Michigan GOP introduces a bill to stop something they admit doesn't happen anyways

Originally published at: Michigan GOP introduces a bill to stop something they admit doesn't happen anyways | Boing Boing


This is a bigger issue than just fake outrage. One of the really clear steps in their playbook is passing laws like this and then retroactively defining an included concept. You can be certain that drag shows will be redefined to include anyone dressing across traditional gender presentations. With that little two step they’ve legislated trans people out of teaching without ever admitting that is what they did.


So technically what is a “drag show” Every British comedy show has some man dressed as a women, Tuna Christmas, heck even Milton Berle


This is the exact sort of cudgel regressives need to be beaten with. Want to ban “pornographic” books? The Bible is first up. Want to regulate reproduction? Men first. This has been proposed in the past, usually as mockery or reductio ad absurdum public shaming, but it needs to enter the real, legally enforced world now. The only time I regret moving out of Missouri is when I realize I would have standing to bring this kind of action if I still lived there.


It’s good that I’ve been assured that virtue signaling and identity politics are hallmarks of leftists; or I might have been confused.


At this rate, they’ll never get government small enough to drown in a bathtub.


Oh, make no mistake. This isn’t virtue signalling. This is setting up a two part scoped law that for now covers drag shows and drag presentations, but will be retroactively moved to “teachers must wear clothing that’s assigned at birth otherwise it’s a ‘drag show’” and “students must wear proper gendered clothing for their gender at birth otherwise it’s a ‘drag show’” , and I imagine shortly after this it’ll be “you cannot live 500 feet from a school and dress in gender clothing that doesn’t match your AGAB” and steps further.

It’s not virtue signalling, it’s part one of multi step laws to basically remove transgendered people from public. And they’ve got these all planned out because it’s the same draft legal lobbyists from ultra right wing organizations supplying the draft legislation to multiple states.


There’s a mountain of irony (cognitive dissonance) that the “less government” party wants to legislate away everything that might challenge their snowflake world of puritanical joylessness.

Even things that don’t exist can’t escape their opprobrium.


Strip shows are still okay though because they haven’t said not to.


I guess this means that women teachers can’t show up in trousers? (Or, presumably, a male teacher in a kilt?)


Quite a few Shakespearean plays.


Traditionally, every Shakespeare play. All the female roles used to be played by men.




There are no truly corrective courses of action available that would effectively handle stooges who knowingly do this kind of useless evil performative shit… and why should there be when nothing can be done about all the bribe-taking.


Would European history would have to be censored to avoid any mention of Joan of Arc? She was canonized, so censorship might include Catholic texts on the saints.

For that matter, what if impressionable young minds are exposed to men wearing wigs, ruffles and stockings?


OFFS. We had a drag show at church camp when i was in HS. It was an annual event, no one cared and no child was involuntarily turned gay or trans. Bunch of publicity seeking asshats. Period.


One would hope that the terms ‘expose’, ‘drag show’ and ‘drag presentation’ are adequately defined in the bill… otherwise, as @moortaktheundea & @Lion have pointed out, this smells of a set-up.

Why? Looks to me like the school districts are doing the parents a favor by helping to world-proof their darling sprogs, since sprog-proofing the world is impossible.

Of course they would support it. FDCists gotta coagulate.

A ‘soluton’, eh?
Ban all mention of it, and it therefore doesn’t exist… is that it, Sparky?
Sounds like y’all are stealing DeSatan’s concept.

1 Like

Historically men used to wear wigs and hose. So if supreme court justices can go back to the 17th century for precedent this should be fine. /s


Even Bugs Bunny can’t be allowed to teach cultural heritage dancing anymore:

1 Like

As someone who attended public high school in Michigan, I recall that the football players (M) were dressed as cheerleaders (F) during homecoming events that I was forced to attend.