New WV bill amends state definition of "obscene material" to include transgender people

[yankintx]

A new bill proposed in West Virginia effectively makes it functionally illegal to be publicly transgender. It amends their definition of obscene material to include "any transgender exposure".

Conservatives view trans people as inherently sexual basically.

Obscene material (which now includes exposure to trans people) is banned within 2,500 feet of schools.


The punishment for exposing a minor to obscene material is a felony.


How would this effect transgender teachers or parents? What if you drive/walk past a school?

A recently proposed law of a similar nature effectively bans transgender people from performing in public, and possibly Shakespeare plays and movies like Ms Doubtfire.


The new round of anti-trans bills being introduced are far more worrying than previous laws. The end goal is clear. They view transgender people as a social contagen and existing in public as a sexual act, basically grooming children into being trans, and want to ban trans people from public life. They don't want them in media. They don't want them to teach. They don't want them to be parents. They wished they didn't exist at all.

WV would be better to focus on bringing in jobs, and dental care.

 

[BirdinHand]

WV would be better to focus on bringing in jobs, and dental care.

West Virginia could have thrown a dart at a wall full of ideas around their economy, healthcare, infrastructure, jobs and education and ANYTHING that dart hit would have been a better utilization of their efforts.

 

[zincwarrior]

It literally says any "transgender exposure". Sexually explicate content was already banned. This law would basically treat being trans as some kind of crossdressing sexual act. It wasn't that long ago in Texas that you could be arrested for wearing 3 articles of clothing that were for the opposite gender. A lot of the people who made and voted for those laws are still alive today.

Mmm ok now that I re-read it again, fair point.

 

[Napoleon]

Have you ever asked a woman "Ms or Mrs"?

No, because it’s rude. People have names and a title conferred by marital status has nothing to do with anything since women are allowed to do things without the consent of their husbands or fathers.

 

[Lovebug]

No, because it’s rude. People have names and a title conferred by marital status has nothing to do with anything since women are allowed to do things without the consent of their husbands or fathers.

So that is how you understood my post, taking half of it and post a rant.

 

[Carjosse]

And people wonder why the suicide rate for transgender people are so high when there are states literally trying to ban your existence.

 

[CaughtInThe]

small government



GenZ. you're up.

 

[mrjurrs]

A new bill proposed in West Virginia effectively makes it functionally illegal to be publicly transgender. It amends their definition of obscene material to include "any transgender exposure".

Conservatives view trans people as inherently sexual basically.

Obscene material (which now includes exposure to trans people) is banned within 2,500 feet of schools.


The punishment for exposing a minor to obscene material is a felony.


How would this effect transgender teachers or parents? What if you drive/walk past a school?

A recently proposed law of a similar nature effectively bans transgender people from performing in public, and possibly Shakespeare plays and movies like Ms Doubtfire.


The new round of anti-trans bills being introduced are far more worrying than previous laws. The end goal is clear. They view transgender people as a social contagen and existing in public as a sexual act, basically grooming children into being trans, and want to ban trans people from public life. They don't want them in media. They don't want them to teach. They don't want them to be parents. They wished they didn't exist at all.

Since SCOTUS has declined to define obscenity there is wiggle room for states. I don't see this type of law holding up.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

A new bill proposed in West Virginia effectively makes it functionally illegal to be publicly transgender. It amends their definition of obscene material to include "any transgender exposure".

Conservatives view trans people as inherently sexual basically.

Obscene material (which now includes exposure to trans people) is banned within 2,500 feet of schools.


The punishment for exposing a minor to obscene material is a felony.


How would this effect transgender teachers or parents? What if you drive/walk past a school?

A recently proposed law of a similar nature effectively bans transgender people from performing in public, and possibly Shakespeare plays and movies like Ms Doubtfire.


The new round of anti-trans bills being introduced are far more worrying than previous laws. The end goal is clear. They view transgender people as a social contagen and existing in public as a sexual act, basically grooming children into being trans, and want to ban trans people from public life. They don't want them in media. They don't want them to teach. They don't want them to be parents. They wished they didn't exist at all.

Being “trans” is either entirely socially constructed or is a fetish. It is certainly inherently sexual. I don’t know why anyone would doubt that.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

They aren't happy unless they're victimizing a vulnerable population, huh?

Cross dressers and other kinds of sexual non conformists are legally privileged and there’s massive campaigns demanding they be celebrated. Hardly a “vulnerable population”

 

[EMNofSeattle]

So much FREEEEDOM am I right?

You are unironically right

 

[TheGoverness]

You are unironically right

Ah yes, the theocrat loves restricting freedom.

Never change.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Ah yes, the theocrat loves restricting freedom.

I don’t think you even know what “theocrat” means.

In any event this encourages actual freedom since it protects children from an alien and anti-human political agenda which is intended to strip them of their right to grow in a functional society according to their proper sexual role

Never change.

Not all change is good. About 90% of it in the last 40 years has been bad

 

[Nomad4Ever]

Being “trans” is either entirely socially constructed or is a fetish. It is certainly inherently sexual. I don’t know why anyone would doubt that.

I don't expect an honest response, but I'll give it a shot anyway.

If that is true, how to you explain the existence of asexual trans people? Sometimes people are just born with basically no sex drive, interest in sex, or sexual attraction (not that that describes all asexual people, but some are like that). There are asexual trans people for whom the very concept of sexual attraction is repulsive to. How do you explain that?

 

[bomberfox]

Wealthy people use race and culture wars to distract from the way they pick your pocket.

 

[TheGoverness]

Not all change is good. About 90% of it in the last 40 years has been bad

Since a theocrat is saying this, I'm inclined to believe the opposite.

 

[TheGoverness]

I don't expect an honest response, but I'll give it a shot anyway.

If that is true, how to you explain the existence of asexual trans people? Sometimes people are just born with basically no sex drive, interest in sex, or sexual attraction (not that that describes all asexual people, but some are like that). There are asexual trans people for whom the very concept of sexual attraction is repulsive to. How do you explain that?

These people cannot remove the sexual part from LGBT issues. They think all we think about is sex, sex, sex, sex.

 

[Phys251]

These people cannot remove the sexual part from LGBT issues. They think all we think about is sex, sex, sex, sex.

They have a warped view of human sexuality and are usually sexually repressed.

 

[TheGoverness]

They have a warped view of human sexuality and are usually sexually repressed.

Yep. You know how many of the typical bro conservative guys in my high school that loved ragging on the gay kids ended up being gay themselves?

Quite a bit.

One of the dumb idiots who drove a truck around with a confederate flag in my high school parking lot after Trump won, is now apparently gay as hell.

 

[weaver2]

We are always paying the price for not properly dealing with the Lost Cause and Southern insularity and its concomitant cultural aggression.

I agree, but what can be done when when the people of the Lost Cause have willingly and enthusiastically played the victim and insisted on their right to be ignorant right from the signing of the articles of surrender until today.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I don't expect an honest response, but I'll give it a shot anyway.

If that is true, how to you explain the existence of asexual trans people?

I don’t, I am not under an obligation to explain every weirdo 0.0001% of the population “community” you can name.

Sometimes people are just born with basically no sex drive, interest in sex, or sexual attraction (not that that describes all asexual people, but some are like that).

So what?

There are asexual trans people for whom the very concept of sexual attraction is repulsive to. How do you explain that?

I don’t, it’s of no concern whatsoever in this discussion. You can’t deflect by claiming some statitistically insignificant “group” exists in an online message group somewhere. This really strikes me as some people who have suffered childhood trauma are trying to deal with it by joining a more and more obscure Online community, but in any event it doesn’t matter since claiming to be the other sex is inherently sexual regardless of what your claims about your sex drive are

 

[lwf]

I don’t think you even know what “theocrat” means.

In any event this encourages actual freedom since it protects children from an alien and anti-human political agenda which is intended to strip them of their right to grow in a functional society according to their proper sexual role

Not all change is good. About 90% of it in the last 40 years has been bad

If you are legally creating artificial barriers to behavior you are removing freedom from society, not adding it.

 

[lwf]

These people cannot remove the sexual part from LGBT issues. They think all we think about is sex, sex, sex, sex.

Because that's all they think about.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

If you are legally creating artificial barriers to behavior you are removing freedom from society, not adding it.

The ability to groom children into believing cross dressing is desirable behavior is not Freedom.

 

[roguenuke]

So this would make drag shows for minors illegal? Would this include clown acts?

What about Kabuki? And would that mean that if a parent was caught letting their child watch To Wong Fu Thanks For Everything Julie Newmar or The Birdcage or Hairspray would they also be facing criminal prosecution?