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.

  • luce [they/she]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    ·
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    The law defines “non-human” behavior “any type of behavior… [not typically] displayed by a member of the homo sapiens species,”

    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

    • Echo Dot@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      6 hours ago

      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.

      • luce [they/she]@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 hour ago

        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”

        • argarath@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          12 minutes ago

          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?

    • umbraroze@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      9 hours ago

      The law defines “non-human” behavior “any type of behavior… [not typically] displayed by a member of the homo sapiens species,”

      “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Florida forever.”