"Would This Ban Pride? Probably." Arkansas Anti-trans Drag Bill Passes Senate

Arkansas has passed SB43 through its senate. This bill would ban "exhibiting a gender identity different from your assigned gender at birth" while performing and "prurient," a vague term.

Standing at the podium debating against an anti-trans drag bill that had just entered the Senate floor for a vote, Senator Clark Tucker spoke out forcefully. “Will this apply to a gay pride parade? Probably so.” The bill, SB43, would ban people who are dressing and presenting as the gender that does not match their assigned gender at birth from performing in public or anywhere where kids can see them. Though intending to target drag, the bill also targets transgender people whose dress does not match their assigned gender at birth. It specifies that the law is only broken if it appeals to the “prurient interest,” a term that is unconstitutionally vague which could be targeted at any transgender person telling a joke, wearing a low cut shirt, or even just reading to kids. After an emotional debate, the bill was passed in the Arkansas senate 29-6 - it now goes to the Arkansas house, where if it passed, it could have profound impacts on the trans and drag communities.

SB43’s definition of drag which includes transgender people performing

SB43 is one of several bills that have been released targeting “drag queen story hours” and drag in general. States legislators differ in how they approach these bills, but in general, they have broad definitions of drag which include transgender people. Each one is ridiculously broad in its targeting. Nebraska’s bill says that people cannot “exhibit a gender identity different from the performer’s assigned gender at birth using clothing, makeup, or other physical markers.” West Virginia’s bill outright bans “transgender exposure” to minors as obscene matter with prison terms. Oklahoma’s anti-drag bill doesn’t even bother limiting it to trans people and in fact would ban anyone who “adopts a flamboyant or parodic feminine persona with glamorous or exaggerated costumes and makeup.”

Most, but not all, bills have a provision that specifies that the conduct is only illegal if it “appeals to the prurient interest.” The word “prurient” means sexualized in nature or appealing to sexualization. Consider, though, the context in which these bills are being passed. Drag queen story hours where a drag queen sits and reads to youth are the main driver of these bills. The bill’s sponsor, Senator Gary Stubblefield, when introduced to the bill, said specifically that these events are what the bill is aimed at (1:17pm in the Arkansas senate hearing):

“A group of people that want other people to bring their children and put them in front of them so that they can read a book, and I can’t think of anything good that can come from taking children and putting them in front of a bunch of grown men who are dressed like women.”

The word “prurient” applies to obscenity laws in constitutional issues and obscenity laws have a long history of being weaponized against the LGBTQ+ community. Magazines of men with their shirts off were once deemed illegal under these types of laws because they “appealed to the prurient interest of gay men.” If the senator who sponsored this bill considers drag queens fully dressed and reading children’s stories to be “prurient,” you can imagine that he likely considers transgender people to be considered prurient as well. He certainly would consider Pride festivities as prurient, and that is what Senator Tucker seized upon when he called out the extremely damaging nature of these bills. Watch his full speech:

Senator Tucker raised several points against the bill. For instance, he spoke about how the bill unfairly targets transgender people while leaving other cisgender-heterosexual forms of “prurient interest” untouched.:

“If you go out to West Little Rock or Twin Peaks or Hooters, there is activity there that is 100% designed to appeal to the prurient interest, and there are kids running around everywhere, but that’s not in this bill. This bill is targeted exclusively at people that dress other than their assigned gender at birth.”

He further spoke about the legality of the law and pointed out that the bill breaks the Equal Protection clause of the US Constitution and the First Amendment. He even spoke about the obscenity laws and stated that “prurient” is not defined in this bill, and that different people could have different definitions. That is when he raised the point that this bill likely would apply to drag queen shows, Pride parades, and even the play “Tootsie.” He even pointed out that the bill has no exception for conduct in the privacy of one’s own home.

The bill itself would potentially apply criminal penalties to transgender people. It modifies the provisions of Arkansas law 14-1-301 to 308 (adult oriented businesses). The criminal penalties for violating the law include imprisonment. Drag queens, transgender comedians, and even public speakers like me could be considered prurient just for existing, making a joke that offends a religious person’s morality, or wearing clothing they view as "sexual in nature.” Given what we know from Sen. Stubblefield’s opening remarks, he absolutely would consider transgender people dancing and performing “prurient.” This is plainly targeted at all transgender people and that much was clear when the floor debate turned into a biblical interpretation fight over “men wearing women’s clothing.” At one point, a Senator even referenced that those who “lead children astray” should have “a millstone attached to their neck and tossed into the sea.” This biblical reference appears in several anti-trans bills across the country called “Millstone Acts.”

These bills have terrorized the transgender and drag communities. There are over 10 such bills working their way through committees across the United States. The margin in which this bill in Arkansas passed has taken many people by surprise. If this bill then passes the Arkansas house, Arkansas will return to a dark era in which LGBTQ+ people could be prosecuted for obscenity laws and businesses would be dissuaded from hosting us. Three articles laws that mandated people wear three articles of clothing associated with their assigned gender at birth echo in this resurgence of anti-drag bills here. If they are not defeated, transgender people and drag performers will have to navigate a complex web of local morality and a rise in oppressive anti-trans militancy. Until then, we can only watch as the far right threatens to end all of our rights.