comment: >
  
  No. We are long passed calling out the hypocrisy; these are laws designed to be unevenly enforced to ensure the out group is persecuted. This is a step beyond what people understand is happening, I think.
  You're not going to to see this law enforced on straight people or Mrs. Doubtfire or anything like that. You're going to see it enforced on a trans person visiting a library. Many of our support groups are held at libraries.
context: That sounds completely unconstitutional >
  
  Maybe, but do you think the current SCOTUS will agree?
  When they overturned Roe, Thomas indicated that the SCOTUS rulings that currently prohibit states from banning gay marriage, "sodomy", and contraceptives may also be reconsidered.
  I really wouldn't count on this court ruling that any laws attacking sex and gender minorities are "unconstitutional". >
  
  The difference between those rules and this law, is this law criminalizes literal "performances". Performances are literally speech and that's explicitly protected (unlike the things you mentioned). There's no way that SCOTUS would say otherwise.
  If they were to uphold the law, they'd likely argue that the state has a legitimate interest in limiting these performances. >
  
  
  Performances are literally speech and that's explicitly protected
  
  This is how it will fall down. Speech is not just words, but everything together. I would like to see how they contort themselves around this issue >
  
  The conservatives will argue its obscenity. >
  
  We really are back to McCarthyism, I’m starting to see the word “pornography” used for anything the person doesn’t like more and more on the right. I know it when I see it 🙄 >
  
  How about we ban religious services on public property too? >
  
  Please >
  
  Drag shows have been around forever. Why is the GQP suddenly all riled up about it? I'm out of the loop. >
  
  Republicans need to keep outrage stoked
  Their latest thing is the groomer panic
  Instead of actually working harder to solve rapes and curb child abuse, they're doing this. >
  
  There seems to be a new moral panic every 6 months.  Oh, and a migrant horde approaching the US borders every election year. >
  
  Of course. 
  The day Tucker goes on air and says "Things are GREAT thus week. We won and it's all looking up!" is the week his ratings plummet 98%
  Fury and grievance get eyeballs, clicks, and votes. >
  
  This is all media and politics lol >
  
  Plenty of media that isn’t remotely like the utter bs that is Fox >
  
  "Plenty" uh huh. We will have to agree to disagree. >
  
  Lol. I'm sure it's rigorous and without flaw. Im sure the people who made it were objective and not incentivied to pander to social science publishers and editors at all. Oh its Behind an academic publicizing paywall there professor. 
  This reminds me of college...maybe I should shut up, eat my Ramen, and not question why I am paying the university 150k for the privilege of learning shit like this that has no bearing on a career. >
  
  Maybe look at the chart? >
  
  Interesting. A dress code on public property? Does that include the legislators themselves when they are in session? >
  
  Sadly, in Missouri and Florida, they are forcing a dress code for legislators. >
  
  They already had a dress code, I think you mean they are making it worse/more gender equal in the wrong direction. Fuck Missouri and Florida >
  
  Thank God they don’t have any serious issues to deal with.  
  Inflation, housing, stagnant wages who gives a fuck about that when you can target drag shows? >
  
  They have plenty to deal with now...with them bigly mad about Newsmax getting the boot...lol >
  
  Also saying that they cannot reach their constituents if there’s no OAN or Newsmax. Interesting thing to say on CSPAN. >
  
  This is way bigger than just banning performances.
  The US Christian Nationalist movement is systematically criminalizing our fucking existence.
  This is not a fucking game. These laws are about building the legal and social groundwork for classifying sex and gender variation outside cis/heterosexual norms as being inherently sexual.
  The "drag bans", the "bathroom bills", the attacks on trans youth and now adult's medical care, the attempts to pull information about LGBTQ but especially trans people from public scools and libraries, and everything else they're doing, they're working towards making the public existence of trans and gender nonconforming people a sex crime.
  The laws they're trying to pass are so vaguely worded, the existence of trans and gender variant people is being classified as inherently sexual/"adult"/obscene/etc. And if they are able to pass these bans on "performers" they are absolutely going to use it to attack us in every other area of public life too.
  After all, if someone they consider a "man in a dress" is legally classified as an "adult performer" when all they're doing is reading Mary Poppins to kids in a library while dressed as the titular character, what exactly does that mean for the person whom they consider a "man in a dress" who is just trying to go to her job as a 5th grade Music teacher? Or hell, just trying to go to the grocery store?
  They don't actually distinguish between "drag queen" and "trans woman", or between "performance" and "just going about our lives". They see trans and GNC people's existence as inherently sexual, and our clothing and gender presentation as the expression of a perverse fetish. If we are anywhere in public where a child might possibly see us, even if it's standing in line at the 7-11, they are claiming that this is pedophilic grooming through forcibly exposing children to degenerate sexual activity.
  And they aren't going to fucking stop voluntarily. There is no goddamn line where they will decide they've gone far enough, except the point at which we no longer exist. >
  
  This has to be the most depressing, and terrifyingly accurate thing I’ve read on here in a while >
  
  /r/liberalgunowners - some great people in there >
  
  
  Gloria Johnson, (D-Knoxville), said the bill had unintended consequences. She questioned how it would affect the community and that it was directed "at hate." She further said this bill would be duplicated obscenity laws.  
  "Is it just harmful to children that they aren't wearing clothes aligned to their sex?" Johnson asked. "Would you consider men in tights to fall under this? I am curious as to why dancing. There's nothing sexual in nature. I have been to drag shows. I haven't seen what people are saying are happening. How many drag shows have you been too? People have more clothes on than in wrestling."
  
  ​
  Gloria Johnson, you are awesome! I haven't heard Republicans say anything about Tennessee Titans cheerleaders. Will they be banned now? Maybe the Titans will then move back to Houston if that happens! >
  
  That wouldn’t be a bad alternative to watching Davis Mills throw interceptions every week and seeing you sack your 3rd coach in a year and a half >
  
  Clothes are speech, my dudes and dudettes
  I'm looking forward to the inevitable court case where clothing is speech. >
  
  In the current courts it won't help >
  
  There's really zero indication that the current SCOTUS wouldn't overturn this obvious breach of the First Amendment. The liberals would obviously throw out the law. And the conservatives all have histories of supporting the First Amendment, to a degree that most redditors disagree with (see Citizens United). 
  I'm not aware of any case or statement by any of them indicating that they wouldn't throw out this law. When it comes to overturning big precedents like Roe, there was a mountain of evidence that they were all going to vote that way or were heavily leaning that way. There's nothing here. >
  
  the way this bill is worded, it will be used against transgender people simply existing in public. >
  
  That's entirely their intent.
  They are building the social and legal framework for classifying gender variance as inherently sexual, obscene, and degenerate.
  They are making the public existence of trans and GNC a sex crime. >
  
  But ensure the Klan gets to have their marches.  No freedom of assembly protections for drag shows. >
  
  Well, robes are feminine, and they could be arrested on that basis. >
  
  
  they could be arrested on that basis.
  
  Not when the mayor, the DA, and the chief of police are under those robes. >
  
  This is all the GOP is now, Christofascist bigots. >
  
  Always has been. >
  
  Bill banning freedom of speech moves forward in Tennessee legislature. FTFY >
  
  It's like Republicans at the state level have turned into the old townspeople from Footloose. >
  
  They want to be Elmore city so bad, and they'll be shocked when their kids all end up pregnant later. >
  
  The bill defines "adult cabaret entertainment" that is "harmful to minors" as performances that feature:  
  
  Go-go dancers
  Exotic dancers
  Strippers
  Male or female impersonators
  
  ​
  So, apparently Tootsie and Twelfth Night will be banned from Tennessee, I presume? No more Shakespeare, kids! Apparently, that's "adult entertainment". >
  
  So does this now include Tennessee Titan Cheerleaders too?
  Same Same.....