Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

killerklixx t1_jaev05c wrote

Reply to comment by samfreez in TIL it used to be illegal for women to wear trousers in the USA by fatboyslick

Am I missing something? You said "dancing" is open to interpretation, but this Arkansas bill specifically defines adult-oriented performances (like stripping/burlesque) and bans it from public spaces, in front of kids or being funded with public money. I don't see the issue?

0

Narcowski t1_jaewr49 wrote

It's a different bill, but TN just changed its definition of burlesque to include any "male or female impersonator"; all it would now take to arrest and charge a cis Tennessean woman in pants with a felony over her clothing is a claim on behalf of a cop that her presentation appealed to a puritent interest.

The first and primary targets are trans people, of course.

33

Bardfinn t1_jaezedk wrote

Yep. That’s the tactic they’re all using — passing a law that bans a narrowly defined set of behaviours, knowing they have the power to redefine a single word used in the bill-now-law to have sweeping social policing powers targeting anyone and anything that doesn’t conform to their desires.

In Tennessee, if this bill is signed into law (and the Republican governor has said he intends to sign it into law), all it would take is for a married lesbian couple (where one of them is butch - wearing pants or having short hair) to kiss in public — and puritanical morality police could arrest and charge them.

With a felony.

Even if no kids see them.

Because the law specifies that the “performance” happen where children could see them.

It outlaws Pride parades. It outlaws men with long hair. It outlaws gay men wearing makeup. It outlaws everything except what they decide it doesn’t outlaw.

28

samfreez t1_jaey40k wrote

Thank you for the reminder! That's the particularly damning one I'd been thinking of but couldn't remember.

4