the phrasing "who exhibit a gender identity that is different from the performer’s . . . biological sex" makes me feel like they would try to apply this to mean no trans person could be a "performer"

I, for one, am looking forward to the protests.

So if a trans woman wears only men’s clothing, the likelihood of her boobs being noticeable is high. Would that be considered indecent? But if she wears feminine clothing and undergarments, is she being obscene? If this is the case, then how can that woman be out in public? She’d be guilty the moment she sets foot outside.

There is no moral defense to this bill. It’s erasure pure and simple.

This is fucked up shit

Nothing says drag like big old natural free range titties, I guess...?

Fuck off conservatives, you are worse than worthless.

If i understand correctly, they aren't even using real terms like nipples and genitals in the bill and are opting for the euphamism "Private area/Private parts" -The thing is, if one were to go streaking in broad daylight, that person would cease to have "private" anything as all body parts and areas would be visible to the public. checkmate!

You motherfuckers wanted a Christian Nation. I hope you hate it. I hope serving Jesus makes you fucking miserable.

Stay out of California. We don't want your shit.

I know breasts drop a bit when the bra comes off, but it's a bit much to legislate against them dragging on the ....

Oh!

got bail money

this is fucked up shit you have going on in your country (not your fault) but also this is not really historically exceptional. laws like these have existed throughout history. just to give a few examples, people in the west today like to complain about how oppressive the taliban are for making women wear hijabs but in europe 200 years ago it was also customary for women to wear some garment around their hair as to not show the hair in public.