Tennessee Tech Punishes Student Groups Who Hosted Drag Performances
Even though it might cause pearl-clutching, there is nothing obscene about drag shows.
Two student groups at Tennessee Tech University are now facing an investigation after hosting a drag show at an on-campus theatre. On August 20th, local organization Upper Cumberland Pride and two university student groups, the Lambda Gay-Straight Alliance and the Tech Players, held a drag show at the university's Backdoor Playhouse.
A clip from the show, featuring a child giving money to a drag performer lip-synching to "Take Me To Church," was posted on Twitter on September 7th by anti-child trafficking activist Landon Starbuck.
"Tennessee Tech University hosted a drag show that had little kids handing cash to the drag queen who was performing a dance clearly meant to mock Christians," tweeted Starbuck. "Every parent who pays to send their kids to @tennesseetech deserves to know that this is what they're allowing on campus."
The clip quickly garnered outrage, and Tennessee Tech's administration burst into action, launching an investigation of the two clubs and unilaterally canceling two upcoming events from the organizations. Further, the clubs were suspended from hosting any further events during the duration of the investigation.
"I am disturbed and dismayed about the activities in a video circulating on social media from a recent event on Tennessee Tech's campus," wrote the university's president, Phil Oldham, in a statement. "I do not feel the activities in the video represent Tech's values, and I do not condone explicit activity where minors are present. I also am offended by disparaging mockery toward any religious group."
Oldham added that on-campus "programming should not include obscene, lewd or explicit activities," and that the investigation concerned "the inappropriate involvement of minors and a review of our policies and procedures."
However, there is one hitch to Tennessee Tech's plans—they have no legal authority to punish student organizations over a drag performance.
On September 15th, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression sent a letter to Tennessee Tech's administration, informing the school that drag shows are expressive content protected by the First Amendment, and as a public university, Tennessee Tech cannot punish students for hosting them.
"Tennessee Tech, as a public institution bound by the First Amendment, may not investigate or punish student groups for their expressive events," FIRE attorney Zachary Greenberg wrote in a letter to the university. "Conduct is also considered expressive when it falls within a traditionally protected genre such as art, theater, and dancing—even if it does not convey a 'narrow, succinctly articulable message'"
Further, despite Oldham's' claims, the club's drag performance does not meet the legal definition of obscenity—in fact, it is far from it. "Merely offensive events are not obscene," Greenberg told Reason. "Obscenity is typically, hard-core pornography with no artistic, literary or social value. No reasonable university can claim that this student drag show is unprotected obscenity."
While public universities are allowed to place reasonable, content-neutral "time, place, and manner" restrictions on speech, Tennessee Tech's actions are far from compliant with the standard set in Ward v. Rock Against Racism. Ward established a three-prong test for determining a reasonable "time, place, and manner" restriction on speech. Acceptable restrictions are content-neutral, narrowly tailored to serve a substantial government interest, and do not unreasonably limit alternative avenues for expressing speech. For example, an acceptable restriction on student speech might include a limit on the noise level of nighttime protests, or a ban on posting flyers in a way likely to cause property damage.
Punishing a student group for an "offensive" drag performance is clearly unconstitutional, not just because it suppresses First Amendment-protected speech, but also because Tennessee Tech's attempts to limit these performances do not meet the three-pronged test for an acceptable "time, place, and manner" restriction. Not only would a de facto ban on drag shows not be content-neutral, but it also serves no government purpose and provides no alternate methods for the performances to occur.
Drag shows—including ones where children are present—are playing an increasingly large role in our culture war. However, no matter how much a drag show may offend Tennessee Tech's administrators, the First Amendment prevents pearl-clutchers from exerting their personal views upon an unwilling student body.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Is it just me, or does drag seem to be a form of blackface and minstrel show, using women instead of blacks?
Well, there’s a difference. If it had been someone in blackface, you can be pretty damn sure reason wouldn’t be writing an article claiming, “However, no matter how much a blackface show may offend Tennessee Tech’s administrators, the First Amendment prevents pearl-clutchers from exerting their personal views upon an unwilling student body.”.
I work from home providing various internet services for an hourly rate of $80 USD. I never thought it would be possible, but my trustworthy friend persuaded (emu-03) me to take the opportunity after telling me how she quickly earned 13,000 dollars in just four weeks while working on the greatest project. Go to this article for more information.
…..
——————————>>> https://cashprofit99.netlify.app/
It’s not just you. Others have noticed the jealous ridicule of women implicit in drag shows.
Seem? It literally IS that.. It’s how it started out in gay male subculture! As a fully and wholly sexual fetish show and activity.
What could be sketchy about a place called “The backdoor playhouse.”
Surprise. Surprise. Universities are just private institutions until, for no particular reason at all, they aren’t.
If the theater puts on a show where a middle-aged male pays scantily-clad pre-teens to parade around for him, I guess they’re just an impartial venue, right?
Tennessee Tech is private?
If we all pay transgender stage idiots $10K each, are they privately employed?
You know who else paid scantily-clad pre-teens to parade around for him?
“A clip from the show, featuring a child giving money to a drag performer lip-synching to “Take Me To Church,””
Why the burning need to involve children incessantly in this nonsense?
So were they punished for putting on a drag show, or for being pedofile groomers? Those of us that don’t live in retard land can tell the difference.
Edit button for the win
Emma seems to not be aware that inviting children changes what is and what is not permissible. Those two orgs CHOSE to have children there — it would not be hard to deny them entry — so they get to suffer the consequences.
Those of us that don’t live in retard land can tell the difference.
And the retarded ‘1A-ness’ of it goes right along with it. Tennessee Tech is absolutely within it’s rights to exclude minors and censor performances appealing to minors from their theaters as they see fit. There’s a case to be had that an 18+ show at a University theater to 18+ students is protected free speech but the University putting on a show for minors is right out.
Especially since every last one of us is going to give the retarded performers $10K whether we like it or not.
Fuck you Reason for defending this noise. I said it before I got the edit button and I’ll say it again now that we have it: Get some principled libertarians on staff. Envy the comment section that has an edit button? I say pity the comment section that needs one!
Absolutely. Reason needs some principled libertarians. Such as ones who transform into right-wing social conservatives the moment a child is spotted. Like Ron Paul, perhaps?
Your enthusiasm for the exploitation of children is well known, no need to remind us.
When did social conservatism become compatible with libertarianism?
If opposing child rape is social conservatism, I guess I’m a social conservative.
This isn’t a case of a child being raped. This is a case of bigoted people trying to claim allowing kids to witness anything vaguely LGBT is grooming them for rape. Stop getting mad at chemjeff because he isn’t dumb enough to fall for it.
Chemjeff is dumb enough to fall for anything.
And are you claiming performing sex shows for children is legitimate?
“This is a case of bigoted people trying to claim allowing kids to witness anything vaguely LGBT is grooming them for rape.”
Go go dancers are not appropriate for children. Drag shows are nothing more than go go dancing shows for ugly people.
It seems baffling why a mental illness means we have to change all of society for their feelings.
Where’s the child rape in this story?
You fill in the blanks you goddamn pervert.
So no child rape. Got it.
Wow. I wasn’t really expecting you to throw the entire magazine under the pedophilia bus, but there it is.
Thanks for back-handedly reiterating my point that, by your own assertions, the magazine could do with a couple more people who don’t get a hard on every time “drag queens” and “children appear” in the same story.
Also, further thanks for demonstrating how someone like OBL is parody and may have some value for kids to pick up but you punching yourself in the nuts is just stupid obscenity that’s not really fit for general human consumption.
Adult migrants cannot give consent, but 10 year olds can?
Grooming children is the way they reproduce.
Well said.
Why the burning need to involve children incessantly in this nonsense?
Masks fucking slipping is why.
Because they can’t breed they can only recruit
“Tennessee Tech, as a public institution bound by the First Amendment, may not investigate or punish student groups for their expressive events,” FIRE attorney Zachary Greenberg wrote in a letter to the university. “Conduct is also considered expressive when it falls within a traditionally protected genre such as art, theater, and dancing—even if it does not convey a ‘narrow, succinctly articulable message'”
Under the 1A you are free to solicit and even pay for performative sex with Zachary Greenberg’s daughter, wife, sister, mother, or aunt, and post it to Tiktok, even if they’re a minor.
Hey, at least this time we’re talking about a drag show at a school where the students are mostly 18+ . . .
I think you need to reread the article/details. They seem to have found once again a reason to involve a child in this.
When did reason get run over with pedos? We all know sbp is a kiddie diddler, but with Emma and Scott compleatly ignoring, or praising that children are being brought into this, it’s getting very sick.
Well, they let Shrike back in with the SPB2 handle.
Reason tends to be skeptical of conspiracy theories. The idea that there is some sort of mass movement of pedos who are “grooming” children by exposing them to LGBT media is one of the dumber conspiracy theories to come along lately. It makes sense that Reason would write against the dolts who promulgate those theories.
Part of the “Free Minds” part of Reason is freeing your mind from all the stupid lies and nonsense that crazy bigots insist you believe in.
Ok (pro-) groomer.
But it’s not a conspiricy theory. It’s the stated goal of the people that push for childen to be sexualized. This includes all of the pedos that do drag queen story hour, and queueing sexual education. Please kill your groomer pedo self
The conspiracy theory that drag is in no way sexual, is always appropriate for children, and only questioned by ‘bigoted dolts’ would be a good place to begin being skeptical. But, given your false assertions and insults about people who hold views with which you disagree, you aren’t capable of skepticism, you’re a zealot.
“Obscenity is typically, hard-core pornography with no artistic, literary or social value. No reasonable university can claim that this student drag show is unprotected obscenity.”
OK, I don’t spend a lot of time in the courtroom, but I don’t think an even modestly competent lawyer would have any problem absolutely shredding this.
First, by Greentard’s own definition, the criteria isn’t just nudity or pornography alone. Randomly waiving your dick in public, or public-y private spaces is not protected free speech. Not necessarily for the dick, but for the lack of relative message justifying the dick. Second, along those very same lines, we ban child participation, public and private, from much less obscene things. There may be a question as to whether a drag queen show is as damaging as buying alcohol or tobacco or a firearm or tipping a masseuse, or whatever, but the idea that nudity/sexuality is the only requirement for obscenity and/or prevention of minor participation is just legally retarded.
>we ban child participation, public and private, from much less obscene things.
This is obviously false. Parents are allowed to take their children to R-rated movies if they feel like it. Nothing in that show was worse than “Basic Instinct” or “Eyes Wide Shut.”
Getting the government involved in censorship is a serious step, and serious steps require serious evidence. Proponents of censorship for the protection of children generally do not act like this is a bar they need to clear. They just assert things are harmful to children with no evidence.
R-rated movies are bad words, fake violence, incidental nudity. Some stuff is fairly risque but overwhelmingly R-rated movies are not obscene. And at any rate, the ratings system is not handed down from an ironclad ruling body. The MPAA is an industry advisory group, and it’s not even required to have a movie rated. Plenty of movies have declined to have a rating, though it becomes very difficult to get into theaters with an unrated film.
As for your opinion, I think a movie is far less damaging than a live show featuring a lunatic dancing erotically.
This is obviously false. Parents are allowed to take their children to R-rated movies if they feel like it. Nothing in that show was worse than “Basic Instinct” or “Eyes Wide Shut.”
Yes. When you deliberately misconceptualize the situation to portray it in your favor, your portrayal will obviously be false. No public school is obligated to show “Basic Instinct” or “Eyes Wide Shut”, especially not to non-students and non-student minors.
Getting the government involved in censorship is a serious step, and serious steps require serious evidencce.
This is the falsehood. Compelled speech is also censorship and the censorship started once the school became public and a state agent began deciding what speech to promote and what to forego. It took relatively little evidence to support the government getting involved there. Now, if you’re saying we should get the government out of deciding what does and doesn’t go on a private university’s stage, either directly or indirectly through fiscal or other means, well, that’s a pretty self-evident moral statement that doesn’t and shouldn’t need much evidence to support.
Your argument is legally retarded.
The First Amendment may permit the regulation of “obscene” content. “Obscene” content is not merely “offensive.” It need not include nudity or sex, true – but it does need to appeal to a “prurient interest in sex,” be offensive to contemporary standards relating to sex, and otherwise lack any redeeming social value. Nothing about a typical drag show, particularly a low-rent one like that featured at Tennessee Tech, would qualify.
Trying to analogize drag shows to alcohol and tobacco is just stupid.
Drag shows are all about sex. Inept morons doing it, but their ineptitude does not excuse it. There is literally nothing of any social value involved.
Your argument is legally retarded.
And by legally retarded, you mean strictly conforming to your definition:
Offensive? Check.
Lacking of redeeming social value? Check.
Trying to analogize drag shows to alcohol and tobacco is just stupid.
First, I wasn’t analogizing. I rather overtly said that obscenity involves taste while tobacco/alcohol involves harm, which would make them categorically different. My point was that *social value* is a part of the equation. If I were analogizing, I would point out that we absolutely do prevent tobacco and alcohol advertising aimed at children without regard to offense.
It’s not my fault you’re too retarded to conceptualize the notion that the equation has *two* whole independent variables and that we’ll protect blatantly offensive stuff because of its perceived high social value, while *frequently* allowing “low-rent” bullshit to be silenced for being mostly low-rent… and moderately obscene.
I should note that your failure to distinguish and defend alcohol/tobacco advertising with drag queen performance art is very telling.
It indicates that you don’t actually give any shits about others’ free speech. You just want to use the power of the state to compel children to participate in sex acts.
Hell, I’ll go even further: I’m generally deferential to the innocence of child pornography *possessors* relative to the criminality of the *producers*, because the possession of an artifact is protected speech but the abuse of power involved in production is a crime. You, OTOH, are explicitly legally endorsing the clinical definition of pedophilia.
Ms. Camp, are you naturally this obtuse, or is it deliberate? The obvious issue here is the presence of small children. And yet, you give only a only a couple of passing mentions to it.
Should Monty Python have been banned for all of the children singing “Every Sperm is Sacred”? Or was that all OK… Because it is “pro life”?
When you’re normalizing pedophilia it is generally best to not focus on the pedophile angle.
If Camp thought this article would go over well, they forgot how homophobic their target demographic is.
homophobic
Pretty sure that’s transphobic.
I don’t think any one here hates the gays. We hate the pedos. Unless you think all gays are pedos, but that’s on you.
Oh please! Imagine if someone said they didn’t hate black people, they just hated criminals. Then, whenever any entertainment media that children were allowed to see had black people in it, they furiously denounced it for portraying criminality to children. We’d all know they were racist, even if they denied it.
People like you are homophobic because you think LGBT people are somehow more “sexual” than heterosexual people. So any time someone tries to allow children to see any kind of LGBT content, you think they are exposing children to sex at an inappropriate age.
That’s what’s going on here. Taking children along to see some people in elaborate outfits doing a song-and-dance number is not somehow sexual and inappropriate. Neither is showing them how to tip performers. It does not magically become so because the performers are men wearing dresses.
People like you are homophobic because you think LGBT people are somehow more “sexual” than heterosexual people. So any time someone tries to allow children to see any kind of LGBT content, you think they are exposing children to sex at an inappropriate age.
yup you got it. It is status quo bias at its finest. That is the point of my reference to children’s stories like Snow White. Stories like that have overt displays of heterosexual behavior – OMG, Prince Charming kisses Snow White! Prince Charming acts in stereotypically masculine ways and Snow White acts in stereotypically feminine ways! But it is so non-controversial that no one bats an eye. But, take that exact same story, and instead of Prince Charming and Snow White, make the characters Adam and Steve, and half the country would freak out and demand the book be banned immediately as being “inappropriate for kids” because of the “sexual content”.
If you think all black people are criminals that’s on you.
The last time you attempted this argument, about a revue being just a song and dance, and tipping being innocent, the performances were ‘clothed’ strip numbers, and the tips were placed in the performers’ thongs. You are a liar.
Apparently the trans folks can be quite homophobic. The activists seem to think that if you’re male and like guys, you should be a girl.
Genderism is an attempted genocide against Gays.
So gays are pedos?
That sounds pretty homophobic to me.
Ok groomer
Who hates on gay people?
Trannies are mentally ill people who believe gay people do not exist.
The government can prohibit a show which is obscene *as to minors,* even if it’s not obscene as to adults.
If minors were excluded from the performance, which I presume they could have done, then I suppose they could take the “it wasn’t obscene” route.
There would be zero issue if kids were not involved. As is the case with all drag shows where kids are not involved.
So I’m struggling to understand what flavor of ‘principled libertarianism’ that we have displayed here in the comments, that favors a culture of liberty, except when it comes to raising children. If there’s children involved, then the heavy hand of the state needs to be deeply involved.
This reminds me of what Alabama Republican Governor Ivey said after she signed that state’s anti-transgender bill into law:
https://www.al.com/politics/2022/04/gov-kay-ivey-signs-dont-say-gay-anti-lgbt-bathroom-bills-into-law.html
She is emphasizing that raising children is a collective responsibility and one that is rightfully facilitated by the state. That is a long-held social conservative position to be sure. But how is this collectivism of social conservatism when it comes to child-rearing compatible with traditional libertarian thought of liberty and individualism?
Normally libertarians are opposed to the state regulating the private decisions of individuals, except when there is a violation of the NAP. Why should the decisions of parents on how to raise their children be an exception?
I believe you may have missed the heavy hand of the state insinuated in the book titled – “It takes a village … ”
The conservative counter was – “It takes a family … ”
Did you intentionally flip the rolls or are you that ill informed?
Since children were involved, smacks of grooming to me. Why do those who put on these shows crave having children involved?
Why dothose who put on these shows cravehavingchildreninvolved?Fixed it.
I don’t think they’re actually trying to fuck the kids, just brainwash them into thinking this sort of smut is normal and acceptable.
I don’t have any problem with kids watching a drag show if the performers are dressed modestly.
Sorry, but encouraging children to stuff money in your bra is inappropriate regardless of how much skin you have showing.
I acknowledge that you believe it is inappropriate.
Some, however, do not believe it is inappropriate.
So how do you suggest resolving this dilemma?
We kill the people who disagree.
Pedos don’t think fucking kids is inappropriate.
We resolve this “dilemma” (and, again, sad that “Hey, don’t sexualize children” is a dilemma to the cultural left) the same way we resolve “Is it wrong to fuck children?” dilemma.
I watched the video that the crazy lady posted on Twitter, and that never happened. Some kids held out money and the performer bent over and took the money with their hands. The performer might have put some money in their own bra later.
Kids? What would old Reason say if it was a strip show and kids had to hold the dollars in their teeth? Come on now Nick and Jacob…would that upset you?
Uh… have you ever been to a drag show?
Legal definition of obscene? I kinda don’t think that exists …. but I have definitely seen some shit at drag shows.
A Sexual fetish show isn’t “obscene” by community standards?! Come again! (Fuck playing nice, i’ve seen this argument used too much in certain types of “content” debates) Would you be willing to go to court in a very conservative religious area, and argue that drag fetish culture isn’t obscene, if your freedom/money/rep was on the line?
Also isn’t this a private organization/school?! So you’re now pushing extremist progressive talking points outright and formally? Good to know. Time to rebrand into generic leftist/prog propaganda outlet #2374
Would you be willing to go to court in a very conservative religious area, and argue that drag fetish culture isn’t obscene
Why should the people in “a very conservative religious area” represent the normative standard for what constitutes ‘obscene’?
When did Reason’s comment section get overrun by all these dull-witted conspiracy theorists who think there are “groomers” everywhere?
There is no giant conspiracy of left-wing groomers to groom and molest children. If anything grooming is a little more common in social-conservative circles, the children who are most vulnerable to grooming are those raised in households that encourage strict obedience to adults.
Nearly the entire argument these people have is that children are now being exposed to LGBT information and media at younger ages. Their argument is hogwash because there is nothing inherently sexual about LGBT themes. Showing kids a movie where two men fall in love is no more sexual than showing them a movie where a man and a woman fall in love. Taking kids to a song-and-dance fashion show is not sexual, even if the performers are males wearing dresses.
It is a national embarrassment that these idiotic theories are gaining any traction at all. The people who believe them are bigots and fools.
A pro groomer says what? Oh yeah, the above ^
Nearly the entire argument these people have is that children are now being exposed to LGBT information and media at younger ages. Their argument is hogwash because there is nothing inherently sexual about LGBT themes.
LOL. Anything LGBT is inherently sexual, because it is about sexual identity. It’s about who you like to fuck, and that makes it sexual. It’s not about “love”. People can love each other without fucking. Lesbians, gays, and bisexuals are signaling their SEXUAL desires.
I don’t have kids, but for what it’s worth, if I did, I wouldn’t want any of these perverts anywhere near them. This entire movement about basing your identity around who you want to fuck is insane and immature.
You know, it’s possible for gays to love each other too without fucking.
That’s why LibsofTikTok has to be stopped. None of this is happening and if we don’t see it, then it proves it’s not happening.
there is nothing inherently sexual about LGBT themes.
War Is Peace
Freedom Is Slavery
Ignorance Is Strength
Fine. Then Snow White is an “inherently sexual” story because Prince Charming and Snow White kiss at the end.
Is that your take?
Gay, lesbian and bisexual are literally sexualities.
“When did Reason’s comment section get overrun by all these dull-witted conspiracy theorists who think there are “groomers” everywhere?”
The outcry over “Hey, do not sexualize children” indicates a rather sizable number of groomers.
When did Reason’s comment section get overrun by all these dull-witted conspiracy theorists who think there are “groomers” everywhere?
Funny, I’ve been wondering for a while what about sexualized children makes the writership supportive of state-funded and state-motivated messaging. Like, for 40 yrs. they haven’t really had a problem with broadly saying, “The State shouldn’t support a Christian or Jewish or Muslim/Islamist message, nor should it oppose tobacco advertising or promote an anti-Christian or anti-Islamist message.” in a very solid libertarian message, but in the last < 5 yrs. they've very much deviated from "The State should neither promote nor demote speech." theme on a very, very narrow (and retarded) set of topics.
Almost like there is not conspiracy of groomers any more than their was a gay agenda. There's just a leviathan pushing an authoritarian agenda that just happens to wear gays or trannies as a skin suit sometimes and gays or trannies or people associated with them like to play along.
I’m surprised none of the woke elites have mentioned that drag queens actually mock trans culture in much the way that blackface mocks black culture. I guess they’re silent because they know drag queens piss off their political enemies.
Build your own Technical College.
That’s not a drag show, that’s just bad taste and lack of talent.
They picked the proper venue to host an LGBT event –
the Backdoor Playhouse. LMAO!!
That which isn’t banned shall be compulsory.
The problem isn’t drag queen shows. The problem is the compulsion to involve minors. If that slope isn’t slippery then the people making the argument need to unequivocally flatten it and remove all the lubrication. Otherwise, the obvious, and stated outcome is compulsory prostitution of children.
The monetization of castrating and mutilating children is something Reason somehow refused to talk about? Why…facts upsetting Nick’s narrative that “transphobia” is the problem?
Some facts:
Evolution has produced two biological sexes. Now you can dress as the opposite sex or have imitation surgery BUT pushing this on confused kids is abuse. Pushing it to expand your numbers is abuse. Monetizing it is abuse. Going into schools and advocating it is abuse. And why even if a person has convinced themselves they are trapped in the wrong biological body (think about that for a minute..rejecting reality ….I’m legally blind but if I reject that and identify with someone with 20/20 vision and go to the airforce and say I want to be a pilot…well you get the point), why would anyone advocate puberty blockers on kids. If you don’t reach puberty you stay a child…small, weak, immature sexual organs…a child. Oh..now I get it….MAP…NAMBLA crap…that is what Reason is defending if they don’t come out hard against this abuse…degenerates using language to attack anyone who calls them on this as “bigots”…and Reason editors are very very sensitive to not being invited to Wapo parties…
Evolution has produced two biological sexes.
Two biological sexes not just throughout humans but throughout mammalia and animal kingdom. That is, it’s readily conceivable through biology here on Earth of 0 genders or thousands and all the permutative ways in between of reproducing. But animals, especially higher animals, don’t do this. Even in animals where there are arguably three genetic/phenotypic individuals as standard, there are only two functional or reproductive genders. Even in hermaphroditic species, still just the two sex/gender functions. In higher animals this is even further restricted to the point that the two genders are, without exception, mutually exclusive.
The notion that you can, as a human, switch genders or exist as some part of a gamut of sex/genders is as absurd and offensive to both genders and humans in general as saying ‘”Yo hablo espanol.” is English for “I speak English.”‘. Even if you say “Me no habla.” or “Yo hablo English.”, it’s still just the two languages and even if you’re slurring one or the other the dominance/preponderance is there and the dysfunction (which shouldn’t imply moral judgement) is still obvious.
I’ve had straight roommates that would have kids in bed with them when they had sex. Some parents feel better about themselves exposing kids to drag. Really though Reason, if you knew anything about drag performers, you’d know what a really raunchy lot they are. Keep kids out of it. What does Tec have to do with drag anyway?
Like someone once said with regard to what is pornography (I will paraphrase the idea) – I can’t give you a specific description but I know it when I see it.
If the audience was strictly adult and thereby there was no children participating, the lewdness of the acts (and yes, they were lewd – as compared to a “drag queen” fashion show) would likely not have been in question or have provided a cause to question the show.
Because the show apparently sought the participation of children in the lewd acts, I am sure it passed some reasonable grounds of objection that “freedom of speech” could not alone protect the show.
There is a movement in the U.S. to sexualize children and doing so at younger and younger ages. The right and good purpose of protecting the innocence of immature persons is being ignored and overrun by that movement. Lewd drag shows involving children is one of the types of venues the movement to sexualize young children is being pursued.
Tennessee Tech was right to sanction the promoters of the lewd drag shows, due alone to the invited participation of children.
Can people carry guns onto campus? It’s a public institution and that’s a 2nd amendment right afterall.
How about if they have a Klan rally or put on a minstrel show where they all wear blackface? The school shouldn’t be able to discipline anyone or take any action on anything anyone does?
I guess I’m wrong. A public university can’t police speech at all unless it’s a direct threat to someone, or something of that nature.