have become a star.

It also would make about 70% of influential sketch troupe Kids In The Hall’s output illegal. (Lord only knows where the “Chicken Lady” fits on the “opposite gender” continuum created by this proposal…)

Yeah, it’s a proposed amendment to address the “dogs participating in co-living arrangements with cats” hypothetical suggested by a very unserious scientist when a portal ushering in a hellish invasion threatened New York City back in 1984.

Hopefully, this won’t become law. But this is Arizona we’re talking about, so pretty much anything is possible. What won’t happen is the law surviving a constitutional challenge, considering it restricts how people can dress, who they can associate with, and when they can do it. There is literally no legitimate government interest being served here. There’s only the interests of people who fear things they don’t immediately understand. And that’s not enough to allow the state to inflict massive damage on residents’ First Amendment rights.

Filed Under: , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Arizona Government Thinks It Should Be Able To Decide What You Wear And When”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
105 Comments
This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Thad (profile) says:

Hopefully, this won’t become law. But this is Arizona we’re talking about, so pretty much anything is possible.

You know we have a new governor, right? I’m a little skeptical Hobbs is going to sign this one.

Granted, the last Democrat we elected fucked off to Washington and left a barely-literate fascist in charge, but the chain of succession’s a little less dire now than it was then.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
This comment has been deemed funny by the community.
That One Guy (profile) says:

'How dare you wear that dress better than my wife does?!'

Someone should really tell those deviants that if they’re that enamored with people in drag they could just ask one of them out on a date, they don’t need to propose unconstitutional legislation in an attempt to drive the source of their sinful thoughts back in the dark and therefore stop the lusty feelings in their minds from arising.

Scary Devil Monastery (profile) says:

Re:

“Someone should really tell those deviants that if they’re that enamored with people in drag they could just ask one of them out on a date…”

That’s not how the bigoted deal with this. The proper way for a conservative to cater to their non-heterosexual impulses is to do it the Lindsey Graham way – with an epic feat of hypocrisy.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

That would be the story, yes⁠. The shooter’s mugshot shows how badly his face got fucked up that night. And I’d only ever say “share his face, make him famous” about a mass shooter in this specific case because his mugshot teaches two important lessons: Violent actions have violent consequences, and queer people will not be “cleansed” out of society without a fight.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

Violent consequences should be dealt to those who commit violence against people, but it should only be enough violence to subdue a violent person and stop their violence. The cops delivering an extrajudicial death sentence to someone who commits violence against property⁠—as you so clearly want to see happen⁠—is not that.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Thorvold says:

Over inclusive much?

How would this impact a female TV anchor wearing a pant-suit and doing her normal job? They are “Dressing in clothing”, “Wearing makeup”, “Engaging in a monologue”, and its a pant-suit which was characteristic of male clothing 30 years ago.

The other people that I can see this impacting is live stage theater performers, since it is not uncommon for a female cast member to step into a “male” role if needed. At my daughter’s high-school play last year, the main character in their performance of Clue was a female playing the part of Wadsworth (famously portrayed in the original by Tim Curry). At what point is that a Drag show, versus cross-gender recasting? They would probably ban this too. (Think of the children… /s)

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

This is truly stupid. Aside from limiting drag shows being blatantly unconstitutional, drag shows for children are mostly salubrious, for a number of reasons:

  1. Drag is blackface. When the children are older and want to dress up for Halloween in American Indian headdresses or Mexican sombreros or in actual blackface as some popstar, they will remember that drag is OK and that they can therefore ignore the woke schools who want to ruin their fun. Culture is costume!
  2. Placing the exaggerated drag costuming in a performance will teach children that men dressing as women is like the circus – a clown show, rather than something that is done in the ordinary course of life. That will help insulate them from the malign influence of groomers who want children to embrace being a sex other than that if their body.
  3. The books and messaging directed at children from such events is likely to be of the anodyne “be excellent to reach other” sort, which isn’t going to hurt anyone.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

I’ve been wanting to do a “drag is blackface” post for a while

I’m glad you continue to confirm both your queerphobia and your racism. It makes flagging your posts even more guilt-free than it already was.

This post is meant to be both true and teasing.

Yes, yes, you think kicking queer people⁠—literally and metaphorically⁠—is fun, We get it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

You can get as angry as me as you like. I don’t mind. I’m being funny (at least to myself) in that post, but not as an “I didn’t mean it” joke. I meant it completely.

And of course drag is blackface. A traditionally downtrodden group is mocked by its oppressors, using exaggerated makeup and costuming for amusement at their expense. Remember, woke ideologues accept no excuses for blackface, including Olivier playing Othello, so you might think that they would not accept drag either. But that would be foolish, since woke ideologues don’t care about logic or consistency, only about getting their way about whatever they want at the moment. Rather like three-year olds, and like them, must be constrained and taught to behave properly.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Why are you italicizing my name? Do you believe I’m trying to conceal my identity? I’m just trying to have my response appear quickly instead of being held up for hours or days in the site host’s moderation queue. (And given that anyone can do that, it’s obvious that the choice to have certain users have all their posts automatically sent to moderation is simply a harassment tactic meant to discourage those users from posting, while allowing the site owner to falsely maintain their mantle of upholding freedom of speech.)

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:6

(And given that anyone can do that, it’s obvious that the choice to have certain users have all their posts automatically sent to moderation is simply a harassment tactic meant to discourage those users from posting, while allowing the site owner to falsely maintain their mantle of upholding freedom of speech.)

Bullshit Hyman. The decision to make sure some comments needed to be reviewed before posting were a direct response to YOU HARASSING OUR USERS.

Maybe don’t be a serial jackass?

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:7

The only user I’ve ever harassed is Stone, and that’s only by calling him an idiot when he’s being one. You choose to define telling unpleasant truths as harassment while allowing users to curse at other posters and flag posts which are none of “abusive / trolling / spam”. That’s your privilege as owner of the site, but it makes your claim to be a supporter of free speech a lie.

Nor do you address the point that all I need to do to avoid the moderation queue is post as signed out. So as I said, the purpose of the queue is to annoy people you don’t like in the hope they go away. Which is pretty much the definition of harassment. In the words of one of the more stupid commenters here, “projection much?”

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

The only user I’ve ever harassed is Stone

No, you have regularly harassed anyone on this site who is not a straight white person. That you don’t believe this only goes to show how completely disconnected from reality you are.

I asked you, politely, to stop harassing people. You refused. So I asked you, politely, to leave the site. You refused. So I warned you that if you continued to harass people, I would restrict your comments.

You chose to continue harassing people.

You are facing the consequences of your own actions.

My commitment to free speech stands. I have not sought any sort of government condemnation or suppression of your speech. You are free to harass people and be a jackass anywhere else that lets you.

I merely exercised my own private rights, as the site owner, to have you not harass people ON MY PROPERTY.

And you’re too much of a jackass to deal with it.

So, yes, you can avoid having your comments reviewed if you don’t log in. But, if you do continue to harass people that way, I will just delete your comments.

Already, the spam filter has been trained that it even catches many of your comments when you’re not logged in, because your comments are spammy.

You’re a very, very ignorant bigot, Hyman. People are trying to teach you how not to be such a jackass, and your response is just to revel in your ignorance and bigotry.

I don’t wish to associate with ignorant assholes, and I have asked you multiple times to stop. That has nothing to do with my commitment to free speech. It has everything to do with me having the ability to ask people not to shit on my carpet.

You insist on shitting on my carpet. You will now face the consequences of that.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9

If you choose to construe uncomfortable truths as harassment then you’re going to have to cancel the universe. Good luck with that. Men can never be women. Black people in the US commit a disproportionately large share of crime. Gods don’t exist. No amount of censorship or sending people to the gulag is going to change reality or make people fail to see it. Only the willfully blind woke ideologues like yourself think that putting your fingers in your ears and your head in the sand is a good way to deal with the world.

As usual, because you like censorship of viewpoints that you despise but are widely popular, you insist on confusing freedom of speech with government suppression of speech. Freedom of speech is the ability to speak on a platform without being silenced because the platform owner disagrees with the viewpoint offered. That the platform is privately owned is irrelevant. If the owner chooses to censor opinions based on viewpoint, then the owner is impeding the free speech of the people being silenced, regardless that the 1st Amendment permits such silencing.

Mike Masnick (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10

It is not “uncomfortable truths” that are the concern, Hyman. It is your continued and repeated blatant insults in the form of (1) repeatedly misgendering people, which I do not approve of on my property, because I find it abusive and demeaning (2) repeatedly obsessing over what is in other people’s underwear, which makes other visitors here feel uncomfortable and (3) insisting that anyone who points out that you’re a rude fucking asshole, creepily obsessed with the genitalia of children are doing so because they’re “woke ideologues.”

This is my property and I object to you harassing people in that way.

No one is censoring you. They’re saying you’re not welcome here because you’re a creepy asshole, with a sick perversion.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:10

If you choose to construe uncomfortable truths as harassment then you’re going to have to cancel the universe.

  1. Most of what you list as “uncomfortable truths” aren’t even related to what is being called “harassment”.
  2. Of the listed ideas, they’re all either not something you have demonstrated to be true or not really disputed here.

Men can never be women.

Just pointing out for the umpteenth time that no one disputes this, at least as far as current technology is concerned.

Black people in the US commit a disproportionately large share of crime.

Prove it.

Gods don’t exist.

While I don’t exactly agree, many of the commenters here agree with you, and even I agree that the existence of any gods has not been demonstrated (and probably cannot be demonstrated), so, again, this isn’t something terribly disputed here.

No amount of censorship or sending people to the gulag is going to change reality or make people fail to see it.

  1. No one disputes this.
  2. This isn’t even remotely comparable to “sending people to the gulag”.

As usual, because you like censorship of viewpoints that you despise but are widely popular, […]

Setting aside the fact that it’s not demonstrated that your viewpoint is “widely popular” and the whole thing with the definition of censorship…

  1. This isn’t about even private censorship (under a broader-than-typically-used-here definition of “censorship”) that is only okay because of which viewpoints they like compared to which are being moderated; this is about a) the process by which the decision is made and executed, b) whether (and to what degree) the government is involved at all either in the decision or the enforcement, and c) the reach (not beyond this website) of the “suppression”. Additionally, there is also the manner in which the “censored” viewpoint was being expressed.
  2. Argumentum ad populum. How “widely popular” your idea is has no bearing on how true it is and, thus, is completely irrelevant. (It’s also irrelevant to how harmful or harassing it is.)
  3. Whether or not it is widely popular elsewhere, your ideas about transgender people are definitely not widely popular in this community or on this platform, making the argument even less relevant. More importantly, it is not widely popular among experts.

Only the willfully blind woke ideologues like yourself think that putting your fingers in your ears and your head in the sand is a good way to deal with the world.

Only a moronic asshole thinks that they ought to continue to state the same thing over and over again in the exact same place despite being repeatedly warned to stop because people are offended by it and they have yet to demonstrate that their claim is substantially true.

Here’s the thing: whatever your opinion about transgender people is, this isn’t really the place to have a discussion about them.

[Y]ou insist on confusing freedom of speech with government suppression of speech.

This is poorly worded (you probably meant “infringement of freedom of speech”), but also untrue. People have different ideas on what is considered to be infringement of freedom of speech. It’s a major philosophical question that reasonable people can come to very different ideas about. Just because they disagree with your idea of it doesn’t mean they’re factually wrong or confused about it.

Freedom of speech is the ability to speak on a platform without being silenced because the platform owner disagrees with the viewpoint offered.

This is absurdly narrow in a different way in that it excludes state action except regarding government-owned platforms. Not only that, but not everyone who accepts the proposition that private platforms can censor on their platforms would agree with this on the grounds it’s too broad or too narrow, depending.

That the platform is privately owned is irrelevant. If the owner chooses to censor opinions based on viewpoint, then the owner is impeding the free speech of the people being silenced, regardless that the 1st Amendment permits such silencing.

That’s your opinion. As far as I’m concerned, there is no free-speech right to use someone else’s property to host your speech.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:8

The only user I’ve ever harassed is Stone

You’ve never harassed me so much as annoyed me. Now, if you came after me elsewhere, that would be harassment⁠—but even I don’t think you’re that stupid to out your social media identities like that.

You choose to define telling unpleasant truths as harassment

Gee, it’s almost as if Mike has a problem with bigotry~.

flag posts which are none of “abusive / trolling / spam”

Gee, it’s almost as if a bunch of commenters here think bigotry is abusive/trolling~.

the purpose of the queue is to annoy people you don’t like in the hope they go away

Don’t blame Mike or the queue because you’re too stubborn/ignorant to get the message being sent. You’re the one who refuses to leave a place after you’ve been told you aren’t welcome there⁠—which is a clear sign of trollish behavior.

Which is pretty much the definition of harassment.

No. No, it is not.

Now fuck off to a TERF forum and kiss J.K. Rowling’s ass.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9

If I did go to a TERF forum, I would probably be telling them that they’re overemphasizing the harm done by trans people. In fact, I just started following LibsOfTikTok on Twitter and I’ve already done that a few times. LoTT seems to need to fuel its outrage machine as much as TD needs to with respect to Musk, and a lot of their stuff is just nonsense, like whining about a teacher wearing an antifa shirt.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:9

That reminds me of the filk on Hope Eyrie:

For the Kegels are dandy,
Teach your sons beware.
We can grind them
Into dust down there.

Meanwhile, we all can only aspire to be as ruined as JKR. She’ll probably be minting another few hundred million off the forthcoming Hogwarts Legacy. Woke ideologues so hate it when the people they try to cancel turn out to be impervious.

Stephen T. Stone (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:4

I’m being funny (at least to myself)

At least you can admit that you’re the only one here you thinks you’re funny. Must suck not to have a bunch of other bigots laughing with you, huh.

A traditionally downtrodden group is mocked by its oppressors

I don’t see how drag mocks women. If anything, drag is a celebration of femininity that looks at women not as pathetic breeding sows or “the weaker sex”, but as people to be admired and glamorized for their beauty, style, and grace. That you and your queer exterminationist brethren are so afraid of drag that you’d compare it to blackface says it all: It’s not about drag being “offensive”, but about drag being an embrace of inner femininity without demeaning women, and that’s what fucking scares you.

Besides, drag queens in general aren’t serial sex pests. You’re thinking of the child-raping priests who work in the criminal enterprise known as the Catholic Church.

Rather like three-year olds, and like them, must be constrained and taught to behave properly.

okay now you’re getting into a whole weird area with child bondage and that’s gonna be something you have to talk to your therapist about

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:5

Non-Black people who dress up as Michael Jackson or Beyoncé or Stevie Wonder for Halloween and include darkening their skin as part of their costume aren’t trying to mock or demean Black people either. People who dress up in cultural costumes aren’t trying to demean those cultures. But woke ideological scolds try to impose a zero-tolerance policy for such dress-up in places where they have captured institutions.

It is absurd to argue that men costuming in exaggerated caricatures of culturally stereotypical female appearance are empowering the women they mock. On the contrary, as TERFs have pointed out, these are delusional but stereotypically entitled men who want to usurp the positions of real women in women’s organizations, just as men have always sought to keep women out of positions of power.

child bondage
https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/2022/nov/29/balenciaga-apologises-for-ads-featuring-bondage-bears-and-child-abuse-papers

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
byte^me (profile) says:

What about the Pepperpots?

You mention how this proposed law would be a problem for movies such as Mrs. Doubtfire and Mulan, but what about Monty Python? Think about all the times they dressed in drag, especially on Monty Python’s Flying Circus.

This would mean banning a classic television show! How dare they!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

I give you:

The UK Christmas staple of Pantomime – for children and replete with the Principal Boy and Dame roles – will surely blow their solitary brain cell

Mr’s Brown’s Boys,

Shakespeare’s plays containing cross-dressing (and the apparent playing of women’s roles by men in Tudor times)

Queen’s “I want to break free” video.

Blackadder’s “Bob”

Some like it Hot

Anonymous Coward says:

A PERSON WHO DRESSES IN CLOTHING AND USES MAKEUP AND OTHER PHYSICAL MARKERS OPPOSITE OF THE PERSON’S GENDER AT BIRTH TO EXAGGERATE GENDER SIGNIFIERS

Hmm… is it

A PERSON WHO (DRESSES IN CLOTHING) AND (USES MAKEUP AND OTHER PHYSICAL MARKERS OPPOSITE OF THE PERSON’S GENDER AT BIRTH TO EXAGGERATE GENDER SIGNIFIERS)

Are they favoring nudists for some reason?

A PERSON WHO (DRESSES IN CLOTHING) AND (USES MAKEUP AND OTHER PHYSICAL MARKERS) OPPOSITE OF THE PERSON’S GENDER AT BIRTH TO EXAGGERATE GENDER SIGNIFIERS

Since things like prominent boobs are not present at birth, I assume they’re okay too? Same for makeup – if you see a baby on TV or in a movie, it’s presumably at least a few months old, AND probably also has makeup on. At birth, though, no makeup. Strange. Can’t be “opposite person’s gender at birth” if makeup isn’t a part of birth, can it?

A PERSON WHO DRESSES IN CLOTHING AND USES MAKEUP AND OTHER PHYSICAL MARKERS OPPOSITE OF THE PERSON’S GENDER AT BIRTH TO EXAGGERATE GENDER SIGNIFIERS

So pink and blue are … gender signifiers? So men wearing pink, or women wearing blue are to be locked up? … or is it the other way around? Who can keep track of fashions these days?

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Gene Platt says:

To help you make up your mind...

This bill is SB1030 in Arizona. SB1031, introduced by the same senator, would make it illegal to fire a public employee for refusing to get vaccinated, and would fine the agency that did so 10% of the budget.

So now you know what kind of crazy you’re dealing with here.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

glenn says:

The bill is ridiculous, however sex has been binary for millions of years and will continue to be no matter how much delusional minds claim otherwise. (Did you fail 10th grade biology or something?)

Anatomy is another thing. Plastic surgery and drug treatments designed to match your physical “reality” to your psychological delusions are very profitable scams beings offered by a medical community which should have known better but which has the same mentality which thinks humankind has ownership over nature and reality is worthless (like climate change deniers and Holocaust deniers and anti-vaxxers).

Bored now.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Sex hasn’t been a binary despite your assertion in forever. It’s bimodal, but so far from binary. And it’s hilarious how wrong you are when I learned this in 9th grade biology over a decade and a half ago. And if you’re calling treatments for trans people “scams” on the level of anti-vaxxers, you’re just as bad as the anti-vaxxers.

Anonymous Coward says:

This reminds me of situations over a decade ago where some people wanted to legislate what could be worn at the beach in Ontario and BC, Canada.

The end result was equality dressing laws. Meaning, same rules apply regardless of gender for any environment. Men have to keep their shirts on in restaurants, and women are free to go topless at the beach.

For the most part, this hasn’t impacted how things play out in reality, other than some idiot can’t sue someone for dressing in a way that offends them because of some characteristic of that person, not the clothing.

Anonymous Coward says:

great law! get it signed already....

as much as a lot of us would like to see something like this signed into law.
but….we still have that pesky constitution thing and the bill of rights that follows it around like a lost puppy! all this 1st amendment violating law would do is satisfy the feelings police. discrimination under the guise of a law. is still discrimination! no matter how much you sugarcoat a turd. in the end, it’s still shit!

David says:

Re:

The correlation between drag queen outfits and homosexuality is a rather loose cultural one, essentially based on how important it is to you personally to have a stick up your ass. Essentially if you are forced to break barriers, playing with barriers may become more natural to you.

Just like people getting sprayed frequently with pepper spray tend to prefer spicier food.

Or something.

Anon E Mouse says:

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot

According to this proposal, who or what determines what “clothing, makeup and other physical markers” belong to which gender? I’m not seeing a definition in the pdf. ‘You’ll know it when you see it’ does not a good law make.
Furthermore, trends change over time. Plenty of things now seen as feminine started as men’s items, including high heels, handbags, and stockings. How would the law deal with this kind of shifts? My guess is that it doesn’t, but I find it amusing to imagine the existence of a Bureau of Object Gender Updates and Studies. BOGUS for short.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been deemed insightful by the community.
Violet Aubergine (profile) says:

I was watching the Sloppy Seconds podcast and either Meatball or Big Dipper pointed out that in all its years To Catch A Predator has exposed countless business and faith leaders but nary a drag queen. That’s because sexual predators are mostly born out of sexual shame and toxic masculinity and neither are really a part of the drag scene. Though there are indeed men wearing dresses, garish jewelry and carrying out all kinds of performances that molest children, they’re called priests. Churches have had billions of dollars of legal judgments against them that they will continue to repeatedly pay because Father Blah Blah is such an upstanding follower of God besides the random rare bits of sexually abusing kids that undoubtedly tempted him with their wily childish ways and seductive innocence. That’s my late night short form stand up set, if you’re not laughing you’re homophobrick.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re:

Everything would be better if men kept to each other and fucked themselves instead of women. That’s why the LGBT community is the bastion of true love and progression as a species. We have to stop populating this planet with the offspring of criminals and rapists and everything that straight people stand for.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Precisely. We need to treat all idiots who believe in an imaginary friend like Cardinal Pell. Unless they stand with us in pride parades we can correctly assume they’re all closet rapists.

The rest of your claim that gay people have raped people is a lie concocted by straight males to shout us down. Unless they’re priests, gay people don’t rape.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2

Precisely. We need to treat all idiots who believe in an imaginary friend like Cardinal Pell.

Uh, no. Not every theist is Catholic priest, or even a priest at all.

Unless they stand with us in pride parades we can correctly assume they’re all closet rapists.

I just don’t like parades, to be honest, so I don’t attend or march in any regardless of their purpose or message. I fully support those who do march; they’re just too noisy and crowded for me.

The rest of your claim that gay people have raped people is a lie concocted by straight males to shout us down.

I mean, that bit is immediately refuted by:

Unless they’re priests, gay people don’t rape.

That exception is sufficient to prove that gay rapists exist, which was the claim I made.

Also, that second bit is false. For one thing, there was at least one judge who wasn’t a priest who raped. I also know someone who was a victim of gay rape by a non-priest.

Now, I will say that the vast majority of gay people who rape likely weren’t openly gay, and that the vast majority of gay people do not commit rape (but then, the majority of straight people don’t rape, either), but there is simply no reason to conclude that no non-closeted gay person other than priests has ever committed rape even if it is incredibly rare.

To be sure, homophobes and conservatives have often greatly overstated the prevalence of gay rapists compared to either gay people in general or straight rapists, but that doesn’t mean that gay rapists (besides priests) are completely nonexistent. I doubt that there is a single demographic (aside from asexuals) that doesn’t include at least one rapist unless it’s so small a group that there aren’t enough of them for the law of large numbers to apply. Even ignoring gay priests, there have been far too many homosexuals in history for me to believe that none of them have ever raped anyone ever. They may be a minority, but they aren’t that uncommon.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:3

They may be a minority, but they aren’t that uncommon.

Gay rapists are the result of repressed imaginary friend believers too prudish admit and own their fabulousness. Besides that, they don’t exist. They’re nothing more than the byproduct of toxic straight white males insecure about their crumbling power structures.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

bhull242 (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5

The anger is directed at you specifically, not against everyone rightwing. Though, from what I understand of Stephen, he’s not so much angry as he is irritated because of you.

Also, anyone with a functional moral compass would say that you’re threatening Hyman, and that you’re in the wrong here. That’s not to say that Hyman is in the right (far from it!), but you aren’t helping.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

mechtheist (profile) says:

I am so sick to death of these mfing christian moralists who can’t comprehend that their vile hateful bigoted religion absolutely does NOT get to decide what is and isn’t true or a fact, what is and isn’t moral. What their god/religion commands is utterly irrelevant and has absolutely zero meaning to anyone not of their faith, as much as whatever Thor commands or the commands of the mud god of some long-dead tribe in Patagonia. Trying to pass laws justified by a religion’s version of morality is a gross violation of the separation clause. Not only that, but don’t we have protections from discrimination based on sex? If it’s OK for a woman to wear certain clothing, then placing restrictions on men wearing the same is a violation. Religion enjoys an undeserved deference in this country and it needs to stop considering the toxic nature of many forms it takes. When a religion, as in particular versions of Christianity of which there are thousands in the US, has hateful bigoted beliefs, it deserves to be called out for it, not given some misguided deference that makes seriously warped, deplorable behaviors OK if they’re religious in some way.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...