Moral panics are ridiculous in retrospect—satanic abuse, rap music, comic books?—but they're ridiculously dangerous at their peak. The transphobia moral panic is one of the most dangerous in our lifetimes https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/anti-trans-moral-panics-endanger-all-young-people/
@laurahelmuth One of the things the article lists in its opening litany is strip shows for children. I predict that opposition to strip shows for children will remain for longer than the video-games-make-you-violent thing.
(This is what "Tennessee has banned drag attire in public spaces." refers to. The SA verbiage is a quite misleading there, I guess the "politics opinion" section of SA maybe doesn't get the typical editorial oversight?)
@freemo @laurahelmuth "The article makes absokutely no mention about strip shows." Not explicitly, that would have ruined the narrative, since most people today are wary of children going to strip shows, of course. But as I spelled out in my comment, the SA article refers to such a law, deceptively, to make its case about moral panics. Sounds like you fell for it, too; you should be angry about that.
"I can only imagine you are trying desperately to form some false association between drag shows (whicb typically do not have nudity) and stripping." Well that isn't very charitable of you. It's actually the SA article that does this. Isn't that ironic?
In even more detail:
* From SA: "Tennessee has banned drag attire in public spaces" links to this article as its source: https://www.npr.org/2023/03/06/1161452175/anti-drag-show-bill-tennessee-trans-rights-minor-care-anti-lgbtq-laws
* the Tennessee regulation discussed in that NPR piece is this: https://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/113/Bill/SB0003.pdf which is clearly about strip shows and other performances with "entertainment that appeals to a prurient
interest"
* ergo: this law is the one that the SA is describing, deceptively, as "banned drag attire in public spaces". In that way SA is implying that drag shows are necessarily "prurient", which as you hint at is maybe a pretty jacked up thing to do.
Did you stop to ask yourself: is it really illegal in some state(s) to wear opposite-sex clothes? Do you *really* think that is true, that that sort of law could *possibly* get passed and withstand legal muster? Really?
----
I've seen videos of shows that were quite sexual in nature with children present. I have no idea whatsoever if the typical public library "drag queen story hour" event is remotely sexual, I've never been to one; for all I know those videos were a smear.
🇳🇱
You are correct about it saying "male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient
interest".. however that is **not** the same as saying stripping. But it does imply that it must be of a sexual nature to be prohibited.
I agree with you, the article misrepresented the specific wording of the law.
@freemo @laurahelmuth the law does mention stripping.
Yes but separately, not as a qualifier on this. They list a few things as illegal and stripping is separately listed as illegal.
@freemo @laurahelmuth in fairness, I suspect the Tennessee law was just posturing; isn't that sort of thing already illegal?
While a strip show would be illegal im not sure things that are simply suggestive of sexuality would be illegal already.
The wording is a bit problematic for its vagueness.
@ech
The article makes absokutely no mention about strip shows... what are you talking about. I can only imagine you are trying desperately to form some false association between drag shows (whicb typically do not have nudity) and stripping. If thats thr case the manipulative and inaccurate equivelance is troubling and suggests bad faith on your part.
@laurahelmuth