13
This is a bullshit article. Scaremongering. They're really grasping at straws.
I have to read news for a living. You learn a few rules as the years go by.
A headline that contains "could" is a piece of ginned-up bullshit that hasn't happened and nobody is talking about doing except the author. If it's something someone is planning on doing, some form of the word "planning" is used in the headline. "Could?" That's just wind and sails.
Here's another one some may find helpful: if a headline contains a question mark, the answer to the question is "no."
Our news media is ridiculously fucked.
Yeah, and consider the source. LGBTQ Nation is pretty much exclusively concerned with the TQ at this point, and the only source quoted is the ACLU of Arkansas, which has a vested interest in promoting child transition.
I am in biomedical publishing and I can cosign this times ten for any articles about medical or scientific breakthroughs. If the headline says "could," swap that out for "will not" and you will be closer to the truth.
Absolutely. There is a snowball's chance in hell something like this would even be remotely constitutional.
I agree. It's ridiculous scaremongering, and besides, the bill is specifically tied to social transitioning. If a girl wants a short haircut and she and her parents are not pretending this makes her non-female, then there's no problem.
What this article presupposes is that "non-gender-conforming haircuts" exist, which is some sexist horseshit that the author is accidentally admit they think exists, but does not actually exist in the real world. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that women have literally had short haircuts for centuries.
Exactly. TRAs are the only ones who believe in "gender affirming haircuts." Any normal person will see a girl with short hair as a girl with short hair.
Plenty of conservative Christian women have short hair. This is not the gotcha the ACLU thinks it is.
This is why no one trusts 'news' sources anymore.
The exact language around hair in the bill is this - (3) "Social transitioning" means any act by which a minor adopts or espouses a gender identity that differs from the minor’s biological sex as determined by the sex organs, chromosomes, and endogenous profiles of the minor, including without limitation changes in clothing, pronouns, hairstyle, and name."
Hair is never mentioned again. I think that part is poorly written, and the idea of banning certain hairstyles is certainly not a good one, but the title is just sheer fear-porn at this point. The bill used hairstyles to explain what the concept of 'social transitioning' is.
This might have worked in 2016, but consider the source and the motivation behind it.
Can I simultaneously believe this article is ridiculous scare-mongering, and also believe there are christofascist nutjobs in the US who would try to bring harassment law suits over stuff like this? Can both be true in this psycho hellscape we are currently living in?
it's giving north korea
https://newsfeed.time.com/2013/02/25/these-are-north-koreas-28-state-approved-hairstyles/
I love that the kweer folx oppose this on the grounds that hairstyles ARE SO connected to your gender and trans people NEED specific haircuts to match their genders, while the conservatives support it on the grounds that hairstyles ARE SO connected to your gender and that's why everyone NEEDS to be banned from getting a hairstyle that doesn't match their gender.
The only redeeming quality about the gender fandom is watching the two factions within it (kweers and conservatives) squabble with each other.
It really is funny how the hardcore conservatives and the gender fandom are just two sides of the same shitty coin
Here's local coverage too, for those who don't want to read LGBTQ Nation:
According to the bill, the definition of social transitioning is “by which a minor adopts a gender identity different from their biological sex that can include changes in clothing, pronouns, hairstyle, and name."
"Things like haircut, clothing, or even the use of pronouns; those are all free speech and so our concern there is when you're criminalizing or in this case providing a civil cause of action that has to pass a very high constitutional bar," a representative from the Attorney General's office explained.
I don't know how much our current federal government, at the highest levels, cares about free speech or constitutionality any more. I'm glad to see some people running Arkansas do. Destroying gender nonconformity and forcing traditional, stereotyped appearance is NOT the answer to trans.
Thanks for the alternative
According to the bill, the definition of social transitioning is “by which a minor adopts a gender identity different from their biological sex that can include changes in clothing, pronouns, hairstyle, and name."
"Things like haircut, clothing, or even the use of pronouns; those are all free speech and so our concern there is when you're criminalizing or in this case providing a civil cause of action that has to pass a very high constitutional bar," a representative from the Attorney General's office explained.
I don't like that rules about haircuts are bundled into a bill that also criminalizes actual abuse like medical transition for minors. Like, how would one even enforce the clothing and hair rule? Who determines what clothes and hair are meant to be "trans"? Does it account for cultural differences? Will every Samantha who goes by "Sam" get questioned about her nickname?
In addition to simply being wrong, this rule would be a nightmare to enforce
I don't know how much our current federal government, at the highest levels, cares about free speech
They care enough about it to want to eliminate compelled speech through "pronouns" for transgender people. I didn't vote for Trump and don't want to endorse him, but if you're going to look at one American political party that is pro-free-speech and one which is not, the answer might surprise you.
I didn't vote for Trump and don't want to endorse him, but if you're going to look at one American political party that is pro-free-speech and one which is not, the answer might surprise you.
Huh? What does this mean? Neither party is actually for free speech. They both want to compel speech in their own way.
If this bill became law, I don’t think police would be monitoring haircuts for compliance with gendered stereotypes. What could happen is that if a kid “transitions socially” and if teachers or counselors were part of it, parents might sue and end up getting a hairstylist involved in the lawsuit. What’s a hairstylist supposed to do if a girl comes in asking for a buzzcut? What if Danielle whispers to her that her name is Jacob now? I don’t think the hairstylist should have to worry about that.
God I get wanting to avoid idiotic affirmations, but this just pushed gender stereotypes and rigid standards
I support every child’s right to get a really stupid and hideous haircut. That’s a rite of passage ffs.
This is fucking stupid. It's a HAIRCUT. Both males and females can have long, short, or no hair for both sexes.
Can both sides of the gender cult fucking get their shit together. Yes, only two sexes. No, no fixed way for either sexes to look outside of sexual dimorphism. "Looking feminine" doesn't make you a girl and girls don't need to "look feminine".
So I read the article. It isn't about arresting people for providing haircuts. It's about opening the door to punitive lawsuits for those who support the transition of minors. The title seems like a gross mischaracterization.
However, it could certainly lead to all kinds of punitive lawsuits like suing hair stylists for providing hairstyles to minors that could be seen as "opposite gender" or "gender non-conforming"
Either way this is a shit show. This isn't worth it. I don't even know what the fuck's happening with this site either.
Ridiculous. What are they going to do? Arrest mom when she cuts her child's hair?
This feels like a very slippery slope into performative feminity.
Hair is NOT gendered.
As a woman, I can shave ny head and still be a woman. A man could have gorgeous long hair and he'd still be a man.
Will this lead to women being forced into dresses? Modest necklines? Women can't wear tennis shoes because they could be stereotyped into a male only shoe?
Without enough pushback yes it will. I grew up with men like the ones pushing these bills. That is exactly what they want.
It won’t be one bill or rule. It will be slow. “We don’t women over 40” “We only want our office workers who are female wearing heels. It’s about decorum and dress code.” “Well we can’t hire a bartender with short hair. She’ll make less money.”
This will only empower them.
No.
Please expand.
The burden of proof would be ridiculous. No one is going to criminally charge a hairdresser for cutting a girl's hair short. It will never happen, not in a million years. The article is total bullshit.
In practice, they'll likely never go through the trouble of prosecuting a hairdresser for giving a girl an ugly non-binary haircut. The bad PR alone would make it not worth it to them. But I would still feel better if that part of the bill was cut out