LGBT issues thread (was Supreme Court to hear same-sex marriage cases)

[Blackhawk]

Not all action is beneficial, and fighting for the sake of fighting is the best way to lose.

Perhaps they just want to hurt people because they themselves have been hurt. Irrational? Sure. Counter productive? Possibly. Understandable? I think yes.

An understandable wrong is still a wrong.

And no judgment is necessary. I strongly support this particular cause. My background, however, is such that I always look at the harm that comes from my actions, and go out of my way to ensure that it doesn't land where it isn't deserved. The idea of hurting others just because is anathema to me.

Hurting people to feel better isn't something that I could ever be a part of.

[GreenGoo]

Hurting people to feel better isn't something that I could ever be a part of.

Fair enough. Even if the hurt they've experienced is fundamental to who they are and the hurt they are doing to others is calling them names.

Fine. I feel like this is the perfect time to have some thicker skin because in reality they aren't hurting anyone at all.

[Blackhawk]

Also a fair position. My history has just made me extremely aware of whom I direct my ire at.

[malchior]

And I thought I implied strongly enough that JK Rowling is going to be perfectly fine. She is in no danger of being "cancelled" or if she is, have it affect her in any way. She doesn't need defending, because as with most billionaires, she's immune to pretty much anything, if she chooses to be. Hurt feelings maybe? Not having her tweets viewed as much as before? Come on. There are real people who's lives are demonstrably shittier (including more likely to be targeted by violence) because of her opening her stupid mouth. If (some) of those people are upset and react irrationally (according to you and Kurth's definition), well, I feel like I can look past that.

It isn't whether she'll be harmed. The problem is the messaging. She is just a big target that folks think will help their cause (mistakenly IMO). Folks can challenge people and raise awareness without campaigns to fire people, overstated claims, and overall generating divisiveness. They are turning people off.

The best recent example of a similar activist failure is Defund the Police. There was at one time quite a lot of support for reforming police in the USA. There still is to an extent but 'Defund the Police' overwhelming collapsed the ability for real reform to happen. That was driven by extremist activists who waved away realists pointing out that their message was TERRIBLE. They managed to lose important elections and even some black folks at election time! Many of those same activists have now pivoted to extremist action on trans rights. There is a good change they are going to fail in the exact same way.

Because holy shit being trans in our society must truly be a nightmare for a whole host of reasons. See Izzy's post about governments targeting them, for just one example.

True and people need to be aware of the harms. Unfortunately right now extremist action is driving voters directly towards the people advocating harmful legislation.

[Kurth]

There's no shortage of people defending her, that's for sure. Billionaires are among our most vulnerable, so I'm glad she has people to stand up for her. Even if it is just a small town rag like the NYT.

If I only I had known previously that the merits of someone’s argument could easily be discerned from the number of zeros behind the first digit in their bank account, I would have saved so much time and wasted effort . . .

[Kurth]

I'm neutral on the subject on irrational responses to injustice.

This is inexplicable to me and seems like a justification for a failure to condemn so much that is often antithetical to social progress.

But, wherever he is, I’m sure Drazzil is pleased with your neutrality.

[Isgrimnur]

[Smoove_B]

If I only I had known previously that the merits of someone’s argument could easily be discerned from the number of zeros behind the first digit in their bank account, I would have saved so much time and wasted effort . . .

I think there might be some confusion over the core elements here. It's not about the merits of someone's argument as it relates to their bank account. Instead it's the suggestion that rich/powerful/influential people are being harmed when we call out their bullshit opinions and/or the organizations that are giving them a platform to continue to spread their nonsense. Rowling has taken the current issue with trans rights and somehow turned this into how she's being persecuted. She's experiencing zero consequences - other than people pushing back against her words. Meanwhile, Henry Berg-Brousseau killed himself a few months ago after *years* of daily abuse. EDIT: To clarify, I'm not suggesting a direct connection here. I'm pointing out real world consequences.

It's terrific she has her opinions. She also has a global platform and is actively causing harm when she acts as a mouthpiece for those trying to further an agenda.

To further clarify, I don't think JK Rowling is full of hate. But when she's been educated that her words and voiced opinions are contributing harm, she shrugs. She might not be full of hate but she's also seemingly oblivious to how her words are affecting others. It would be a problem if she was Diane in accounting. It's a really big problem when she's a billionaire with global access to media.

[Unagi]

To further clarify, I don't think JK Rowling is full of hate. But when she's been educated that her words and voiced opinions are contributing harm, she shrugs. She might not be full of hate but she's also seemingly oblivious to how her words are affecting others. It would be a problem if she was Diane in accounting. It's a really big problem when she's a billionaire with global access to media.

This.

[Kurth]

If I only I had known previously that the merits of someone’s argument could easily be discerned from the number of zeros behind the first digit in their bank account, I would have saved so much time and wasted effort . . .

I think there might be some confusion over the core elements here. It's not about the merits of someone's argument as it relates to their bank account. Instead it's the suggestion that rich/powerful/influential people are being harmed when we call out their bullshit opinions and/or the organizations that are giving them a platform to continue to spread their nonsense. Rowling has taken the current issue with trans rights and somehow turned this into how she's being persecuted. She's experiencing zero consequences - other than people pushing back against her words. Meanwhile, Henry Berg-Brousseau killed himself a few months ago after *years* of daily abuse. EDIT: To clarify, I'm not suggesting a direct connection here. I'm pointing out real world consequences.

It's terrific she has her opinions. She also has a global platform and is actively causing harm when she acts as a mouthpiece for those trying to further an agenda.

To further clarify, I don't think JK Rowling is full of hate. But when she's been educated that her words and voiced opinions are contributing harm, she shrugs. She might not be full of hate but she's also seemingly oblivious to how her words are affecting others. It would be a problem if she was Diane in accounting. It's a really big problem when she's a billionaire with global access to media.

That’s a better take on it and makes more sense to me.

And to clarify, as I think I already have, I don’t have an issue with someone who takes issue with statements Rowling has made. Personally, I especially find her concerns about men playing the trans card to get access to women-only safe spaces to be overwrought and counterfactual.

But I think it’s a massive leap to say that JK Rowling’s fears about the erosion of safe spaces for women result, even indirectly, in the murder of trans people. She doesn’t have “blood on her hands,” but it’s that zealous belief that I think drives the over the top, irrational and, frankly, hateful treatment that Rowling has and continues to receive. I don’t have a problem with disagreeing with Rowling. I have a problem with the mob. It’s ugly. It’s irrational. It’s counterproductive. And I’m not about to be neutral about that, whether that mob is after Rowling or its next target of opportunity.

Look, apparently Rowling is about to do a podcast series of interviews about all of this. If I were counseling her, I’d tell her to STFU, but she appears determined to explain herself and her position on these issues.

Maybe she’ll say some truly horrible things that will confirm all the people calling her a horrific transphobe and merit the death threats and harassment she has received. But I doubt it.

[gbasden]

I don't think there is any possible justification for the death threats and harassment she has suffered. It's wrong in every circumstance I can think of and I would love to see those people get locked up for it.

I don't think that makes her stated positions better, though.

[GreenGoo]

But, wherever he is, I’m sure Drazzil is pleased with your neutrality.

Great. That means the world to me.

[GreenGoo]

edit: Smoove covered it.

[GreenGoo]

There is no difference between what these people are doing as compared to the woke or anti-racism movements.

Zero difference. It seems like the importance lent to these over-zealous minorities (of a minority) depends on what you think about the movement itself.

[GreenGoo]

I don't think there is any possible justification for the death threats and harassment she has suffered. It's wrong in every circumstance I can think of and I would love to see those people get locked up for it.

Agreed.

[GreenGoo]

Maybe she’ll say some truly horrible things that will confirm all the people calling her a horrific transphobe and merit the death threats and harassment she has received. But I doubt it.

This is such a low bar to set for her that it would take incredibly herculean stupidity to do this. She needs to do better than just not fucking up completely.

[malchior]

Meanwhile in Florida fascism news - this is targeted at news organizations in Florida.

[Blackhawk]

I don't know. It's obviously an awful bill, and it would happen in Florida if anywhere, but I'm leery of reacting to legislation that some individual proposed. Until it is acted upon, it's nothing but one (usually) person's suggestion, and it is becoming increasingly common.

And I get the feeling that it is often for publicity, misdirection, or reaction rather than any expectation of it passing. I try to avoid playing into their hands by drawing attention to it.

[malchior]

Yup I get that. The facts here are a little different. First Florida is in the middle of passing a raft of fascist legislation already. And the chances of it being passed? It is backed by DeSantis so it's decent.

The thrust of this is it sure looks like DeSantis and his legislative lackeys are embarking on a mission here. This is a shot at NYT v. Sullivan. They are picking a big fight here.. They want to shut down the use of anonymous sources - period. They unnecessarily amped it up with provisions to other LGBT people. This isn't just a position bill - it has a real shot.

[Smoove_B]

Mississippi governor signs bill banning transgender health care:

Mississippi on Tuesday became the seventh state to enact a restriction on certain transition-related health care for minors.

Gov. Tate Reeves, a Republican, said he signed the bill, which bars puberty blockers, hormone therapy and surgery for minors, because “there is a dangerous movement spreading across America today.”

“It’s advancing under the guise of a false ideology, and pseudo science is being pushed onto our children through radical activist, social media and online influencers, and it’s trying to convince our children that they are in the wrong body,” Reeves said at a news conference Tuesday, after he signed the bill. “This dangerous movement attempts to convince these children that they’re just a surgery away from happiness. It threatens our children’s innocence, and it threatens their health.”

[Blackhawk]

And yet they still allow circumcision.

[Smoove_B]

Congrats Tennessee, you're first in the nation to ban public drag shows.

Lee gave his signature just hours after the measure passed in the Senate Thursday afternoon. In the same sitting, he signed a ban on gender-affirming health care for youth in the state.

...

Republican State Rep. Jack Johnson co-sponsored the bill. He says, "We're protecting kids and families and parents who want to be able to take their kids to public places. We're not attacking anyone or targeting anyone."

Let me check my data here...what are the top five causes of child mortality in TN?

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the leading causes were congenital abnormalities, low birthweight and preterm birth, maternal pregnancy complications, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and unintentional injuries.

So weird that drag shows are not listed. I'll look through some more reports tomorrow.

Also, the idea that elected officials focused their attention on this to pass a law is beyond shameful. It's absurd political theater that is apparently acceptable now.

[Alefroth]

This can't stand up to constitutional scrutiny, right?

[El Guapo]

This can't stand up to constitutional scrutiny, right?

Well, it could. If a court views this as a ban targeting a specific minority group (trans / LGBT people) then probably not. If a court views this as a ban on a specific activity, then probably (like the state could probably ban croquet in public, for example).

[Isgrimnur]

Every drag show is now members-only. And membership is free.

[stessier]

Can anyone find the actual text of the law?

[Alefroth]

I'd be curious to see how it defines a drag show. Could it just be a man dressing up as a woman?

[malchior]

This can't stand up to constitutional scrutiny, right?

Well, it could. If a court views this as a ban targeting a specific minority group (trans / LGBT people) then probably not. If a court views this as a ban on a specific activity, then probably (like the state could probably ban croquet in public, for example).

This is how they did it from what I read. They don't even use the word drag. Instead they redefined adult cabaret in TN to include performances that include male or female impersonation. Then they ban adult cabaret in public locations where children may be present.

Republican State Rep. Jack Johnson co-sponsored the bill. He says, "We're protecting kids and families and parents who want to be able to take their kids to public places. We're not attacking anyone or targeting anyone."

Who hasn't been surprised by a drag show?

[Unagi]

Congrats Tennessee, you're first in the nation to ban public drag shows.

Next on the chopping block: Monty Python

[Unagi]

Well, it could. If a court views this as a ban targeting a specific minority group (trans / LGBT people) then probably not. If a court views this as a ban on a specific activity, then probably (like the state could probably ban croquet in public, for example).

That's interesting. Could a law be made (and I'm only half serious, but curious how the lines are drawn) that bans the specific activity of just women wearing certain clothes in public?

My exposure to drags show (and I do have one fun story there) is that it's basically (as far as the 'specific activity' angle goes) a person dressed in a gown, singing.
Would the law be that both men and women can't do that, or just that men can't do that?

[malchior]

Bill summary:

This bill creates an offense for a person who engages in an adult cabaret performance on public property or in a location where the adult cabaret performance could be viewed by a person who is not an adult. The bill defines an "adult cabaret performance" to mean a performance in a location other than an adult cabaret that features topless dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, or similar entertainers, regardless of whether or not performed for consideration.

A first violation of this offense is a Class A misdemeanor, and a second or subsequent violation of this offense is a Class E felony.

This bill also expressly:

(1) Preempts an ordinance, regulation, restriction, or license that was lawfully adopted or issued by a political subdivision prior to July 1, 2023, that is in conflict with this bill; and

(2) Prevents or preempts a political subdivision from enacting and enforcing in the future other ordinances, regulations, restrictions, or licenses that are in conflict with this bill.

ON FEBRUARY 9, 2023, THE SENATE ADOPTED AMENDMENT #1 AND PASSED SENATE BILL 3, AS AMENDED.

AMENDMENT #1 rewrites this bill and creates an offense for a person who engages in adult cabaret entertainment on public property or in a location where the adult cabaret entertainment could be viewed by a person who is not an adult. This amendment defines "adult cabaret entertainment" as adult-oriented performances that are harmful to minors, as such term is defined under present law; feature go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, male or female impersonators, or similar entertainers; and include a single performance or multiple performances by an entertainer. An "entertainer" means a person who provides:

(1) Entertainment within an adult-oriented establishment, regardless of whether a fee is charged or accepted for entertainment and regardless of whether entertainment is provided as an employee, escort, or an independent contractor; or

(2) Adult cabaret entertainment, regardless of whether a fee is charged or accepted for entertainment and regardless of whether entertainment is provided as an employee or an independent contractor.

Present law defines "harmful to minors" as 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:

(1) Would be found by the average person applying contemporary community standards to appeal predominantly to the prurient, shameful, or morbid interests of minors;

(2) Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for minors; and

(3) Taken as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific values for minors.

A first violation of this offense is a Class A misdemeanor, and a second or subsequent violation of this offense is a Class E felony.

This amendment also expressly:

(1) Preempts an ordinance, regulation, restriction, or license that was lawfully adopted or issued by a political subdivision prior to April 1, 2023, that is in conflict with this amendment; and

(2) Prevents or preempts a political subdivision from enacting and enforcing in the future other ordinances, regulations, restrictions, or licenses that are in conflict with this amendment.

ON FEBRUARY 23, 2023, THE HOUSE SUBSTITUTED SENATE BILL 3 FOR HOUSE BILL 9. ADOPTED AMENDENT #1, AND PASSED SENATE BILL 3, AS AMENDED.

AMENDMENT #1 incorporates the changes made by Senate Amendment #1 with the following differences:

(1) This amendment restores language specifying that adult-oriented entertainment featuring topless dancers is a form of adult cabaret entertainment; and

(2) This amendment revises part of the definition of "entertainer" by replacing provision of adult cabaret entertainment with provision of a performance of actual or simulated specified sexual activities regardless of whether a fee is charged or accepted for the performance and regardless of whether the performance is provided as an employee or an independent contractor.

[Unagi]

male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest

problematic

or similar entertainers

oh, so it's pretty clear then... I see.


oh, my and then this, this is great:

This amendment also expressly:
(1) Preempts an ordinance, regulation, restriction, or license that was lawfully adopted or issued by a political subdivision prior to April 1, 2023, that is in conflict with this amendment; and

(2) Prevents or preempts a political subdivision from enacting and enforcing in the future other ordinances, regulations, restrictions, or licenses that are in conflict with this amendment.

OMG, is that a "It's against the law to change this law" ??


note: I wanted to use the phrase "I call no call-backs", but my wife tells me that's not a phrase.

[GreenGoo]

"No take backs" is a thing, however.

Thank goodness we live in this enlightened time where women are "allowed" on the stage. Imagine trying to watch Shakespeare in the Park but being told women can't be actors and men can't dress as women.

This fucking world...

[stessier]

What if a trans-person got up and sang on stage? I mean, I know what the bill's authors would want to have happen.

[stessier]

(2) Prevents or preempts a political subdivision from enacting and enforcing in the future other ordinances, regulations, restrictions, or licenses that are in conflict with this amendment.

OMG, is that a "It's against the law to change this law" ??

Pretty sure that just means the law applies in the whole state and it's not up to individual cities/counties/areas to pre-empt it.

[Smoove_B]

What if a trans-person got up and sang on stage? I mean, I know what the bill's authors would want to have happen.

You raise a good point. Like FL is trying for athletes, TN should perhaps consider anyone engaging in public performance needs to undergo a medical examination and obtain a doctor's certification regarding their gender expression.

[stessier]

Present law defines "harmful to minors" as 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:

(1) Would be found by the average person applying contemporary community standards to appeal predominantly to the prurient, shameful, or morbid interests of minors;

(2) Is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable for minors; and

So an impersonator could get up on stage and sing "I'm proud to be an American" by Lee Greenwood, but not "Santa Baby"?

(3) Taken as a whole lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific values for minors.

If nothing else causes them issues, the "lacks serious artistic, political...values for minors" is going to be an issue for enforcement. Wouldn't disobeying the law by performing be described as having political value for minors?

[ImLawBoy]

With a serious Supreme Court, I think this gets taken down fairly quickly as a violation of the First Amendment. Drag shows are artistic performances and are clearly protected speech. They're trying to say that they fall into pornographic materials that would be subject to restriction, but that's really stretching it when it comes to the shows that are family friendly and where the closest thing to sexual content is a man wearing a (presumably fabulous) dress.

Then again, I'm not sure what will happen with this Supreme Court. I would hope that they'd have enough integrity to slap down this silly law, but . . . .

[Blackhawk]

They're trying to say that they fall into pornographic materials that would be subject to restriction

The Supreme Court, I understand, knows it when they see it.

[Smoove_B]

Then again, I'm not sure what will happen with this Supreme Court. I would hope that they'd have enough integrity to slap down this silly law, but . . . .

Quite a few of the Justices have voiced they respect settled precedent so I'm confident it won't withstand legal scrutiny.