Guest post: Drag performances and Rosa Parks
Originally a comment by Screechy Monkey at Miscellany Room.
The point of laws like this TN one is to intimidate people and chill expression, and this very thread demonstrates how.
Oh, the law doesn’t specifically say that all drag performances are illegal, only ones that appeal to a prurient interest! And who could be against performances of a prurient interest where CHILDREN might see it? (Won’t somebody think of the children?)
Except what makes something an “appeal to a prurient interest”? Yes, it’s a phrase used in obscenity law, so it has some legal meaning, but obscenity has other requirements that limit its applicability, and even with those it’s still a bit of a dangerously fuzzy concept.
And here in this very thread we have J.A. expressing the view that drag performances are de facto appeals to prurient interest.
Imagine trying to advise a client on what they can and can’t do in TN. Can you perform a stage version of Mrs. Doubtfire? Well, the Robin Williams version didn’t seem terribly sexy, so probably? But maybe not. Maybe it depends on the size of the fake breasts. But hey, you probably wouldn’t be convicted. I mean, you might be arrested and lose your job and not be able to pay rent or mortgage while you await your trial, and end up owing huge amounts of attorneys fees, but you’ll probably be acquitted, right? Sound like a risk you’d like to run?
It’s the same with some of the laws being passed in Florida. Oh, gosh, the law doesn’t say you can’t have books about Rosa Parks in schools! I mean, a teacher wouldn’t be convicted for having such a book in their classroom library. Well, almost certainly not. They probably wouldn’t even be charged. I mean, what are the chances of some conservative parent making a stink, and some crusading and/or politically ambitious D.A. deciding to press charges? That would never happen in the great state of Florida! Well, ok, it might. But probably not! That sounds like something worth risking your career, financial security, and freedom for!
I don’t doubt that the law is intended to be divisive. Perhaps “chill expression” is a good description as well.
The point with DQSH is that these are not innocent performances on the order of Mrs Doubtfire or Shakespeare or Bosom Buddies. Some are, maybe. But some involve nearly naked men gyrating around the kids, sometimes the kids touch the performers, including in the crotch area. I’ve seen videos, I’ve read trustworthy reports, I’ve seen commentary from other drag performers. So I do think DQSH is intended not simply to get kids used to men dressed as women, but also as part of a sexual kink, possibly grooming effort. I don’t think that’s an exaggeration.
I can’t immediately think of a better way to distinguish between crossdressing men and drag-based burlesque than the way it was expressed in the Tennessee law. The Tennessee law also forbids strippers and exotic dancers performing in front of kids. It is an unfortunate fact of the current situation that leftists see DQSH as only about men in dresses, and therefore any complaint about it must be a complaint about men in dresses. It is another unfortunate fact that right-wingers, who perhaps don’t like men in dresses in any format, are the only ones trying to put together laws to address the problems in a reasonable way. But of course it comes from a right-wing state, so it must mean an outright ban on drag, and only drag, and all drag, not just the DQSH.
I’m certain the law was phrased the way it was to allow people on the left who care about such things to support it. This is the divisiveness aspect. I have seen similarly carefully worded laws banning child transition, or prohibiting male athletes from participating in female sport. The crafters of the legislation know quite well that there is division on the left on these matters, and they seek to exploit that division. But if what they put together decent legislation, it is really difficult to oppose it on the basis that it’s premature or disingenuous rather than simply bad legislation. I think they, in fact, did a pretty good job.
On the other hand, these bans are perhaps unnecessary if jurisdictions would enforce existing obscenity laws. I can’t imagine it’s currently perfectly legal for strippers to perform in front of an elementary school audience in Tennessee.
There’s another aspect to drag queens – and Mrs Doubtfire and Tootsie – besides the getting frisky with toddlers one. There is no comparable phenomenon of drag kings; why would that be? Because of course women would want to imitate men if they could, because women are so inferior. To put it another way, it’s fun to laugh at women, but with men – what’s to laugh at?
But that’s not really something laws can deal with, plus it’s a big deal in gay male culture. But. It is there. Draq queens seem to have a lot of meanings, but one of them is inescapably mockery of women.
Well, there was Victor/Victoria. But there was another layer on that: she pretended to be a man pretending to be a woman pretending to be a man. To be seen as a valid performer, she had to pretend to be a man first. Because women dressing as men aren’t that entertaining to people.
I’m glad you mentioned Tootsie. There was a great line in Tootsie, when Bill Murray tells Dustin Hoffman “There are no other women like you. You’re a man.” I suppose it’s just a TERF moment?
There is a meme going around claiming that people complain about drag queen story hour but not about sexualized beauty pageants for little girls. The thing is, there are people who complain about both, and for similar reasons.
Clothing and hairstyle is deeply symbolic, so while it may often be very easy to intuitively recognize whether or not someone’s crossdressing, whether or not they’re doing it for “prurient” purposes, whether or not they’re deliberately transgressing boundaries related to their immediate social milieu, it can be hard to legislate such distinctions.
There’s volumes of data that gets conveyed in our dress — about our class, our status, our health, our interests, our tribal and religious affiliations, our personalities, etc. But in particular, we convey a lot about information about our sexuality in our dress: whether we want to be seen as virile or passive, sexually modest or… prurient… etc. Fashion and sexuality are deeply connected. That’s probably because we use fashion as an extension of the complex mechanism of sexual advertising and signalling that has evolved in humans. Drag in particular very much plays with all of that.
But a lot of this suff is subjective and symbolic, so it seems more natural to discuss it in the realm of social norms and customs. To put hard laws around the complex social language of dress — especially around sexuality, invoking the language of sex-designated clothing and degrees of “prurience” — starts to sound a bit Gilead-esque to many progressives.
And yet, there are clearly problems with “prurience” and deliberate boundary transgression in Drag Queen Story Hour. This can be easily intuited when watching such drag shows. (I don’t think the “crossdressing” aspect by itself is a problem however. In fact I think part of the problem is that we risk reverting to strict sex-designated clothing as a result of the current culture-war climate.)
I don’t know what the answer is, really. But I know that we should tread very carefully when we start putting laws into the books around this stuff.
If they’re not diddling the kiddies it isn’t a problem… But at the same time I can’t be arsed to care what goes on in the place I’m from… And they should stop getting vapors about what goes on in Oregon.
Just putting it out there that when it came to drag queens, or just men dressing up as women on Halloween, I never saw it as a gendered version of “black face.” I didn’t think the point was to mock women’s mannerisms but to laugh at how absurd and grotesque these men appeared.
I remember being a kid in the 1970’s and girls in my school would occasionally dress up as male construction workers or hoboes [a classist thing no matter if boys or girls were doing it that I never thought about at the time] or whatever and they would have fake beards or moustaches or 5 o’clock shadows. This continued into high school.
When women dressed up as men it tended to come across as cute.
I’m not pretending that my observations are the last word on this subject.
So … Assuming the nominal goal is reasonable and constitutional, how ought one write the law? Or is it not a reasonable goal? Is it reasonable but not implementable in a way that is consistent with other rights and protections?
NiV,
You’ll have to tell me what the “nominal goal” is first.
If the nominal goal is to make drag shows a crime, then no, that’s unconstitutional.
If the nominal goal is to make it a crime to perform in drag in front of children, then I strongly suspect that it’s unconstitutional, and definitely think it’s unreasonable.
If the nominal goal is to make it a crime to have children touch the crotches of nearly naked gyrating men, as Sackbut claims is happening, then I don’t think you need specific new laws for that. There are already laws against the sexual abuse of children. There are laws against parents allowing the sexual abuse of children. There are laws that make certain people “mandatory reporters” of sexual abuse of children.
Why aren’t these performers that Sackbut is describing, and the children’s parents, and any teachers or other mandatory reporters with knowledge, being arrested and convicted under existing laws?
I’m not terribly inclined to draft an entire statute for you in my spare time, but if you tell me the exact problem that a new law needs to address, that isn’t adequately addressed by existing laws, that isn’t really about disgust about how other parents choose to raise their children, then maybe I’ll have some general comments.
But I suspect that’s what’s driving a lot of this. Some people like Sackbut think that all drag queen story hours — even if they are simply someone dressed “appropriately” (but for their gender) and reading stories, i.e. no half-naked gyrations and touching — are “grooming” and want them banned.
Well, I know some people who think that telling your children that gay people exist is grooming. I know some people who think that sex education is grooming. I know some people who think that letting your 12-year-old see a movie with a brief exposure of breasts is grooming. (Others would say 14. Others are ok with 12 but not 10.) I know some people who think that letting your children know that their parents have sex is grooming.
Similarly, we all know some people who think that telling your children that sinners roast in hell for eternity is abuse. The parents who do that generally think that telling your children that there is no god is also abuse. So where does this lead us? Is it just an exercise in raw power to see who can take control of the legislature and the courts and take away custody from, and even imprison, those parents who don’t do things the way we like? I don’t think you’re going to like where that leads, especially in states like Tennessee.
And oh, by the way, I know some people who think that telling your kid that trans women aren’t women is abuse and makes you an unfit parent.
We have to — both morally and constitutionally — give a wide berth to parents on how they raise their children. Yes, there are limits. That’s why we have laws against physical and sexual abuse, and really gross neglect. Until someone gives me a good explanation of why those aren’t adequate, I’m opposed to these very specific laws.
Hmm. Is this about banning and forbidding and censoring, or is it about protecting?
I think there are humane, non-prudish, non-authoritarian reasons to protect children from exposure to overtly sexual activities. I don’t think it’s like forbidding them to eat candy but like protecting them from traumatic experiences.
But I can see the point about too many too intrusive laws.
But there are also the short-of-law ways of not promoting the exposure of children to overtly sexual activities – social pressure, discussion, conversation, all that. Like this.
I’m not trying to fight you here, Screechy. I really hadn’t heard or read anything about the law in question before now and asked because law is your forte.
There’s no need to draft a whole statute for me, nor even the better part of one. I agree that we must be careful in legislating prescriptions and proscriptions for all the reasons you list. Opinions and judgements on the proper way to do things can vary widely from person to person, group to group, town to town, county to county, even from continent to continent. What actually is correct or good is often controversial and debated. In most cases, we ought cautiously err on the side of too much liberty, because it is much more difficult to restore freedom than to abridge it.
I’m pretty sure that most people commenting here understand and agree about this. There’s no need to belabor the point as though mollifying recalcitrant adolescents. I’ve spent most of my life involved in the fight for women’s reproductive rights. It’s not as though I’ve suddenly forgotten the fact that part of the population considers abortion infanticide.
The nominal purpose of the law can be inferred from the language used in the bill’s summary. NB, I’m not saying anything about the quality of the bill per se, only that a minimum of exegesis gives a probable idea of why it was written and introduced in the first place. Here:
Emphasis mine. It’s a simple raison d’etre: parents don’t want their children, who are minors, exposed to things that are harmful to minors. Parents don’t want to have such happen in public, and they don’t want it to happen while their children are, say, in school. I can certainly see that SB0003 is too broad in its language. Phrases like “a location where the adult cabaret entertainment could be viewed by a person who is not an adult”, “male or female impersonators”, and “similar entertainer” are especially open-ended.
Again, emphasis mine. I think you are too quick to attribute the disgust motive and thus undervalue the possibility that parents’ primary concern is what happens to their own children. You are right, of course, that there are indeed laws already on the books that should protect children from much of this, much the same as there are already laws that should restrict the acquisition and trade of firearms. Are the failures in these areas due to ignorance, lack of oversight, legal insufficiency, bad actors, or something else? I don’t pretend to know.
While the breadth of legal protections for minors isn’t anywhere like my wheelhouse, I’ll do my best to make a coherent problem statement that you can—with charity—give some thoughts on:
So we come to three questions:
i. Do existing laws already apply to this? (In which case, the problem boils down to, “Laws not make not happen. Make laws make not happen.”)
ii. Constitutionality and ethical concerns notwithstanding, do you think it possible in principle to write a law restricting only and precisely content that is harmful to minors (as defined above)?
iii. Would it be possible in principle to write such a law and have it be constitutional, perhaps by pulling in some other concepts, such as parental consent?
“The nominal purpose of the law can be inferred from the language used in the bill’s summary. ”
Well, “nominal” as in “pretextual,” perhaps. But the stated purpose of a law often bears no resemblance to the actual intent of those who drafted and voted for it.
“I think you are too quick to attribute the disgust motive and thus undervalue the possibility that parents’ primary concern is what happens to their own children. ”
And I think you are too quick to trust in the good faith of the people behind these laws. You’re acting like the enemy of your enemy is your friend, and iare eagerly handing power to people who will gladly use it against you.
“You are right, of course, that there are indeed laws already on the books that should protect children from much of this, much the same as there are already laws that should restrict the acquisition and trade of firearms. Are the failures in these areas due to ignorance, lack of oversight, legal insufficiency, bad actors, or something else? I don’t pretend to know.”
Seems like the kind of thing you might want to know before speaking in support of a law that is a solution in search of a problem.
Exactly why I said nominal. I’m quite the pedant, you see, and aim for precision. Somehow people still manage to read beyond my words and infer intent that isn’t there.
I am? I think you might be reading beyond my words, because I don’t trust any politician, regardless of affiliation or expressed position. The only time I’d trust politicians would be if I already trusted them before they became politicians. And even then, it’d be a cautious trust.
Yes, it would. Are you implying that I’ve spoken in support of this particular law? ‘Cause that’s what it sounds like. You might be reading beyond my words.
Unsurprisingly, I’m generally with Screechy Monkey on this. I’m going to note one particular bit of the bits quoted by Nullius to explain why:
So even ‘present law’ defines any description of ‘sexual conduct’ as ‘harmful to minors’, and thus subject to this law in particular.
Yeah, I wouldn’t want to try teaching sex ed in this state. Or Chaucer. Hell, I wouldn’t want to teach a current events class that discussed this specific law.
I do agree with Ophelia’s statement that non-law methods of condemning behavior can, and should, be brought to bear in some cases–in part, since those methods force the advocates to actually explain their reasoning for the condemnation, something which most socio-religious conservatives fail at, and which gender-critical feminists excel.
Side-note:
I have, in fact, seen a co-sex drag show, featuring a friend of mine. It did a good job of poking fun at both men and women, or more specifically, masculine and feminine gender roles as created in society. There was some bawdy humor (one actress made a habit of adjusting whatever it was she was using to make that bulge down her pants leg), but you could cut those bits out and it still would’ve actually been a fun bit of satire with no salacious elements. So it’s not quite a unicorn, even if it’s far from the dominant form of the genre.
I think my remarks are also being misconstrued. I’m sure that’s at least partly my fault. But let me try to be clearer.
I do not have any faith whatso-frickin-ever in the people who put this law together. My understanding of their motives, though, is not that they are disgusted or whatever by drag performances, but that they see an opportunity for a wedge issue for factions of the left. That’s why I think the law is drafted carefully, in a way that might appeal both to those who dislike drag period and those who are only concerned with the boundary crossing, presenting sexually oriented performances to children. It is a wedge between those who want to support QUILTBAG people at all costs and those who are less inclined to do so.
My criticism is primarily of those who criticize the bill as banning drag. It is pretty obvious that it doesn’t do so. I am impressed with the wording. It, like a number of other bills deemed “anti-trans”, is carefully worded. (I tend to focus on arguments people are making about things, sometimes more than on the things; my apologies if that’s a problem.)
Would I support it? I don’t know. I’m not in a position where I have to answer that question. I know where the sponsors are coming from, I don’t like the sponsors, the reasons for the timing is obvious, but I am nonetheless impressed with the bill.
As to why there haven’t been legal actions taken for inappropriate behavior, there have been, but they’ve generally been unsuccessful, just like attempts to keep boys out of girls’ bathrooms. Institutional capture, perhaps?
I am vaguely reminded of the battle regarding same-sex marriage here in Alabama. A law was proposed and eventually passed that got rid of marriage licenses entirely, and officiants. Yes, of course that was done in part so that license clerks and state judges would be spared from being forced to license and solemnize same-sex marriages. But what they ended up with turned out really quite well; you get a form filled out and notarized, and you file it at a government office, and you’re married. No need to find a friendly clergy member or deal with a judge. If you want a ceremony, arrange it yourself, with anyone you like officiating, it doesn’t matter, just fill in the form. Far better than the religious pandering in the previous mechanism. I have family members who married under this new system, and it was very simple for them. So, motivated by mollifying bigots, they came up with something I genuinely think is better. Sometimes awful politicians with awful motivations come up with reasonable ideas.
Freemage:
Not wanting to make my comment a wall of text, I didn’t quote the entire definition, as indicated by the ellipsis.