>

Time for some of that ironclad Second Amendment logic:  "Why legislate it?  Drag performers will just break the law anyway!"
I'm willing to bet there's no law in Oklahoma prohibiting taking a minor to Hooters. >


"Adult cabaret performance" means a performance in a
location, other than an adult cabaret, that features topless
dancers, go-go dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, drag queens or
similar entertainers, who provide entertainment that appeals to the
prurient interest, regardless of whether or not the performance is
for consideration;

so maybe its hooters is outlawed now?  ¯\ (ツ)/¯ >

“People without many clothes on… and then these heavily clothed people who we don’t dig their taste in clothes…”  you gotta have worms in your brain to be a conservative.  That’s some stone cold stupid to actually put in writing. >

Also a complete misunderstanding of why gay dudes dress in drag. Gay men aren't dressing up as women to entice other gay men to fuck them. They do it because they think its fun. They aren't attracted to women! It's 100% not the same thing as going to see strippers. It's like making cowboy hats illegal for anyone who doesn't actually herd cattle. >

They do it the same reason Bing Crosby and Danny K do it in the goddam movie we all watch every Christmas.  It’s fucking crazy town with this shit. >

Don't forget that Buggs Bunny did it a bunch of times!!! >

So many memories. >


defining "drag queen" as a "male or female performer who adopts a flamboyant or parodic feminine persona with glamorous or exaggerated costumes and makeup."

So, like... Beyonce, Lady Gaga, Katy Perry, Madonna, Cher, that sort of thing? >

The UK has a history of over 120 years of pantomimes made for children with a male performer playing a flamboyant or exaggerated female character. >

That goes all the way back to a guy playing the role of nurse in Romeo and Juliet, making jokes about sex. >

Keep going further back. Men played female roles in Ancient Greek theatre too — lots of sex jokes in those plays too >

Wasn't that because women weren't permitted? Or am I thinking of a different civilization >

The War on Drags. >

So the GOP position is that school children can psychologically handle active shooter drills, and even active shooters… but they can’t handle a story time where the reader is wearing a feather boa and sparkly clothes?
Got it. >

And tell me none of these guys watched Milton Berle perform as a woman on TV as a kid? Or Harvey Korman and Tim Conway doing so on Carol Burnett? Benny Hill? John Travolta in Hairspray? Robin Williams as Ms. Doubtfire? Dustin Hoffman in Tootsie? Tom Hanks in Bosom Buddies? Tony Curtis and Jack Lemmon in Some Like it Hot? 
It's another case of when they find something entertaining, they are perfectly well adjusted and it's just good fun, But if somebody else finds very similar behavior entertaining, it's disgusting and should be illegal. It's infuriating, and also just plain wrongheadedness. >

Their only context for trans people is as a tab they click on PornHub. Their image of a drag show is that it's like the sad truckstop stop joints they visit. Given that, and some quarter-truths spun by billionaire backed messaging like Daily Wire, it's easy to come to a complete misunderstanding of what's actually happening at a drag story hour - i.e. that it's anything other than just a bombastic fully-dressed performer experienced in character work volunteering their time to preform books at the local library. >

What about the Bugs Bunny eps where he goes in drag? Will they fine WB? >

Isn't it interesting how Bugs Bunny generally only wore women's clothing. >

When Donald Duck gets out of the shower, he puts a towel around his waist. I mean. What’s that about.? >

To cover his low hanging tits that are usually bound in his shirt. >

Republicans. Always coming up with a cure in search of a problem. >

If I watch Too Wong Foo with my teenagers present, do I get fined or do the actors in the movie? >

Only if you don't counter-program them with Roadhouse. >

The problem there is that Patrick Swayze might make them a feel a little funny too. >

Especially in the movie where he plays a drag queen
Edit: I forgot that To Wong Foo was the title of that movie >

Haha. You got the spirit though! >

Frankly, I don't really care about drag, but this is obviously the entry point to start policing how people dress. Whether that means women wearing pants instead of a skirt, or making it illegal to be transgender in public if you don't pass.
Then of course, police demanding to see the gender on your driver's license if some Karen thinks you might be trans, which usually means harassing cis women for not being feminine enough. >

Oh man, there are a LOT of cis women that would get harassed for looking masculine in Oklahoma. >

Steel Panther has entered the chat >

Banning books, suppressing free speech, and restricting freedom of expression. The party of “freedom” has gone full fascist. >

Then they turn around and cry about "cancel culture" in defense of racists who get banned from social media.
Everything the party says that they stand for, they actually do the exact opposite. >

Meanwhile crickets about doing anything about a mentally ill person buying a gun to shoot up a hospital. >

How dare you! Oklahoma GOP is taking on the boogeyman! Be thankful. >

Bull shit! John Wick would never work for the GOP. >


Mrs. Doubtfire is going up the fucking river! >

That won't last in court. First amendment ambush. >

It’s SCOTUS. You can rape babies if you’re a Republican. >

That’s the price they have to pay though. Pass and uphold unconstitutional laws and your rulings become law in unpredictable and undesirable ways. It’s a lesson they’ve had the luxury of ignoring for 50 years and they should be taught it sooner than later. >

what about priests and GOP members? >

Or the entire cast of Brave Heart??? Seriously, is it possible the common sense of the GOP base has eroded to the point this kind of nonsense will garner votes for the GOP as being done in defense of the public? >

Yes it is possible and yes it has.  The GOP sold them all these lies and now they have to follow through with the performative legislation.  How can they say they lied to the people who they scared into voting for them? >

I guess no Monty Python reunions in Oklahoma then. >

What constitutes “drag”?  Is it defined in this bill?  Hair tie in a pony tail - jail.  Pink shoes - jail.  Be a guy and call someone girlfriend - straight to jail.
I was raised primarily in Oklahoma and I haven’t been back in almost 20 years.  I’ll likely never return >

It's not explicitly defined in the bill. For instance, the definition of "Drag Queen" below is in the bill

"Drag queen" means a male or female performer who adopts a

flamboyant or parodic feminine persona with glamorous or exaggerated
costumes and makeup;
HB2186
And yeah, this law would probably get laughed out of court given it's clearly not content neutral and is using fairly vague definitions. That definition above would make showing Mrs Doubtfire or Monty Python in public illegal for instance. >

Not just in public. "Or at a location where it can be witnessed by minors" >

Can anyone explain to me how this would not violate the drag performers first amendment rights? >

Sure.  The supreme court decides whether something violates the first amendment or not.  This court will of course have no problem with this law.  So it does not violate the first amendment. >


West's bill specifically named drag queen story hours as events that would be considered unlawful, as well as other forms of "adult cabaret" performances.
The bill compared drag performers to strippers and topless dancers, defining "drag queen" as a "male or female performer who adopts a flamboyant or parodic feminine persona with glamorous or exaggerated costumes and makeup."

jesus fucking christ, these fucks are nuts
edit: and from the bill:

C. 1. It shall be unlawful for a person to organize or
authorize the viewing of a drag queen story hour on public property
or in a location where the drag queen story hour could be viewed by
a person who is a minor >

"glamorous or exaggerated costumes and make-up"
will this also extend to the toddlers&tiaras type "beauty" pageants? >

People should protest the child beauty pageants.  Use the same groomer and pedophile accusations that are aimed at the drag show performances. >

Absolutely. >

Never had an interest in doing Drag, but would be open to doing a Drag parade in OK. >

I know a Republican congressman you could recruit. >

Why does the GOP think drag shows are always sexual? >

The other comments saying cause they give them boners are wrong in my opinion (though that may be a joke). 
“Purity” has always been valued and sex has always been demonized because of our large Christian conservative population and history. By associating drag queens with sex, they are able to also to demonize and sexualize drag. (Also the fact that many drag shows are sexual in nature, but those aren’t the events kids are also at. But that is too nuanced for them.)
By sexualizing and demonizing drag and associating it with kids, they’re able criminalize it. Extend this to several things predominantly popular with the LGBT community, soon it is effectively criminalized to be gay in public. 
People seem to forget that Republicans law markers aren’t dumb because of the composition of their voting base. They’re well educated and deliberate. This isn’t just a one off law that they came up with cause they’re attracted to drag queens. It’s a calculated effort to make being gay illegal >

Ultimately its all about trying to force fundamentalist Christian values and morals on society. >

Yes absolutely >

Are Gaetz and trump still allowed to rape children? >

So what happens if someone reports me and my grandkid sitting on the couch watching Ru Paul's Drag Race or watching Deafies in Drag on youtube? >

What about LipSync Battle?? Channing Tatum? >

America, Land of the Free, as fantasized by the party of "Small Government". >

How about Trump? He wears more make-up, hair products and fake tanner than most women. >

What a strange law. The goal seems to be to inhibit sexual displays in front of children. To a certain degree I'd think most people would agree with that.
But "flamboyant parody of femininity" is not sexual displays, and punishing those presentations overcorrects when trying to address sexual displays in front of children.
It's like trying to lock up homosexuals by making wearing an ascot illegal just because a few gay men were seen wearing an ascot before.
Association fallacy at its finest. >

Fascism rising. TX, FL, OK, all going down that route. >

Oklahoma sounds like a pretty crapass place to live and I live in Alabama. >

An ex bf of mine from outside OK City once asked if I had ever seen the what the earth looked like when it was dead, and I was like "yeah, I've driven through a fresh lava plain a few times" and he was like, "no, dead." And the look on his face was chilling. >

The morality police at work again.   :( >

Talibangelists. >

The GOP is more obsessed with LGBTQ+ than the LGBTQ+ population. >

when you see a headline like this, keep in mind that these are the same people who proudly and publicly post videos of themselves doing firearms training with their toddlers in their living room >

Wth? 
Im old
They might as well say that sesame street has furries for characters
Not hating on furries, just saying, the republican fringe is out of their frigging minds 
I love going to drag shows. 
Our nation is in a screwed up time line 
Jmo >

I've been to two drag shows and had the BEST TIME!  My gawd... they're usually the clubs with the least violence( UNLESS an armed Republican is near)... no brawls... the place smelled fabulous and the bathrooms are immaculate. >

I'm curious if Republicans know parents can take kids to R-rated movies. Seems like something they'd want to ban. >

would mrs doubtfire be R rate now? >

Banned for sexualizing elderly nannies. >

I'm a straight cisgender male, and I'm considering dressing in drag just as a big middle finger to these assholes. >

Imagine if they put this much effort into real issues like poverty and gun violence. >

Shouldn't the onus be on the parents? If a kid wanders into a strip club, it's not the stripper's job to make sure there are no kids there. >

I don't know if I should be dismayed that the GOP is preoccupied with this stupid shit or be glad the the GOP is preoccupied with stupid shit and distracted from causing bigger problems. >

So I get the sentiment, but with these things "drag" is intentionally nebulously defined so it can include trans people.  (For reference, being trans and wearing drag aren't the same thing or even strictly related outside of the conservative imagination)
This isn't really a silly thing they're wasting their time on, even if it gets struck down.  Trying to make it harder for certain groups to exist in public ("perform" is sure to be as nebulously defined as "drag" is in this case) is at best a dog whistle to their base about their intent to cause harm for harm's sake.  At worst it's an overture towards intent to commit genocide. >

Trans women existing in public will definitely be litigated as “performing drag”. It’s a very real and ongoing attack on trans folks. >

I would like to know where the outrage is against couples divorcing, or “living in sin” or pre-marital, extra-marital sex, the public shaming of bastards etc. All the things that are actually destroying “family values”. Pathetic hypocrite hate mongers >

They’re going after birth control and already have their greedy little paws inside our uteruses after revoking Roe v Wade, so the outrage you mention is definitely around. 
Once abortion is basically illegal (aka making 4 week bans & requiring miscarriages to end “naturally”) they’ll take away birth control, create general “sodomy” bans where you can’t do anything but hetero missionary (shout out to Texas), and probably make divorce illegal or something. Really wish that all of those things sounded unrealistic but, here we are. >

The GQP hates women so much... they're even going after people who dress like women. >

I really like the idea that a bunch of people are going to have to figure out a very legally binding definition of what “drag” is.  Time for loopholes! >

The strategy for these kinds of laws is to put in a broad definition for the "crime" and then enforce it very selectively. >

some of these stupid fucking Republicans think if you’re in the same room as a gay person you’ll spontaneously turn gay. Their kids are going to be exposed to this regardless of any law, they should try being responsible parents and explain to the kid what’s going on/have conversations about it. Wake up you dumb Republicans and demand actual laws that help normal people out, not this garbage. fucking shameful >

Party of small government. Drag queens and trans people are the new bogeyman instead of focusing on things to help the people of this country. Culture war bs and zero spine is all the gop can do. >

Right - so lip synching and dancing is legal.  And reading books is legal.  Wearing a dress, heels and makeup is legal.  Doing each of these things individually, in front of children, is legal.  But put them altogether and bam, you've got a felony?  
Methinks the 1st Amendment might apply here. >

Stage 4 of the 10 stages of genocide : dehumanization, when one group treats another group as second class citizens. 
Borderline, 
Stage 5 of the 10 stages of genocide :
 Genocide is organized, USUALLY BY THE STATE. 
This is going in a very disturbing direction. When are we going to show up and tell these people to lay off our drag & trans friends? Or are we going to watch another holocaust happen to Trans folks and folks in drag, and likely the rest of the gays? 😒 >

The party of small government and free speech, everyone. >

I wonder if the ACLU might go after these sorts of bullsh*t laws. >

this sounds a lot like a modern footloose >

Ridiculous. Wasteful. Transparent. Inane. Infantile. Arrogant. Biased. Foolish. >

Time for a men-in-skirts fashion fad to really take off >

So, one man shows will be illegal in Oklahoma if they have characters of the opposing gender in them? >

1st amendment says no >

They’re drawing up a warrant for Bugs Bunny RN >

You’re born naked, the rest is drag. >

With Sky high rents, inability to pay for housing prices, lack of healthcare, almost inevitable climate catastrophe, massive wealth inequality, unending college debt, and political corruption, THIS is the problem that needs our greatest attention. SMH
When there is only the culture war, there is no energy for the people to organize and fight against the class war being waged on them. >

What about high school powder-puff football games? No one goes to those to see girls play flag football, the real attraction is the football team dressed in drag and cheerleading. >

I wonder how George Santos feels about this. >

How long before they ban “Mrs. Doubtfire”? >

Still not working on a solution to keep children from being murdered in school though.
Protect the children from seeing a man in a wig but not from seeing their friends bleed to death. >

Bugs Bunny dresses in drag >

Serving a minor alcohol in OK is only a $500 fine and up to 1 year in jail. Just saying. >

There’s plenty of real issues to worry about here in Oklahoma. My state is an embarrassment. >

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present small government conservatives. The highest order of hypocrisy. >

Isn't this an obvious violation of the First Amendment? >

That's the point. When they get these laws before the theocratic authoritarians on the supreme court, republicans can gut the First Amendment for the whole country. >

You're not wrong. But some good news .. we've only got 90 seconds left on the Doomsday clock. >

Does this include lady folk wearing pantsuits? Cause that shit is getting me all confused about what I want to sex with, so that needs to stop. /s >

What about my parental rights? >

Oklahoma hates freedom. >

The party of “liberty” wants the state to control people’s fashion choices. This is fascism >

So much for free speech >

And the right to assembly. >

This is where they want to put their energy?  What morons! >

The law would be unenforceable and a 1st amendment violation. It’s dumb with a capital D. >

Wouldn't this violate free speech? >

Unconstitutional 1st Amendment infringement. >

When was the last time the GOP in congress or in any state proposed a bill that actually helps fucking people?!? I honest to goodness can’t think of anything. Maybe I’m biased but it’s all been culture war crap that I can think of. >

If u don’t believe in freedom for everyone then u don’t believe in freedom >

Hey with all these right wingers going after drag queens reading books to kids, I fully expect them to be putting the same energy into child beauty pageants. No they aren't? I'm shocked, just shocked. They aren't going after people dressing kids up in revealing clothing and getting them to perform on stage for a room full of adults. 
My conclusion is, they don't really care about.the kids, they just hate books. >

Hey, does that include the Catholic archdiocese every time they have their little ceremonies >

What about youth pastors diddling kids? >

That's quietly swept under the Republican rug of"we didn't see anything". >

"Hello, First Amendment? Yes, I've got a WILD one for you today... you won't believe what these fuckhead GOP are trying to ban now!" >

Doesn't this sound like the sort of bad legislation the Constitution is designed to stop? >

Can these lawmakers grow the fuck up and actually make competitive policy that matters? Like christ, get a grip. >

At that point, what’s the definition of “preform”? Walking down the street as a drag queen? Instant fine. Might as well just come out with a law that says they shouldn’t exist, oh wait…😒 >

Talk about cancel culture! >

Wonder how the GOP feel about the first amendment’s right to freedom of speech and expression?