This is the News!

[sheridan]

Sheridan - it would disallow children from attending adult pantomimes. Also, wedges come from many institutions.

The part about male or female impersonators was defining what an adult performance was - and that definition would include any male actor impersonating a female character or female actor impersonating a male character, which would (in this country) put all pantomimes in the 'adult entertainment' category and (worldwide) mean that it would be illegal to perform certain Shakespeare plays to children (not a Shakespeare expert, but Twelth Night comes to mind and a very quick google search adds Two Gentlemen of Verona, Cymbeline, Merchant of Venice, As You Like It...)

It's the same as the homophobic attitude that any mention at all of homosexuality is 'adult' in nature.  Which leads to gay men being physically assaulted for holding hands in public, whereas a man holding the hand of a woman wouldn't get a second glance.

[The Legendary Shark]

I think that's conflating the definition with the rule, and also ignores the initial "adult-oriented performances" statement. I think there's a big difference between the child-oriented Widow Twanky and the adult-oriented Widow Wan*y. If you want to see the former, go to a pantomime (I'm sure Christopher Biggins would appreciate the work), and if you want to see the latter, go to an adult club. This is what the legislation says, in essence; that the one should not be mixed with the other where children are concerned. I think that's good advice, in general - and that legislation can only ever be advisory and should never be confused with law, which is informative.

I have no problem with anyone holding hands in public, so long as it's consensual.

[JayzusB.Christ]

I used to watch Cupid Stunt on the Kenny Everett Show when I was still in single digits.  He was a man in drag making sexual innuendos; and it was considered family TV.   

[The Legendary Shark]

Ah, but that was all done in the best possible taste...

I do miss Kenny

[M.I.K.]

Shark, I don't think your interpretation aligns with the bill's actual intention.

If it's not an anti-drag law then why does it mention male/female impersonation at all? Why does it specify it among a load of stuff that's always adult orientated? If the problem is the type of adult humour that may be used, then why is that not mentioned anywhere?

Nope. They've definitely got a problem with the whole cross-dressing thing.

[The Legendary Shark]

Well, that's where you have me at a disadvantage. I have no idea about the intentions of the framers, I'm just going off what it actually says. Guessing at intentions is an entirely different argument, one in which I do not wish to engage.

The context, however, is towards "adult-oriented male/female impersonators" - there is no mention of "child-oriented male/female impersonators."

[Hawkmumbler]

Well, that's where you have me at a disadvantage. I have no idea about the intentions of the framers, I'm just going off what it actually says. Guessing at intentions is an entirely different argument, one in which I do not wish to engage.

Unless it's about your entirely hypothetical connections between gender affirmation therapy and vaccine conspiracy theories, of course.

If I were to apply it to my own hobby-horse of creeping totalitarianism I would say that it opens the door another inch on something like the following scenario:

Let's say that That-Which-Cannot-be-Mentioned II arises. The "government" mandates Procedure X for TWCbM II. Some parents disagree and refuse to undergo Procedure X for them or their children. The parents are deemed to be endangering their children. Their children are taken into care, becoming "protected individuals," who can then be tricked, convinced, or coerced into accepting Procedure X.

But that's not my argument here. My argument is that cherry-picking the age of consent differently for different things is not logical but is dangerous.

[Funt Solo]

I think I'm going to side with US district judge Thomas Parker on this one:

Judge blocks law restricting drag shows in Tennessee


What started this? Reactionary right-wing homophobes freaking out about cross-dressers reading stories to children in libraries. (Not very far removed, I'm sure we can all agree, from Kenny Everett's Cupid Stunt act, or from pantomimes.)

"male or female impersonators" are now classified as a form of adult cabaret, akin to strippers and topless, go-go and exotic dancers.

"The law prohibits a drag performer wearing a crop top and miniskirt from dancing where minors might see it, but does not prohibit a Tennessee Titans cheerleader wearing an identical outfit from performing the exact same dance in front of children,"

---

Just an as aside - "That-Which-Cannot-be-Mentioned" already got a thread locked because of a stubborn refusal to drop the subject. Please don't bang that drum on this thread because I quite like this house and I don't want it set on fire. Take your arson elsewhere. Please. I do my very best to avoid interacting with you on the board - but you seem determined to follow me around and bang your little drum. Please - it's a big house - with just a little effort it could seem like we're not even in the same one. Please.

[Hawkmumbler]

Just an as aside - "That-Which-Cannot-be-Mentioned" already got a thread locked because of a stubborn refusal to drop the subject. Please don't bang that drum on this thread because I quite like this house and I don't want it set on fire. Take your arson elsewhere. Please. I do my very best to avoid interacting with you on the board - but you seem determined to follow me around and bang your little drum. Please - it's a big house - with just a little effort it could seem like we're not even in the same one. Please.

Noted and for my part (and many sins) apologise.

[Funt Solo]

Noted and for my part (and many sins) apologise.

Aw, mate - I didn't mean you - you were just reacting and trying to reason.

[The Legendary Shark]

So, that's it? Conversation over because you no like?

You guys crack me up

[Richard]

The Tennessee bill actually defines "Adult cabaret entertainment" as:

...adult-oriented performances that are harmful to minors, as that term is defined in § 39-17-901, and that feature topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators, or similar entertainers...

To be fair to the Shark, it only applies to a performance that is "harmful to minors", which is defined as:

• "Harmful to minors" means that quality of any description or representation, in whatever form, of nudity, sexual excitement, sexual conduct, excess violence or sadomasochistic abuse when the matter or performance:
  
  
  • Would be found by the average person applying contemporary community standards to appeal predominantly to the prurient, shameful or morbid interests of minors;
  • Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for minors; and
  • Taken as whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific values for minors;

https://law.justia.com/codes/tennessee/2021/title-39/chapter-17/part-9/section-39-17-901/

So it wouldn't apply to the kind of drag acts that are actually happening in schools.

However, I doubt that the intent of the legislators is really quite as innocent as Mr Shark suggests. It probably is happening so that conservative politicians can tell voters they are "doing something" about drag acts  (knowing full well that the average voter won't check up on what the bill actually says). The public perception of what the law says (as opposed to what it actually says or what judges and lawyers would make of it) can still be very harmful; it can have a "chilling effect" on free speech (because people misunderstand what they can or can't do), and it can still feed anti-trans sentiment.

It's definitely newsworthy, in my view.

[The Legendary Shark]

I did not say that the intent was innocent. I said that I didn't know.

We can all guess at intent, as I did earlier in a different conversation that Hawkie pointed out, but guessing don't make it so.

It probably is happening so that conservative politicians can tell voters they are "doing something" about drag acts  (knowing full well that the average voter won't check up on what the bill actually says). The public perception of what the law says (as opposed to what it actually says or what judges and lawyers would make of it) can still be very harmful; it can have a "chilling effect" on free speech (because people misunderstand what they can or can't do), and it can still feed anti-trans sentiment.

I would call this a fairly logical assumption regarding intent, but it could just as easily be something else or a combination of factors.

[JayzusB.Christ]

So, that's it? Conversation over because you no like?

You guys crack me up

I took it to mean he didn't want another current affairs thread locked by mods. 

[The Legendary Shark]

I guess we'll never know his true intent...