The Forbidding Unlawful Representation of Roleplaying in Education, or FURRIES, Act, filed by Austin-area Republican State Rep. Stan Gerdes, would “prohibit any non-human behavior by a student, including presenting himself or herself, on days other than exempt days, as anything other than a human being.”
The law would allow for exempt days, such as Halloween and other school dress-up days.
The law defines “non-human” behavior as “any type of behavior or accessory displayed by a student in a school district other than behaviors or accessories typically displayed by a member of the homo sapiens species,” with provided examples being:
Using a litter box for the passing of stool, urine or other human byproducts
A personal or outward display, except during a school play or by a school mascot, through surgical or superficial means of features that are non-human such as using tails, leashes, collars or other accessories designed for pets
Using fur, other than naturally occurring human hair or a wig made to look like human hair
Artificial, animal-like ears
Other physiological features that have not historically been assigned to the human race through a means of natural biological development
Students who bark, meow, hiss or make other animal noises that are not human speech
Licking oneself or others for the purpose of grooming or maintenance.
NATHON!! STOP ACTING LIKE A HOMO ERECTUS YOU NEANDERTHAL!
also im pretty sure “human” means ‘under the homo genus’ not ‘homo sapien’ but its not like it matters to them
Surely any behavior performed by a human is behavior that is performed by humans and therefore anything is authorized under this act. Lots of humans do dress up in cat ears, so dressing up in cat ears is human behavior.
Wow there sure is a lot of behavior and accessories not “typcal to homo sapiens” makes me wonder what the hell they even mean here by “typical”, it’s like calling someone “objectively not normal” while ignoring that your entire view on normality is based on what you have been exposed to. I am not a furry or a therian or anything, but the flaws in this law absolutely allow it to be applied to just about any “behavior or accessory”
There are enough furry conventions that you cannot say it’s not typical. Also have you not interacted with children at all? Because they play as if they’re cats or dogs or wolves and many other animals all the time, are you saying that typical child behavior is not typical human behavior?
I feel there has been a misunderstanding here.
Im not saying anything against furries, I am instead stating that our ideas of normality are entirely socially constructed, meaning this bill could be applied to basically any behavior depending on your interpretation of what is “typical to homo sapiens” I could, for example, state that it is normal for someone to be a furry, as humans have a long history of portraying themselves in similar ways. I could also say that a piercing is an “atypical” accessory not permitted by the rules. There is no such thing as normal. To call something weird is just to simply state that you haven’t been exposed to it enough for it to qualify as weird for you.
These are the same people that defined us all as female afterall.