Federal judge temporarily blocks Tennessee's anti-drag law

a reply to: frogs453

I don't feel like looking up the bill text, you could do so if you like.

You brought it up; you get to provide the link. I'll assume it doesn't exist or at least doesn't say what you claim it does... like the bill in question in this thread.

Lazy drive-by accusations don't impress me. Neither do MSM opinions on something they probably couldn't link to either and likely haven't bothered to read.

TheRedneck

a reply to: continuousThunder

You've been watching handpicked, intentionally provocative, tiny tiny fragments of footage of something you have no wider context for, and you're getting hyper aggressive at the wrong people for the wrong reasons.

I won't dispute that. However, is there some sort of limit, below which abuse of children is OK? I must have missed that.

I say one episode is one episode too many. There is no "acceptable level of damage" in this issue.

Drag has existed in some form or another for more than a century, and drag culture has been a thing since the 70's

I have already admitted to that, with examples I have provided, in previous posts. That's irrelevant. This bill does not make cross-dressing illegal in any way, shape, form, or fashion. I makes prurient performances in front of children illegal, even if performed by a cross dresser.

That's all it does.

Ask not why children seeing a cross dresser is wrong; ask why suddenly cross dressers crave an audience with children.

thank you for proving my point, and also for the threat.

No threat... a warning. Just like if I tell a child not to lie down in the middle of a busy highway, I am not threatening to run them over.

I'm not sure how anything I said "proves your point." I do know something about you, from your posts on here. You are defending to the teeth cross dressers attacking children.

damn man, i was gonna leave it there but you are just too hilarious. IT CANNOT HAPPEN oh my god you're a scream!

Duly noted; you think you can somehow control what others think. Good luck with that.

You're gonna need it.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Turquosie

It's hard to care about republicans losng their minds over a portion of the population that is less than 1%.

This is totally a disingenuous statement. First, it is not just Republicans, it is everyone not progressive. That there is a huge swath of the demographics.

You do bring up a good point in why is less than 1% of the population being pushed so damn hard into everyone's faces at all levels. I lived many years in Asia and trans been a part of those cultures for a very long time and they have zero issues with it. The reason is because they see themselves as trans and not full male or female, so they have their own category and it been working fine for a very long time.

Now we have this huge push to suggest trans men are real women, do you agree? Do you like to see men break every woman's sport record by massive levels? Do you like the sexualization of children well under puberty? Do you like countries putting into law that if you do not get some stupid pronouns correct it is illegal? Do you agree there are unlimited pronouns? Do you see that one can accept something while disagreeing with it too?

If we go back a few years non of this was an issue, so what changed?

Mass shootings happening every month but trans dancing is more of a concern. With that perspective its hard to see that this is anything more than hysteria. Sure, some overtly sexual trans people doing dances for kids isn't cool. But, that sounds like a parental concern. Don't bring your kids to drag shows then. Issue solved..

Trans is just piece of the pie here. Do you find it OK when a teacher explains how to spit on one's dick for annal sex to kids? What level for you is too much here? By your statement you are suggesting if the parents have zero issues with Cabaret or Burlesque adult situational events for their kids then it is OK in some way, is that correct? How about parents that don't want their kid to do an essay about who in their class they would like to touch them or have sex with them? There are like a massive number of examples out there.

The bottom-line is for trans, drag, straight, or gay to keep your damn adult sexualization out of the lives of kids, and to not push whatever you want to be in my face telling me I need to agree it is perfectly normal.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
I won't dispute that. However, is there some sort of limit, below which abuse of children is OK? I must have missed that.

I say one episode is one episode too many. There is no "acceptable level of damage" in this issue.

"sure, i admit that i'm getting hyper aggressive at the wrong people, but what am i supposed to do? NOT take my frustrations out on completely innocent gay people???"

i dunno man, i tend to think that one episode of chidren dying by gun violence is too many, one episode of children being abused in their homes by seedy uncles is too many, one episode of children abused by priests is too many, one episode of children going hungry and homeless is too many, but for some reason the good denizens of ATS aren't rising up to threaten divine retribution about any of that. i wonder why

I makes prurient performances in front of children illegal, even if performed by a cross dresser.

That's all it does.

come on, don't be disingenuous. it's a bad look. prurient displays in front of children were ALREADY ILLEGAL and the whole reason this bill was blocked and we're having this conversation AT ALL was because the wording was so broad that any crossdressing at all got caught in it.

as for "that's all it does", what do you have to say about all the people on your side of the fence in this thread howling about how all lgbt people are predators that must be stopped? how do you feel about the "transgederism must be eliminated" bit? there is constant rhetoric on this site about how disgusting and foul and blasphemous lgbt people are and bills like this only further that rhetoric. your own posts are steeped in that rhetoric. You've gone on at length about your own disgust and how trans women CANNOT be seen as women. You've outright accused me of attacking children. Let's not pretend you're neutral, huh?

No threat... a warning. Just like if I tell a child not to lie down in the middle of a busy highway, I am not threatening to run them over.

ah yes, of course, they'll be struck down by mysterious natural forces that you have no part in. God will strike them down with lightning bolts. Come on mate, be serious. It's like when i was small and noisy and my step father would shake his fist and tell me to shut up or i'd regret it. He viewed that as a warning rather than a threat too, so when ten year old me kept up the noise and ended up with a black eye he would tell me it was my own fault. But by the same token, a grown man in command of his actions beat a child. Just because you perceive your own violence as righteous and inevitable does not make that any less of a threat. You're making yourself look utterly ridiculous with this feigned neutrality.

I do know something about you, from your posts on here. You are defending to the teeth cross dressers attacking children.

do you want to know something about me? i actually can't stand drag. I'm a gay woman, but i'm the death metal and spikes kind of gay woman and i find everything about drag to be fairly distasteful, from the posturing to the music to the scene itself to the way eeeveryone expects you to watch ru paul.
yet i feel compelled to defend drag artists because i know that it's a lifeline for a lot of innocent people who want nothing to do with children. And because the rhetoric isn't 'stop drag only in front of children, we're chill with it all the rest of the time', it's "lgbt people are all child molesters and must be abolished".
I've never done drag in my life and i actively want to be nowhere near children, yet my girlfriend and i were attacked a couple of weeks ago because we were holding hands. What do you think of "one episode of misplaced vigilante justice is too many" ? i'm sure that was just a warning too, and we deserve it for being the filthy lgbt.
extremely loud fart noise

Duly noted; you think you can somehow control what others think.

are you........ are you saying that........ are you saying that trans women looking like women is...... mind control?????
duuuuuuuude

originally posted by: vNex92
You can bet that the Federal Judge had likely influence to temporarily block the bill from the worst admin in history of the USA.
If not some pressure from Joe Biden..

Federal judge temporarily blocks Tennessee's anti-drag law



So now the lefty weirdos who are defending this are claiming that this bill violates the First Amendment.
Yet its ok for the Drag Shows to be having Drag Youth Camps?


to push children and youth into this?

It is not surprising to me because people have rights.

I am an artist, professional dancer and fashionista...I would love to see a drag show just to judge it. lol

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: vNex92
You can bet that the Federal Judge had likely influence to temporarily block the bill from the worst admin in history of the USA.
If not some pressure from Joe Biden..

Federal judge temporarily blocks Tennessee's anti-drag law



So now the lefty weirdos who are defending this are claiming that this bill violates the First Amendment.
Yet its ok for the Drag Shows to be having Drag Youth Camps?


to push children and youth into this?

It is not surprising to me because people have rights.

Which rights are you referring to?
For example on another thread of mine there was a drag queen who was invited in a school and she started talking about the possibility of 72 genders. I don't think the school should have invited her in the first place but the drag queen has no additional rights than the rest of us. Especially when she was involved in teaching the kids NONSENSE!!!

a reply to: continuousThunder

"sure, i admit that i'm getting hyper aggressive at the wrong people, but what am i supposed to do? NOT take my frustrations out on completely innocent gay people???"

When did I mention gay people? When did I mention taking anything out on innocent people?

Prurient displays... prurient. The creation of an adult environment. All cross dressers are not performing in a prurient manner. And the law does not even mention gay folks.

i tend to think that one episode of chidren dying by gun violence is too many

It is.

one episode of children being abused in their homes by seedy uncles is too many

It is.

one episode of children abused by priests is too many

It is.

one episode of children going hungry and homeless is too many

It is.

but for some reason the good denizens of ATS aren't rising up to threaten divine retribution about any of that. i wonder why

"Divine" retribution? Are you bringing in religion? Are you sure you want to do that?

I see a lot of anger at the things you mention... but the problem appears to be that the solutions proposed by the leftists are not workable! You want rid of gun violence against children? How about arming the people in the school, seeing that the only known way to stop an active shooter? But noooo... no one wants to talk about that... mention it and some absolute moron will come up with "So you want to arm 6-year-olds?"

The rest are similar. Leftists do not care about those issues, even though they claim to. Leftists only care about virtue signalling. That's the problem. You want those issues fixed? Listen to the people with different ideas!

come on, don't be disingenuous. it's a bad look.

"Bad look"? "Bad look"? You care what this looks like? I CARE ABOUT THE CHILDREN BEING INDOCTRINATED! I couldn't possibly give less of a damn what it "looks like."

As for specifying a specific group, have you read anything about Tennessee law? In order to avoid the law being "too broad," Tennessee law specifies which groups can be considered "prurient." This law adds cross-dressers to that list of potential prurient classes. Now, what do you want? A broader law that does not specify exactly what can and cannot be potentially prurient, or specific classes that may be considered prurient? The law was written to be as narrow as possible, and now you're here complaining about adding a class.

ah yes, of course, they'll be struck down by mysterious natural forces that you have no part in. God will strike them down with lightning bolts.

Did you just go daft on me?

Let me make it clear: IF ANYONE HURTS A CHILD, A CARING PARENT WILL HURT THEM! No religion required, no thunderbolts required, that is how it works. Don't like it? Tough cookies; that's how it is and it's not gonna change. Hurt my kids and I will be coming for you.

do you want to know something about me?

Not really. If that description is your choice, more power to you. I harbor no ill will toward you over that.

But... understand this... if you try to convince little children to live your lifestyle, I will have something against you. Be a participant all you want, no issue, but do not be a recruiter for children. If they like your lifestyle, they can choose it when they are older.

yet i feel compelled to defend drag artists because i know that it's a lifeline for a lot of innocent people who want nothing to do with children.

Those are not affected by anything in this law.

And because the rhetoric isn't 'stop drag only in front of children, we're chill with it all the rest of the time', it's "lgbt people are all child molesters and must be abolished".

That's the exact opposite of what I am saying.

I don't know how to make it any clearer... are you simply not reading what i write or are you purposely trying to tell me what to think? You surely are not getting the gist of my posts. I do not care what you or anyone else is doing to crank your tractor... I do not care! At all! There is no situation anyone can dream up wherein I could possibly care less! You can dress up like a anthromorphized baby seal and shake your booty in leather chaps in each other's face while covered in bodily fluids of your choice and I will not bat an eye. I have two demands... don't shove it in my face unless I want to see it, and keep it away from the little kids. Those are both non-negotiable. There is no possible future in which either will be acceptable.

If you want to consider that "oppressive" I strongly suggest you just go right ahead and resign yourself to a lifetime of oppression.

are you........ are you saying that........ are you saying that trans women looking like women is...... mind control?????

I am saying that demanding acceptance of your lifestyle by those who do not find it appealing is not going to work!

My GOD, can you act any denser?

KEEP IT OUT OF MY FACE AND AWAY FROM CHILDREN!

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
When did I mention gay people? When did I mention taking anything out on innocent people?

you literally accused me like a page ago of attacking children.
and then you " " " warned " " " me that i would regret it if i don't stop.
I am innocent.
You didn't mention taking it out on innocent gay people, that's just straight up what you're doing.
These threads are full of posters saying that ALL lgbt people are disgusting child molesters that should be thrown in prison or worse, and instead of showing how egalitarian you insist are and pushing back on ANY of that, you've instead talked at length about how unnatural and disgusting drag and trans people are.
And now here you are, spluttering with incoherent rage that i could think you want anything more than "prurient displays" stopped. I'm sorry mate, you can insist that you're neutral all you want but by the very words you say you prove yourself otherwise.

Why bother with anything else you say when you can't even commit to your own rhetoric?

a reply to: continuousThunder

you literally accused me like a page ago of attacking children.
and then you " " " warned " " " me that i would regret it if i don't stop.
I am innocent.

You are an accessory.

Those are general accusations and warnings; I did not include you, as in the person continuousThunder. In the English language, "you" in a general situation can refer to anyone matching a description. However, you, as in the person continuousThunder, have stated openly and clearly that you, the person continuousThunder, support allowing cross dressers to continue to entice and indoctrinate children into that lifestyle. I did not include you, as in the person continuousThunder, but you, the person continuousThunder, have included yourself, the person continuousThunder, in a general warning. You, the person continuousThunder, have been adamant that you, the person continuousThunder, approve of a judge allowing cross dressers to perform prurient acts in the presence of children.

If that is hard to follow, it is because you, the person continuousThunder, are unable to differentiate based on context and require a thorough explanation of every little detail. That's on you, the person continuousThunder, also.

You didn't mention taking it out on innocent gay people, that's just straight up what you're doing.

No, ma'am, it is not. Not once have I made the first disparaging remark against anyone for their sexual preference. I realize (now anyway; you did have me fooled for a while) that false accusations are one of your preferred debate tactics when you are continually confounded by facts that defy your position; that will not work with me, not this time. If anyone is disparaging gay people, it is you, the person continuousThunder, by assuming that all cross dressers are also gay. That is a false assumption... several have already been mentioned in this thread; Robin Williams (Mrs. Doubtfire), Flip Wilson (Geraldine), and we can add Stan Laurel, Charlie Chapman, Tom Hanks, Tony Curtis, and Jack Lemmon.

And that is far, far, far from a complete list which can easily include only those who did not act in a prurient manner.

You just called every one of them gay. I don't know if Ru Paul is gay or not (don't care), but if he isn't you just insulted him as well.

These threads are full of posters saying that ALL lgbt people are disgusting child molesters that should be thrown in prison or worse

And when I am engaged in a thread and see something like that, I do "push back" against it. But guess what? I am not in every single thread. I don't have the time to watch every single post on ATS just so I can soothe your fragile ego and calm your irrational fears.

Want proof? In this very post I just pushed back at you for your intolerant and uninformed opinion that all cross dressers are automatically gay.

Why bother with anything else you say when you can't even commit to your own rhetoric?

I don't care if you "bother with what I say" or not. The only thing I have "refused to commit to" is your rhetoric, formed by trying (unsuccessfully, I might add) to twist my words from what I said into what you wish I had said so you could have something to attack me with.

TheRedneck

absolutely incredible. You really see yourself as some paragon of cool reason and neutrality, don't you?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
You are an accessory.

you, the person continuousThunder, support allowing cross dressers to continue to entice and indoctrinate children into that lifestyle.

i never said anything even remotely like this, but you, so caught up in both your seething hatred and your desperate need to paint that hatred as neutrality, see anything but uncritical rejection of the entire thing as wholehearted support for the very worst aspect you can dredge up.
If i were to use a similar tactic, i would point out that you have espoused religious belief in the past and therefore you support allowing priests to molest children. That would clearly be a gross misrepresentation and extremely unfair, but that is precisely what you are doing to me - to all lgbt people - here.
But you'll retort about me making false accusations or arguing poorly or whatever because you're incapable of seeing yourself as the perfect righteous moral centre. go on, go on a rant about me accusing christians of something now, that seems to be your usual gambit here. have fun with it.

If anyone is disparaging gay people, it is you, the person continuousThunder, by assuming that all cross dressers are also gay.

genius. absolute mindblowing genius. how do you even fit your brain in your skull? of COURSE the ultimate push back for when people talk about how trans people should be exterminated or how all lgbt people are child molesters is to talk a whole bunch about how disgusting drag is and how delusional trans people are and then go "uhh well ackshualyy not ALL people who've done drag are gay so therefore it's the gay person in this thread who is wrong"
just.... comedy gold. sincerely, thank you so much

originally posted by: continuousThunder

i dunno man, i tend to think that one episode of chidren dying by gun violence is too many, one episode of children being abused in their homes by seedy uncles is too many, one episode of children abused by priests is too many, one episode of children going hungry and homeless is too many, but for some reason the good denizens of ATS aren't rising up to threaten divine retribution about any of that. i wonder why

Because we have already sentenced those actions to be seen as horrible events, so why defend other horrible events just because you identify with the players in some way? You need to start adding to your list there, just saying...

a reply to: continuousThunder

Looks like I hit a nerve. I honestly don't know how to reply to that word salad. I think a saw a few insults in there, but some of them looked like you were insulting gay folk? Hard to tell, to be honest.

Maybe that you should calm down? Heart attacks are not fun; trust me on this.

TheRedneck