A proposed legislation aimed at prohibiting drag shows in public schools, libraries, and select businesses sparked intense debate on Thursday. The issue divided LGBTQ individuals, public workers, and local arts groups who argued against conservative parent groups. These parents believed that drag performances, along with gender nonconformity, posed inherent risks to children.
In his remarks to lawmakers on the Republican-majority House Judiciary Committee, sponsor Rep. Braxton Mitchell, R-Kalispell, said House Bill 359 was a response to the nationwide increase in all-ages drag events, including drag story hours, which he described as “hypersexual” and inappropriate for children.
Mitchell stated that, in their opinion, a family-friendly drag show does not exist.
On Thursday, opponents criticized the current version of HB 359 for its broad and inaccurate definition of “drag performance.” The bill defines it as the act of presenting a gender identity different from the performer’s assigned gender at birth through the use of clothing, makeup, or physical markers, while engaging in entertainment activities such as singing, lip syncing, dancing, or other performances intended to appeal to prurient interests. Detractors argue that this definition unfairly encompasses transgender individuals.
HB 359 is one of several Montana bills that LGBTQ rights groups describe as a collective attempt to push their community members, particularly transgender people, out of the public sphere. Other Republican-sponsored bills — a ban on gender-affirming medical care for minors, a prohibition on broadly defined “obscene materials” in public schools, and a bill allowing medical providers to withhold health care services based on their religious and moral beliefs — have advanced through the Montana Senate and House chambers with comfortable margins in recent days.
Opponents of HB 359 continued to express their opposition during the recent hearings, urging lawmakers once again to reject the bill, which they claimed to be both harmful and unnecessary.
Chloe Runs Behind, a member of the progressive group Forward Montana, expressed that the government’s primary role should be safeguarding our rights rather than making laws based on false information and fear. She asserted that transgender individuals do not pose a threat to the youth of Montana, and instead, it is the legislators who misuse their authority by making decisions for Montana families that pose a danger to the state.
Proponents during Thursday’s two-hour long hearing included Montana Superintendent of Public Instruction Elsie Arntzen, the Montana Family Foundation and members of parent advocacy groups, including the Yellowstone County chapter for Moms for Liberty, a national conservative group that has supported anti-LGBTQ book bans and school curricula reforms in other states. Several backers of the bill described drag performance as predatory, sexual and psychologically damaging for children
Proponent Johanna Kennedy questioned, “What is the reason behind granting them access to our children? Why should we subject our developing children to situations that unsettle them and expose them to distorted depictions of sexuality and sexual relationships?”
Democratic lawmakers continuously disrupted the testimony of supporters, claiming that certain statements were unrelated to the proposed bill and unfairly linked drag performers to pedophiles and sexual predators. Rep. Laurie Bishop, D-Livingston, asked for assistance in addressing misleading testimony, to which committee chair Amy Regier, R-Kalispell, responded by deeming the comments mostly acceptable.
Regier explained that the subject at hand is quite extensive, with differing opinions on both sides. He emphasized the importance of listening to testimony on this matter, as it is a significant concern for the proponents.
Later, opponents made efforts to disentangle those connections, expressing concern and exasperation over the allegations put forth by the supporters of the bill.
“The misconception that I’m noticing is a significant confusion between sexual orientation, gender identity, sexual activity, predatory behavior, and sexual abuse. This is precisely why we opposed the advancement of this bill. We were well aware that this would become the focus of the discussion,” expressed SK Rossi, a lobbyist from Montana who represents the Human Rights Campaign. “The LGBTQ community is exhausted by being unjustly labeled as sexual predators, groomers, or individuals seeking to harm children. We are not.”
Several individuals, donning drag ensembles and intricate makeup, provided testimony regarding the beneficial influence drag has had on their personal journeys. Elani Borhegyi, an artist known by the stage name Jackie Rosebutch, expressed that drag performances have served as a wonderfully liberating medium for their self-expression and bolstered their confidence.
Borhegyi expressed that engaging in drag has greatly enhanced their self-esteem and potential as a queer trans person. They believe drag has been a saving grace, not only for themselves but also for others. Many individuals have approached them with tears in their eyes, sharing how their presence on stage has brought them a sense of courage, strength, and visibility.
The ACLU of Montana and the Montana Federation of Public Employees, along with other opponents, raised concerns about various legal matters such as free speech, discrimination, and the absence of a clear definition of “prurient interest” in HB 359. Representatives from local performers and community theaters also expressed their worries that the bill would have a detrimental impact on their productions and artistic freedom.
Charlie Macorn, a stand-up comedian from Montana, expressed concern about being entangled in a moral panic due to this legislation. He questioned the feasibility of expecting individuals to determine which clothes are designated for specific genders, emphasizing the importance of safeguarding our constitutional rights to freedom of expression. It is crucial, Macorn asserted, that we protect our ability to communicate and express ourselves freely.
The bill’s scope has been questioned by opponents and certain committee lawmakers. Apart from public schools and libraries, the bill seeks to prevent minors from entering “sexually oriented businesses,” which include nightclubs, bars, restaurants, or similar commercial establishments that feature audiences, nude performances, drag shows, and allow alcohol consumption.
Mitchell, the individual responsible for the bill, argued that the given definitions were designed specifically for sexually oriented establishments. He further expressed confidence in our collective understanding of what constitutes such businesses.
The committee, which includes 12 of the bill’s listed Republican cosponsors, did not vote on HB 359 Thursday. When lawmakers do consider it, Mitchell said he and other lawmakers have drafted possible amendments, including one that would define drag performance as one that “features topless dancers, exotic dancers, strippers, or male or female impersonators who provide entertainment that appeals to a prurient interest, regardless of whether or not performed for consideration.”
A further amendment is proposed to strengthen the implementation of penalties for teachers or any other public employees who are discovered to have violated the regulations prohibiting drag performances in educational institutions and libraries. Additionally, a third amendment aims to provide a clear definition of “prurient interest” as the inclination to stimulate lascivious thoughts.
Thursday’s committee vote on the bill was not disclosed by Regier, the committee chair.
