Anti-LGBTQIA+ legislation staying lowkey but with big impact

[DossarLX ODI]

Recently there has been a wave of anti-LGBTQIA+ legislation being filed in several states in the U.S. specifically attacking the rights of not only those people, but also potentially having a ripple effect in general.

Just today, Florida House filed a bill (HB 1223: Public PreK-12 Educational Institution and Instruction Requirements) to prohibit use of preferred pronouns. I was apparently the first person to save an archive link of this page.

Archive Screenshot
Page Screenshot
Bill PDF page about prohibiting use of preferred pronouns

The specific text:

(3) An employee or contractor of a public K-12 educational
institution may not provide to a student his or her preferred
personal title or pronouns if such preferred personal title or
pronouns do not correspond to his or her sex.
(4) A student may not be asked by an employee or
contractor of a public K-12 educational institution to provide
his or her preferred personal title or pronouns or be penalized
or subjected to adverse or discriminatory treatment for not
providing his or her preferred personal title or pronouns.

This is just going to make the situation worse for students and teachers.

And it doesn't stop there: Tennessee has also been on the move to ban drag shows, and some other states like Texas are trying to follow suit.

Tennessee Drag Race queens slam state's 'blatantly unconstitutional' drag ban bill: 'Drag brings joy'
Republican legislators introduce new laws to crack down on drag shows

This has been on the rise after numerous story hours have happened about drag.

You can see the Tennessee Bill here.

Quoted text of the bill in below spoiler.

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.

The Florida one I mentioned was literally just from today, and these bills can sneak their way without much attention. But these attacks are real and happening.

Please keep LGBTQIA+ people in mind during these times, and be supportive as you can.

[sff_writer_dan]

I was amused to see one of the anti-drag bills actually being opposed by a republican, and wondering why on Earth that might happen, and then it turned out they own a promotion company that, among other things, does Pro Wrestling, which -very often- would fall afoul of how absurdly broad and vague those laws are.

[mi40]

cool

[M0nkeyz]

Originally Posted by mi40

cool

what?

[Lights]

:c Eat a butt, Florida, Tennessee, and Texas.

[Black_Shield]

quite shitty.

[Hateandhatred]

I'd be very curious to see the flipside of these. Like... What was their motive?

Surely they didn't just think it was a society problem. I mean, I'm sure a lot of uber conservative politicians do think that, but actually acting on it also sounds like PR suicide.

I feel sorry for people who are going to be affected by this.

[DossarLX ODI]

Iowa attempted to put forward a bill to ban same-sex marriage.
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...s/69958038007/

Link to the bill.
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislati...?ba=HJR8&ga=90

Originally Posted by Hateandhatred

actually acting on it also sounds like PR suicide.

Not when you have a supreme court that overturned Roe v. Wade with no concern about privacy, providing prenatal care, or improving sexual health.

[radioamor]

Originally Posted by Hateandhatred

I'd be very curious to see the flipside of these. Like... What was their motive?

Surely they didn't just think it was a society problem. I mean, I'm sure a lot of uber conservative politicians do think that, but actually acting on it also sounds like PR suicide.

I feel sorry for people who are going to be affected by this.

You could reasonably infer the origin of this legislation to be severely out-of-touch politicians trying desperately to appeal to their militantly right-wing constituents as a means to remain in office and, therefore, in power, but that sounds convenient and simple.
This is speculation insofar as I haven't bothered to do any research on the topic (and, since this is a casual forum and not a political journal, I'm not going to perform that step right now), but the average constituent awareness of LGBTQIA+ existence and especially drag shows seemed limited until recently. Then you get a gamut of cable/broadcast news networks cherry-picking isolated incidents and spinning the veritable fuck out of otherwise inconsequential realities like drag shows and trans athletes to their viewers and, suddenly, you have a useful contingent of Very Angry People. That stratum of people proceeds to get loud on social media and in the general direction of their local government, and bonkers legislation like this is put on the table.
Motives for this brand of nonsense remain obfuscated, although "white male evangelicals trying to establish a white male evangelical state" doesn't seem terribly outlandish. Advertisement-based news programming has shredded journalism into an embarrassing deluge of reactionary content, and while all of it is editorialized propaganda, the networks supporting this drivel (FOX, OANN, Newsmax) appear to be especially sensationalist.

Unfortunately, there is a large volume of people that remains vehemently anti-LGBTQIA+, so for any politician who seeks to perfunctorily expand their rapport with their constituents, simply showing minority populations the legislative middle finger is enough to get them cheering. The antonym of PR suicide, if you will.

[Matthia]

politicians try to mind their own business impossible challenge

[Pizza69]

Originally Posted by DossarLX ODI

Iowa attempted to put forward a bill to ban same-sex marriage.
https://www.desmoinesregister.com/st...s/69958038007/

Link to the bill.
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/legislati...?ba=HJR8&ga=90



Not when you have a supreme court that overturned Roe v. Wade with no concern about privacy, providing prenatal care, or improving sexual health.

bit more than just same-sex marriage--it also specifies biological male and biological female, so there's a dollop of transphobia in there too

[_choof]

Originally Posted by M0nkeyz

what?

psst mi40 has always been homophobic

[Funnygurl555]

Originally Posted by Lights

:c Eat a butt, Florida, Tennessee, and Texas.

don't threaten them with a good time

[Jade5_]

Originally Posted by Lights

:c Eat a butt, Florida, Tennessee, and Texas.

cool

[gold stinger]

Just let people do whatever the fuck they want to do behind closed doors, jesus christ. As long as it's not hurting anyone.

The problem with the whole ordeal imo, is that it's a general expectation of respect 'outside of closed doors', to get someone's preferred pronouns correct. Start mis-gendering intentionally because of beliefs, and you're kind of validating yourself as an asshole wanting to stir shit. Same the other way around, they get emotional and defensive from mis-gendering accidentally and all of a sudden, they're the asshole here.

Stuff regarding drag is VERY unfortunate. That is more than just something people enjoy or are more comfortable with, and is sometimes a job.

[DossarLX ODI]

Originally Posted by gold stinger

Just let people do whatever the fuck they want to do behind closed doors, jesus christ. As long as it's not hurting anyone.

"They didn't vote for us so make them suffer financially and mentally. And physically if legally possible."

[Hakulyte]

(3) An employee or contractor of a public K-12 educational
institution may not provide to a student his or her preferred
personal title or pronouns if such preferred personal title or
pronouns do not correspond to his or her sex.
(4) A student may not be asked by an employee or
contractor of a public K-12 educational institution to provide
his or her preferred personal title or pronouns or be penalized
or subjected to adverse or discriminatory treatment for not
providing his or her preferred personal title or pronouns.

All I see here is the educational institution wanting to protect its employees/contractors and the students by not providing their pronouns to each other so they do not become accountable from that specific direct interaction. I think the goal here was just to avoid potential conflicts of interest within the context of a school environment. I don't think it's as bad as it sounds on a quick read. It's just a professional vs student scenario. That being said, I can already see that if this stays, there could be an attempt at expanding these laws to more than just schools. This is where it gets controversial imo. It really feels like these states are just testing the waters with what to do. The joke here is that this just highlight how education could be better in regards of how to deal with people in general. If education doesn't educate about that, who will ? Accountability sure is an underrated topic.

tldr; I hope you guys like backpedaling because I'm predicting you're gonna see more back and forth like this for a while.

[Mollocephalus]

This has been brewing for a while and it's effectively a way to sneak in some (in the grand scheme of things) low impact legislation to pave the way for more reactionary repression of the rights we've got so far. It's pretty sad tbh, and even if you're not directly touched by any of it, what will follow might. But it's also not shocking considering the western world has been in a trend of polarization of ideals thanks in great part to social media algorhytms and targeted advertising (political and not)

[Lights]

Originally Posted by Hakulyte

(3) An employee or contractor of a public K-12 educational
institution may not provide to a student his or her preferred
personal title or pronouns if such preferred personal title or
pronouns do not correspond to his or her sex.
(4) A student may not be asked by an employee or
contractor of a public K-12 educational institution to provide
his or her preferred personal title or pronouns or be penalized
or subjected to adverse or discriminatory treatment for not
providing his or her preferred personal title or pronouns.

All I see here is the educational institution wanting to protect its employees/contractors and the students by not providing their pronouns to each other so they do not become accountable from that specific direct interaction. I think the goal here was just to avoid potential conflicts of interest within the context of a school environment. I don't think it's as bad as it sounds on a quick read. It's just a professional vs student scenario. That being said, I can already see that if this stays, there could be an attempt at expanding these laws to more than just schools. This is where it gets controversial imo. It really feels like these states are just testing the waters with what to do. The joke here is that this just highlight how education could be better in regards of how to deal with people in general. If education doesn't educate about that, who will ? Accountability sure is an underrated topic.

tldr; I hope you guys like backpedaling because I'm predicting you're gonna see more back and forth like this for a while.

The problem with this is that pronouns are pretty integral to day to day communication. If I'm a teacher in that school and I'm not allowed to say to use she / her pronouns im like... quitting that job that day. I'm not about to sit there and be misgendered constantly on a daily basis while being underpaid to teach. I'd imagine the majority of trans teachers out there would be in a similar boat- deal with stressful interactions all day or find a new career path. And then you end up with trans people being gradually pushed out of teaching as a result... why?

Imo, its exactly as bad as it reads. The students simply can't be asked to provide their pronouns- dumb, but nothing about them providing them on their own free will. Teachers, however, are outright not allowed to use pronouns that don't align with their birth sex. Which is unacceptable. Teachers are people too.

[DossarLX ODI]

Adding on to what Lights said, this has real impact on teachers. In Florida what's colloquially known as the "Don't Say Gay Bill" actually can make teachers lose their license to teach.

How in the world are teachers supposed to navigate this? The answer is, in constant fear of getting fired for failing to discriminate as much as the Florida government wants. For the first time in my nine-year career as a public school teacher, I’m seriously thinking about quitting. And I am not alone: hundreds of thousands of Florida students started school last year without a permanent teacher while the state has struggled to fill thousands of openings.

Here's a Florida teacher that got fired shortly after she put up artwork from her students that related to pride flags.

This is effectively a way of violating the first amendment without explicitly saying it. You'll hear justifications like "protecting the innocence of children" or "not indoctrinating our youth" or "not following the state mandated curriculum".

However, these policies are making these topics to be impossible for teachers to discuss without risk of losing their jobs.

Say boys like girls, girls like boys, that's good. But some boys like boys, or some girls like girls, and explain the term straight, bisexual, and gay? Say goodbye to your teaching license.

And with pronouns, well... that's forcing the school to adopt "there are only two genders" and "trans people don't exist/are mentally ill".

Even if someone claims this is unconstitutional, the court system in the U.S. is very slow. So even if a bill is deemed unconstitutional, it can still remain in place for years.

All this does is create an atmosphere of fear and shame for teacher and students. Being someone that myself works in the education industry, this is entirely backwards and stifles free speech.