Texas GOP wants to ban kids from playing dress-up: Yes, really
"This whole thing is just weird and, honestly, a little creepy." That comes from a debate in the Texas state legislature that was supposedly about "furries," a subculture of people who dress up as anthropomorphic animal characters. But it wasn't the furries that state Rep. James Talarico, a Democrat, was calling creepy.
That would be Republican state Rep. Stan Gerdes, author of the FURRIES Act, an embarrassing acronym that unpacks into the "Forbidding Unlawful Representation of Roleplaying in Education Act." Gerdes claims to believe that children in elementary schools are "identifying" as animals, and that the schools are indulging this supposedly dangerous delusion by letting kids eat out of dog bowls or use litter boxes instead of regular bathrooms. Absolutely no part of that true, and it is indeed "a little creepy" for Republicans to obsess over an entirely imaginary problem.
"Texas schools are for educating kids, not indulging in radical trends," declared Gerdes in an X post announcing the bill, which has the support of Republican Gov. Greg Abbott. The bill purports to ban "non-human behaviors" in school, a list that includes "using a litter box for the passing of stool," "barking, meowing, hissing, or other animal noises," "licking oneself" and an "outward display" of "features that are non-human." There's also a helpful list of such features, including fake tails, "animal-like" ears and fur, whether fake or real, which could certainly cramp the style of those who enjoy fuzzy outerwear in cold weather.
Careful readers may already notice that wearing costumes, which is what Gerdes is trying to describe with this overwrought pseudo-legal language, is not "non-human behavior." Indeed, it is exclusively human behavior. Sure, some folks put little outfits on their pet cats and dogs, but that's not the animal's doing. At least on this planet, only members of homo sapiens are freaky enough to be entertained by a cat dressed as an avocado. I'll note that most cats look annoyed, rather than joyful, when forced to don human-made lewks.Everything about this bill is based on false claims and absolute nonsense. Young children are not "identifying" as animals in school. The superintendent of the school that was accused of letting kids use litter boxes told the Houston Chronicle that no such thing was happening, and that she'd made an "extra effort" to investigate classrooms herself. "Furries" are real people, mind you, but they're adults — and they don't "identify" as animals, either. They are hobbyists who enjoy dressing up as cartoon characters and stuffed animals, create elaborate artworks involving anthropomorphic animals and sometimes attend conventions while wearing homemade animal costumes.
As for child "furries," that's not a thing because it's both impossible and redundant. Enjoying cartoons, playing games where you sometimes pretend to be an animal and sleeping with your "stuffie" are nearly universal interests for the playground set. "Furries," by definition, are people who still do that stuff after growing up. Yes, some adult furries engage in sexual activity wearing their animal costumes, which is a big part of the moral panic here. But let's get real: Consider the random woman (or man, or whomever) you saw dressed as "sexy cat" last Halloween.
None of this, to be clear, is about animals or about the fiction that some people "identify" as animals. This nonsense is ultimately a backdoor assault on the rights of LGBTQ people. For decades, Christian conservatives have been pushing the myth that LGTBQ identities aren't real; they're just a "trend" pushed by nefarious forces onto gullible young people. That narrative isn't applied quite as loudly to gay people in recent years, but the notion that being trans is a "social contagion" has blossomed into a full-blown moral panic, widely accepted by credulous mainstream media, author J.K. Rowling and even the British Supreme Court. The "furry" urban legend just adds more fuel to the fire. The implicit message here is: "We let the kids be trans and now they think they can be animals." It's a reworked version of a scare tactic the right formerly used to demonize same-sex marriage, by claiming it opened the door to human-pet marriage.
"They have to create more and more absurd examples in order to keep justifying the oppression," explained Imara Jones, a journalist who founded TransLash Media, which seeks to tell the truth about trans people's lives as a counterweight to nonsense like the "furry" narrative. The far-right's goal is to "eliminate trans people from public life completely," Jones argued, and maybe even to force trans people into institutions. With a goal that extreme, she added, "They have to transform trans people into an extreme threat to themselves and others."
Jones compares this to the anti-immigration strategy used by Donald Trump's administration. Both during the campaign and in the White House, Trump and his staff have lied repeatedly about immigrants, claiming they eat pets, they're being used as bioweapons to spread disease, and they are secretly an invading army sent to destroy America. Vice President JD Vance has admitted that these stories are false, claiming that right-wingers are entitled to "create stories" to get the media to "pay attention."
As Jones explains it, once the right has transformed all immigrants into "dangerous predators," that creates political justification to "do all sorts of things," including illegally arresting them and sending them to foreign prison camps with no pretense of due process. The "furry" hoax, she suggests, is a "parallel effort" to justify human rights abuses against trans people. So far, Republicans have not tried to use this ginned-up moral panic to arrest trans people en masse, but we're clearly seeing escalating attacks. Trump signed a series of executive orders meant to make it harder for trans people to move about in public, work, get an education or even use a public bathroom. So far, the biggest impact has been in the U.S. military, after the Supreme Court allowed Trump's ban on trans service members to remain in place. The Defense Department wants to discharge more than 4,000 trans service members who have done nothing wrong.
Despite their claims to be defending humankind from this imaginary animalistic incursion, Texas Republicans are being deeply anti-human with this "furry" bill. The behaviors that Gerdes' bill seeks to stigmatize are — as any person who has ever met a child or been a child could tell you — entirely normal forms of play. Kids love animals! The love to pretend to be animals, which is why so many children's books, movies, TV shows and toys feature human-like animal characters as often as human ones. Older kids and adults — even those who aren't furries — also love some animal-themed goofing off: Consider the mascots associated wity many college sports teams. Cultures from every corner of the planet have holidays and festivals where people dress up in colorful animal masks or costumes.
Gerdes' bill includes some "exceptions" to his draconian ban on this universal human behavior, but those only serve to underscore the bizarre misanthropy of the MAGA movement. Schools are allowed to celebrate Halloween or "school dress-up or activity days" that feature costumes — but only if "there are not more than five such days in a school year." Exceptions are made for school plays and sports mascots. That's it, though. If a group of second-graders want to play "My Little Pony" during recess, or act out an episode of "Paw Patrol," they'd better do it on one of their allotted five days a year! This is an especially ludicrous example of how anti-trans panic serves as a pretext for stripping away creativity and free expression from virtually everybody, regardless of their gender or sexual identity.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Axios
17 minutes ago
- Axios
Threats to Tesla's revenue are piling up
Tesla faces fresh risks to a big income stream: sales of regulatory credits to other automakers under vehicle emissions and efficiency rules. Why it matters: Tesla's credit sales were $595 million last quarter and totaled $3.36 billion in the five quarters through Q1 of 2025. The credits are awarded to companies like Tesla that exceed emissions standards. Producers of gas-powered vehicles buy them to help meet various CO2 and mileage standards. The latest: Republicans on the Senate's commerce committee late last week proposed ending civil penalties under the Transportation Department's fuel economy rules. It's part of the committee's portion of the budget "reconciliation" bill — the top GOP and White House legislative priority. The provision would "modestly" cut auto prices by ending penalties on automakers that now "design cars to conform to the wishes of DC bureaucrats rather than consumers," a GOP summary states. The intrigue:"This Senate action would effectively end the market for CAFE credits," Chris Harto, a senior policy analyst at Consumer Reports, tells Axios via email. Dan Becker, who heads the Safe Climate Transport Campaign at the Center for Biological Diversity, noted: "Why buy credits if Trump gives you a get out of CAFE free card?" Driving the news: Separately, DOT on Friday issued an "interpretive rule" that bars consideration of EVs when it sets these mileage rules. It's a step toward crafting replacement standards, DOT said. This paves the way for less aggressive requirements — and less need for buying credits. State of play: Several buckets of credits benefit Tesla, the dominant U.S. EV seller. EPA emissions standards, Transportation Department fuel economy mandates, and California's ambitious clean cars program all provide opportunities. European emissions rules also generate credits. The big picture: The regulatory credit market was already facing risks before all the news late last week. EPA is planning to rescind Biden-era EPA carbon emissions rules for model years 2027 and onward. The House-passed reconciliation bill and the Senate GOP proposal would also nix them. And the House bill pulls back Biden-era DOT mileage rules. Both chambers have passed measures that end EPA's approval of California's auto emissions rules. Threat level: Potential loss of credit revenues comes at a perilous time for Tesla. Its sales have slumped in recent quarters, and CEO Elon Musk's rightward turn and alliance with Trump are among the reasons why, analysts say. The House plan ends $7,500 consumer purchase subsidies for EVs under the Democrats' 2022 Inflation Reduction Act. By the numbers: Credit revenues exceeded Tesla's overall profit last quarter — in other words, it would have been in the red without them. Yes, Q1 was atypically weak for Tesla, but consider Q4 of 2024, when Tesla reported $2.13 billion in profits that were helped along by $692 million in credit sales. In Q3, those numbers were $2.17B and $739M, respectively. Friction point: More broadly, the meltdown of Tesla CEO Elon Musk's relationship with Trump also creates new and unpredictable risks for the billionaire entrepreneur's business empire.


San Francisco Chronicle
20 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Americans still have faith in local news − but few are willing to pay for it
(The Conversation is an independent and nonprofit source of news, analysis and commentary from academic experts.) Jennifer Hoewe, Purdue University (THE CONVERSATION) Many Americans say they have lost trust in national news – but most still believe they can rely on the accuracy of local news. In 2023, trust in national newspapers, TV and radio reached historic lows. Just 32% of Americans said they have a 'great deal' or 'fair amount' of trust in these news sources. In 1976, by comparison, 72% of Americans said they had a 'great deal' or 'fair amount' of trust in mass media, including newspapers, TV and radio. And in 2021, the United States ranked last among 46 countries in the trust citizens placed in news outlets. Yet even as the local news industry is declining in the U.S. – more than 3,200 local and regional newspapers have closed since 2005 – Americans still place much more trust in local news than they do in national news. In 2024, 74% of Americans said they had 'a lot of' or 'some' trust in their local news organizations, and 85% believed their local news outlets are at least somewhat important to their community. I am a former local journalist who studies the effects that media content can have on people. Local news can help people understand what their local government is doing, stay aware of day-to-day events, such as local weather, traffic, sports, schools and crime, and even feel a greater sense of community. The decline of local news News organizations in the U.S. have long relied on commercial business practices – such as advertising from companies and subscriptions from readers – that have not been financially sustainable since the mid-2000s. Newspapers' advertising revenue peaked around 2005 and has since rapidly declined from more than $49 billion a year in 2005 to less than $10 billion in 2020, according to the Pew Research Center. This drop was driven by the rise of the internet. As a result, the U.S. has lost more than a third of its local and regional newspapers since 2004. Of the local newspapers that remain, 80% are weeklies, as opposed to the daily local newspapers that were more common in the past. With fewer reporters and editors who closely follow the ins and outs of local and state issues, local newspapers are now less able to hold state and local government officials accountable for their actions. Americans also read local newspapers less than they once did. Since 2015, print and digital circulation numbers have dropped 40% for weekday news editions and 45% for Sunday editions among locally focused daily newspapers and their websites. Instead, a larger percentage of Americans now turn to their family members, friends and neighbors than their local news outlets for local news. Despite local news' problems with declining revenue and readership, Americans still trust local news – and this trust crosses partisan lines. A 2024 Pew Research Center survey found that both Republicans and Democrats think local journalists are in touch with their local communities. The majority of Democrats and Republicans in this survey agreed that local news media 'report news accurately,' 'are transparent about their reporting,' 'cover the most important stories/issues' and 'keep an eye on local political leaders.' This might be because local newspapers can focus on issues people encounter in their day-to-day lives rather than on national politics. In many cases, readers are also able to more easily connect with local journalists in their communities and share story ideas or feedback. People learn about their elected officials and become more informed about local issues from their local news, making it an important component of developing a well-informed public. The current local news environment When people no longer have access to local news sources, or they stop following local news coverage, their faith in the integrity of local elections decreases, their ability to assess elected officials is worse, and voter turnout is lower in local elections, compared with those who do follow, read, watch or listen to local news. Some Americans started relying more heavily on national news when local newspapers shut down, which research shows led to increases in political polarization. My research found that when people trust a partisan-leaning national news source, for example, they're very likely to agree with the partisan-slanted news stories published by that source. As nonpartisan local newspapers have vanished or downsized, partisan-leaning online local news content has cropped up over the past several years. These sites publish news stories that are focused on local issues but approach it with a partisan bent. As a result, people looking for local news information may take in unreliable information that is presented as local news and interpret it as trustworthy. Verifying the origins and intentions of information continues to be paramount for news consumers to make sure they are receiving accurate information – including when it comes to local news.


Boston Globe
24 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Trump is touting a $3 trillion tariff windfall. Don't bank on it.
(Net tariff revenue, which excludes certain other excise tax revenue and includes tariff rebates or refunds, accounts for 80 to 85 percent of the gross figure.) Over the next decade, the tariffs in place as of May 13 Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up But hold on — tariff math gets complicated. Advertisement Yes, even with the national debt at $36 trillion, $3 trillion isn't a laughing matter. For context, the CBO says the House Republicans' 'big, beautiful' bill Trump quickly seized on the forecasts, asserting that tariffs would more than pay for the tax cuts and new spending — leaving, in his words, a 'tremendous surplus.' But that argument only works if imports stay high and the economy doesn't slow — both unlikely under his own policies. Advertisement Still, expect to hear about that big windfall a lot as the president pushes the bill in the Senate, where even A closer look reveals just how shaky that claim is. Here's a rundown. American businesses and consumers pay Trump's tariffs — not foreign governments. Despite what the president says, US importers shoulder the cost and pass much of it to their customers — other businesses and consumers — in the form of higher prices. Trump's plan trades income-tax cuts that disproportionately benefit the rich for consumption taxes that hit low- and middle-income households harder. Inflation will heat up. The CBO said tariffs would boost inflation — as measured by the personal consumption expenditures index — by an annual average of 0.4 percentage points in 2025 and 2026. The PCE rate was an annualized 2.1 percent in April. The Budget Lab at Yale University Prices for essentials like clothing and shoes are expected to surge. Shoe and apparel prices will spike 31 percent and 28 percent, respectively, in the short term, the Budget Lab said. The economy will slow. Duties will cut gross domestic product by 0.6 percent, or $266 billion, cumulatively through 2035, according to the CBO. The modest reduction is the net of positive effects — such as smaller deficits and more money available for private investments — and negative effects including lower productivity. The Budget Lab forecasts a bigger long-term drag on growth from tariffs: 0.3 percentage point, or $100 billion, each year. Advertisement It sees We can't rely on tariff revenues. Trade flows fluctuate for several reasons, including the pace of economic growth and the level of import duties. Many economists say Trump's erratic trade policies have caused enough uncertainty to trigger a US recession, which would curb spending on imports and drive tariff revenues lower. Moreover, there is a disconnect in Trump's strategy: He argues that tariffs will both raise trillions of dollars and force other countries to negotiate trade deals that are more favorable for the United States. But if he succeeds at the negotiating table, tariff revenue will decline — and the 'tremendous surplus' will shrink. Final thought President Trump doesn't just love tariffs — he touts them as the cure to all of America's economic ills. In his mind, they're a magic wand he can wave to reduce the trade deficit, revive domestic manufacturing, and pay for tax cuts. But magical thinking doesn't work in the real world of global economics. Larry Edelman can be reached at