That... doesn't answer my question at all, and I'm beginning to suspect you aren't good at paying attention.
That doesn't define what a "sexual gesticulation" is. It just defines that it is illegal when done with those prosthetics. So what is a sexual gesticulation?
Okay, let's go down that rabbit hole, if only to prove you are not actually principled on the matter. Tell me what is defined to be "sexual gesticulations", as referenced in section 43.28, subsection 1E. This should be easy to resolve if the boundaries of the law are as clearly defined as you keep saying it is.
Those laws will be enforced if someone breaks them
Laws are enforced when the enforcer's perception is that the law has been broken, not when the law is actually broken. Laws do not enforce themselves, they are enforced by humans, and those humans have beliefs. For example, many believe all drag is sexual. This means that the law will be enforced as such. Do you understand? This is the last time I will attempt to get you to acknowledge this simple fact of reality before I give up and assume you are either too stupid to understand this, or do understand it and are simply lying.
I'm choosing to be very kind by letting your attempted pedojacketing of me slide, as long as you finally acknowledge this.
If they view all drag as sexual why didn't they ban all drag?
If they view all drag as sexual performances, then banning sexual performances is effectively a ban on drag, with the added benefit that useful idiots will happily deploy smokescreens for you. This isn't complicated, you are simply engaging in willful ignorance. This is why I keep repeating that laws do not enforce themselves, but you have such a naive view of how government works that I don't think I can get through to you.
No, you have confirmed that you do not in fact understand me. I'm not saying "eventually it will ban them all." I'm saying the people writing and enforcing the law believe that all drag shows are sexual and thus this right now effectively makes it illegal to perform drag in front of children, because that is how the law will be applied in reality.
You keep repeating that it only bans sexual performances in front of children, but are not arguing against the idea that they view all drag as sexual. I'm forced now to assume this is on purpose.
Fun fact: it is the majority opinion among conservatives that being trans is a fetish and therefore sexual as well. That is what will be the focus in the future.
I don't think you do understand my criticism because you just again did the thing I'm criticizing. I'm saying the text of the law is not the whole picture because the real world application also matters and doesn't always perfectly reflect the literal text, and you just keep referring me back to the text of the law. I'm doing my damnedest to assume good intent from you but you are making it so hard. I don't think you'd be this deferential to government in most other situations.
I like how you completely ignored the premise of my criticism of only reading the exact text, and just referenced the exact text again. Incredibly naive view of government, but I can see I won't be able to change that today.
Thus, if we actually look at the bill, it doesn't outlaw drag shows altogether.
Laws must be viewed wholistically. You cannot simply examine the text as if it somehow came into being on its own and enforces itself as a perfectly neutral rule of nature. It is written and applied by humans. So, you must also look at the framers who wrote it and those who will apply it.
And if we do, we see that they mean all drag shows are sexual. You clearly do agree with this interpretation so I'm not sure why you're trying to deploy this smokescreen. They intend to use this as a ban on children being "exposed" to drag in any form, and it's hardly a stretch to argue it will be expanded to include trans people.
If you're not willing to engage with the honest reality, we're forced to assume you are a disingenuous propagandist and treat you accordingly.
Please, leaves
They think all drag queens are sexually explicit and will enforce the law accordingly. The laws are also nearly always written such that they affect any trans person simply being in public.
Versioning is one of those things that you don't realize you need until it's too late. Also, commits have messages that can be used to explain why something was done, which can be useful to store info without infodumping comments into your files.
Oh, it basically just means this thing that isn't clearly defined. Oh, you can just look it up. Look it up where, exactly? What texts are legally admissible to define this? Is it dealer's choice? And where is the line drawn, because a gesture can be sexual in one context and not in another. If someone thinks all drag is sexual, would that not influence how they interpret such a gesture?
This is what I meant. You made a big deal about it being supposedly "clearly defined". When shown that a crucial part of the law isn't clearly defined, you don't actually care, because it never actually mattered to you if it was. So what was the point of all this? Why did you waste my time with this act?