Some observations:
(7) Ban conversion therapy. Under this subdivision, conversion therapy, means a therapeutic practice in which a licensed medical professional, acting under authorized consent, assists a client in the goal or realigning the client's sexual preference to prefer members of the opposite sex who have corresponding reproductive anatomy;
I’ve never heard of conversion therapy being performed by a licensed medical professional. It might have happened sometime somewhere, but it’s definitely not the norm. In addition, conversion therapy isn’t banned outright in most places, only for people under 18. It makes me wonder what they think “conversion therapy” actually is.
(8) Permit public libraries or public schools in the state to partner with nonsecular organizations to promote, host, sponsor, favor, or endorse drag queen storytime;
Ignoring the free speech issues (which is complicated by the fact that most libraries are technically government agencies) this is awfully narrow and specific.
(9) Mandate pronoun changes;
What does this even mean? Is it a prohibition against changing gender markers, in which case it’s badly worded, or is it a prohibition in literal policing of pronoun use, which is not a thing *anyone* is calling for?
(10) Condone or affirm homosexual, transgender, zoophilia, objectophilia, polygamy, or sexual orientation doctrines; and
1.) Interesting how they lump all those things together as if there were no meaningful difference between them, yet leave out pedophilia… despite it usually being the *first* thing conservatives think of when they’re trying to lump same-sex relationships with forms of “immoral” sexuality. Oversight? Taking a covert pro-pedophilia position? Lumping it with “sexual orientation doctrines” for some strange reason?
2.) “Not condoning or affirming” is a way of saying “not taking a side”, which, in terms of government policy, nearly always comes down to “enforcing the status quo” which is really taking a side while being in denial about it. And the rest of this makes it clear that they’re not even doing that, but going for a change in the status quo which would return to the pre-Obergefell vs. Hodges era. Again, I’m wondering what they think this wording even means.
(2) A person's right to set the person's self-asserted, sex-based identity narrative or sexual orientation;
This is basically a way of saying “Identify as an attack helicopter all you want, we won’t grossly violate your free speech rights. However, your personal identity won’t be legally acknowledged. Unless you’re cis and straight, in which case we’ll pretend that those things aren’t part of anyone’s identity while legally acknowledging them as such anyway.”