Bills in at least eight states seek to restrict drag performances as part of a broader rightwing backlash against LGBTQ+ rights
www.theguardian.com
Across the United States Republican politicians are seeking to bring in new laws that crack down on drag shows as part of a broader backlash against LGTBQ+ rights sweeping through rightwing parts of America.
Legislators in at least eight states have introduced legislation aiming to restrict or censor the shows, according to a new report from a leading freedom of speech group. A total of 14 bills have been introduced across Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, Nebraska, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia.
Most of the proposed bills include defining a drag performer as someone performing while using dress, makeup and mannerisms associated with a gender other than the one assigned to them at birth.
“These attacks on drag shows and performers strike at the heart of our rights to gather, read and perform together”, Pen said in a statement. “Drag shows are an exercise of artistic and creative expression that should be free from government suppression.”
Ten bills propose to expand the definition of adult or sexually oriented businesses to include any establishment that hosts drag performances – locations that would then fall under common zoning provisions that prohibit adult businesses from being located in the vicinity of schools or residential areas.
Nine include lip-synching within their definitions, and most that the person must be performing for an audience; six explicitly ban minors from viewing or participating in drag performances; and four explicitly ban drag performances at schools or public libraries.
This makes the musical "hairspray" illegal, as a classic element of the play is that the mom is always someone "in drag".
It makes the musical "rent" illegal, as one of the characters is trans.
It makes "Romeo and Juliet" illegal (Mercutio appears in a dress for the masquerade, as Queen Mab and delivers a soliloquy).
This is book burning by another name.
Cross dressing was a common plot point in many of Shakespeare’s plays. Indeed, during Shakespeare’s time, every play performed was cast entirely with male actors, including female roles. This was true of the Greeks and Roman’s as well: All roles were portrayed by male performers.
Cross dressing was the entire plot of the tv show Bosom Buddies, as well as much of the film Some Like It Hot, Bringing Up Baby and dozens of other movies from the early days of cinema forward. Not to mention multiple Three Stooges and other beloved comedic performances/performers.
This is all just ‘virtue signaling,’ minus, of course, all virtue.
Dog whistling. It's saying "let's make them our next victims" without saying any of those words in a way most people under 30 would not recognize consciously, unless winked and nudged at until they winked and nudged back and quit needing it.
Well, my point was/is that the idea of cross dressing has existed at least as long as the cornerstones of so called Western Civilization. Many civilizations/societies recognized more than just male and female. Some still do. The rest should get on board.
That said, upthread, Emily Lake has a good point: It is indeed women who are expected to simply give ground to allow people who were born with male bodies to....not join us but to push us aside and assert dominion over spaces that simply did not exist for women 100 years ago. And are told how terrible we are if we don't love it.
I understand that those of us who remember when girls and women were not allowed to play competitive sports, or to have access to locker rooms, coaches, training, respect, birth control, abortion, mortgages, credit cards or credit in our own name are dying out now. We're old. We get it. I don't think you do, though. I don't think men get it at all. Or they do and are just fine with the rights of women and girls being eroded. Maybe then we'll just fade into the woodwork and emerge only to meet the needs of men, whatever they might be.
