A new bill is being proposed by a Republican representative in Arkansas that seeks to criminalize the social transitioning of minors. Several lawmakers have raised their eyebrows at the bill’s description, however, since it defines “social transitioning” as changes in clothing, pronouns, hairstyle, and name or generally anything that involves gender identity that’s different from biological sex.
House Bill 1668 is the proposed mandate in question and it’s authored by Rep. Mary Bentley. She also dubbed it the Vulnerable Youth Protection Act. Apparently, some of the bill’s clauses are even redundant, especially against doctors who malpractice with castration, sterilization, and mutilation of a minor. Still, Bentley included “social transitioning” as a new argument in support of House Bill 1668.
The Arkansas bill seeks to allow lawsuits to social transitioning or its enablers, something which it also clearly defines as:
“‘Social transitioning’ means any act by which a minor adopts or espouses a gender identity that differs from the minor’s biological sex as determined by the sex organs, chromosomes, and endogenous profiles of the minor, including without limitation changes in clothing, pronouns, hairstyle, and name,” according to House Bill 1668.
Soon after, the definition caused a re-review; a senior lawyer from Attorney General Tim Griffin’s office even flagged the bill for violating free speech rights, which are granted by the First Amendment. Bentley has agreed to pull down the bill for changes in light of the skepticism around it.
Bentley, however, also defended her bill, stating that social transitioning is excessively harmful to children. Her bill, for the record, allows the incrimination of parents who change the pronouns of their children even if all parties have expressed consent.
“I think that we’re just stating that social transitioning is excessively harmful to children and we want to change that in our state. We want to make sure that our children are no longer exposed to that danger,” suggests Rep. Mary Bentley
Many have suggested that it’s a bad bill, especially since it might need to impose or clearly define which clothing, names, or hairstyles fit into certain biological sexes. Speaking of hairstyle, others have pointed out that perhaps Rep. Mary Bentley needs to look at hers first before trying to establish acceptable sex or gender norms.
Was that Karen Cut a Little Too Masculine?
Rep. Mary Bentley’s bill and the news of its pull-down has made its way into Reddit and immediately, some people were quick to criticize Bentley’s hairstyle. Supposedly, the “Karen” hair is a little too short for others to be considered feminine, hence one of the top comments in r/facepalm pointed out Mary Bentley’s tomboy hairstyle, something that many people who are in the process of “social transitioning” could easily assume.
“… While having a tomboy haircut.
Will girls still be able to wear ‘boys’ clothes’? Because you’re going to need to lose the blazers and suits. Full length dresses only!” jokes u/uey01
“Well, this woman is peak Karen, the traditional ‘ Karen’ haircut is generally a steeply-angled and asymmetrical bob cut.
That said, this woman is a moron, wasting ludicrous tax dollars all because she doesn’t like children’s haircuts. FFS, Republicans, what did you all ingest?” fumes u/CausticSofa
Others have pointed out that Mary Bentley’s bill is a little too similar to North Korea’s “state-mandated clothing and haircuts.” In any case, Bentley’s Arkansas bill won’t be exactly a good look for a constitution that prizes free speech and rights. At the moment, the bill is still under review and consideration courtesy of ArkTimes’ updates.
