You must log in or register to comment.
I’m reminded of the story of a couple comprised of a cis woman and a trans woman who wanted to get married in a state that was trying to forbid gay marriage. The state was in the position of either accepting that the trans woman was a woman and trying to forbid their marriage, or asserting that she was not in fact a woman but then allowing them to get married.
I’ll always remember this one time in the 1990s when my family and I were watching some medical documentary on cable TV. There was footage of a trans woman getting top surgery, and they showed the medical details and cutting of her uncovered chest with no problem, but the instant the breast implant was slipped beneath the patient’s skin they blurred out the nipple because it became unsuitable for unedited broadcast at that moment.
i think about that moment a lot.
gender affirming censorship
The fact they just censored the nipples still 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
Trust me when I say this: none of the right-wing media/politicians, will understand that they’ve made any points on behalf of the protestors by blurring the “men’s” nipples.
Also, saying men can go around topless but not women, is sexist. Any such law should be removed. We should all be equal in the eyes of the law. With that said: that shouldn’t imply that women should go around topless. It should just be legally allowed. I’m a guy, but I don’t think I need to explain to anyone the potential complications from going around topless as a woman… Whether trans or not.
The whole situation is dumb. Society needs to do better. We’re all people. Let’s keep that in mind and treat everyone the same, based on the fact that they are a human person in society. No legal separation of sex, gender, race, religion, or anything else. If you are a human person, you should have the same rights and freedoms as every other human person.
I’m a guy, but I don’t think I need to explain to anyone the potential complications from going around topless as a woman… Whether trans or not.
It’s normal and fairly mundane for men to go topless in virtually all societies, however, there are a good number of cultures where it is also normal for women to be topless. If it is normal and mundane for women to be topless, then it becomes a non-issue eventually. It’s only racy because we’re trained in our culture to find it racy.
You won’t find disagreement here.
The fact of the matter is that the change won’t happen overnight; and there’s already a disproportional number of assaults against women, even if they’re fully dressed when the assault begins.
While the argument of “she was asking for it” relating to what someone is wearing, is entirely bullshit and without any merit, and the fact that it’s on the male culture to… Idk, not be rapists, and not encourage rapists and rapist tenancies; I know plenty of women that don’t want to risk encouraging such behavior against themselves. Whether they should need to or not isn’t material to the point. They don’t feel safe otherwise.
I’m not going to tell anyone what to wear. I will say that maybe people just shouldn’t rape other people, regardless of circumstances. No, not maybe. They definitely should not, under any circumstances, ever rape anyone. Just don’t rape people.
Anyways. It would be a long road to get to the place you propose, and a lot of violence would likely happen before we would see the ideal that you are describing. I wish it was different, but I can’t change the world, I can only change myself.
In the late 90s or early aughts here in Canada women challenged and won the right to go topless as well as men. I can’t recall seeing in person any women exercising that right myself, and it won’t surprise me if the religions conservatives here have managed to overturn that directly or indirectly, but as a teenager/young adult i thought it was cool at the time that Canada fixed that inequality
Didn’t really have a point here just felt like sharing
OH! Finally! A chance to use my knowledge acquired from scrolling wikipedia while procrastinating! That law hasn’t been overturned and is still, well, law. Of course every once in a while some clueless cop (because why should somebody enforcing the law, know the law sigh) will ask a topless sunbather to cover up. Here’s the article.
True, however we are also trained to be everything. Literally whole law, moral system and everything about human society is subjective and made up. Should we pursue to deconstruct this subjectivity? No it is what allows us to function. However we should pursue equality in an egalitarian sense of every member of society.
Our subjective and made up rules should be equal for all members of the society and where they cannot be because they meet biological objectivity there they need to be humane and in best interest of the person in light of law so that the person can live with dignity and possess full autonomy unless judged to be stripped away from such
Saying ‘women shouldn’t go around topless’ isn’t allowing society to function. It’s sexist and demonizes women’s bodies in a way that promotes violence against women. Deconstruct your society or don’t, but don’t be surprised when you end up in a death camp because you thought it was fine to give second class person status to half your population.
It’s like on the last place of my problems but if this is what most people want then we should obviously change it. However something tells me that it’s not a problem and most people do not care if it wasn’t ever even voted on.
Loud minority screams “I wanna go naked on the streets” and honestly it’s one of the more ridiculous things. Let’s focus on real problems such as abortion and whole birth giver societal asymmetry and how to fairly address it to make society more egalitarian.
No one is seriously thinking “oh no I have to put my shirt on before going out, this is fascism” men and women alike aren’t going bare chested in the city in the streets because this is how we agreed. No one wants to see your saggy breasts and no one wants to see disgusting male beer bellies.
Go to the beach and there go topless all you want. That’s what I do anyway. We collectively agreed that this is where it is fine to do so. Or on your property, you can walk even completely naked all you want.
I know my one neighbor is every morning going naked on the balcony and has a huge cock so I guess it’s kind of confidence thing too. Generally he is built rather nicely to look at. Still his balcony so he can do whatever he wants no matter how attractive and I can go naked on my balcony too
However something tells me that it’s not a problem and most people do not care if it wasn’t ever even voted on.
No, actually people want equality. We’ve been fighting for it for centuries. We’ll be fighting for it as long as there are people who want to take it away.
Loud minority screams “I wanna go naked on the streets”
Men go topless all the time. The fact you need to bend over backwards here is an obvious demonstration that you are not arguing in good faith. @splendoruranium@infosec.pub, do you see what I mean?
“oh no I have to put my shirt on before going out, this is fascism”
More of the same. Really stunning to watch a person tie themselves into knots for the sake of inequality. Some people really do hate women.
Go to the beach and there go topless all you want. That’s what I do anyway. We collectively agreed that this is where it is fine to do so. Or on your property, you can walk even completely naked all you want.
Women should be allowed to go topless wherever men can. See how it’s trivial to describe when the goal is equality. It’s inequality that adds needless complexity.
Radical gender centrist
This really says it all. The word you’re looking for is misogynist.
Sure I am misogynist cause I don’t wanna go with my tits out to the streets
It’s hard to believe there are actually people like you out there, somewhere. Counterproductive to any kind of movement. Sabotaging it over and over again. Derailing any semblance of productive equality action.
The kind of 2.5% support left that can never understand why people do not vote for them. Always surprised when bubble bursts, then outraged. Eternal victims.
Good luck to your bare tits cause
Removed by mod
Why can’t trans women count as women? Trans women have historically faced even higher rates of discrimination than cis women.
I’ve never bought this notion that recognizing trans women as women in turn affects women’s rights or systems that support women. That’s like saying just because my 23 and me came back 1% African we should stop DEI because if everyone is diverse then it doesn’t make sense to support diversity. (I swear to God, if I get Trump jokes—).
Life is complicated and we’ve managed to evolve systems to handle it before, we can continue. If I can have 3 ways to sort my 401k or do my taxes then I can have a world where I’m a feminist and that includes trans women
SOMETIMES A CHECKMATE IS JUST SO FUCKING POETIC.
Butters: weiners out!
For real, this is such a great move. Oh sure, the government could just ban nipples in general, but good luck enforcing that when it gets mildly warm and every scottish man rips their shirt off
is that the “red wave” they’ve been warning us about?
TAPS AFF
Nips oot.
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
Removed by mod
You too. It’s fun.
Removed by mod
Brother the fact you use those terms indicates you are an insecure pos. Can bet my last pound you wouldn’t talk to me like that to my face, just because I’ve got empathy for days doesn’t mean I’m above putting a bigot on the ground.
Be better my guy, if only for the sake of your mental health. Hatred is a killer and will just drag you down.
If you ever want to chat civilly about anything hmu, I got you. I believe people can change if given some compassion and actually interact with the people you hate.
Lol, you know it! I moved to a purple pearl in a very deeply red State. I’m gigantic so I can get away with saying what I want. Some little college aged typical Rogan bro tried going into the typical litter box bullshit. I pulled up the actual story, and eventually asked him how many trans people he interacted with regularly knowing one was in that very bar. And he damn sure didn’t raise his voice when I showed him how dumb all his bullshit was. These people are scared and weak without a screen in between them and the world.
Removed by mod
It would have been icing on the cake if trans men would have been in the same protest, also topless, but they weren’t censored lol
yeah, but they could have been arrested
To many in alt right groups, trans men don’t exist.
How do you mean?
Whenever there is an issue with anything relating to genders it’s always about trans women, not trans men.
They talk about trans women in women’s bathrooms, but never trans men in men’s bathroom. If they wanted your original gender, then you’d have trans men in women’s bathrooms. Basically someone that looks like a guy in the women’s bathroom.
They talk about trans women dominating women’s sports, even though there are literally none. But what about a sport where being a women, i.e. smaller and more flexible, is a benefit. Something like gymnastics.
Women are also on average a better shot, yet we don’t see discussions around trans men dominating gun or bow related sports.
There are many other examples, but generally the right always tries to attack trans women. It has to do with macho “manosphere” and equating anything less manly as a weak liberal thing.
Maybe there is another side to this toxic macho “manosphere” you mention.
After all, as a baseline men are by nature predisposed and culturally conditioned to protect and be considerate to women.
Despite all lamentation, Chivalry is not dead for some.
So obviously the sanctity of a woman’s restroom is more highly valued than that of a men’s bathroom. After all, women are more vulnerable and more often targeted in that way.
So the debate tends to skew towards women spaces, as those are more likely to cause public discord if disturbed.
Rarely are men stepping up on the soap crate to defend their own spaces. Because after all, they are strong enough to take any number of “inconveniences” and disadvantages because to admit to struggling with them would be weakness.
I’m not saying it’s fair, or right, or how it should be. But maybe that bias isn’t always driven by hostility. Maybe it’s just that society still places more weight on protecting women, while expecting men to grit their teeth and deal with it. Even when those same men help reinforce that standard among themselves.
It doesn’t make the imbalance okay, and it doesn’t mean the outrage is consistent. But it might explain why all the noise gets focused on trans women. It’s not just transphobia, it’s the scaffolding of gender roles, still quietly deciding who gets defended, and who’s expected to tough it out.
It seems absurd to conceptualize a “chivalrous transphobe”. But we are all more than just one label.
I agree, had thought of that before - it’s cognitive dissonance along the lines of “do I protect this person (who appears to be a woman but I’m not certain) or not (because they might not be)?” If society moved more to a model of ‘help people who need help’ it might improve matters.
I don’t really agree, because these people will absolutely defend their fragile “man” places. The manosphere is not something I just made up. It’s a complex network of influencers and media types. It’s why we have people such as Joe Rogan and Andrew Tate leading a generation of young men. It’s a gross perversion of what the right calls “being a real man”. It’s been discussed by phycologists and experts on men’s mental health. You should read up on it, but I warn you it’s a deep rabbit hole that may just piss you off how interconnected it is and supported by fascist authoritarians.
I mean, cis dudes would work in that context too, no?
Not if the point is to make the government acknowledge their gender.
No true Scotsman? 🤷♀️
Nyuk nyuk nyuk.Legendary behavior. Bigots can choke on it
I haven’t thought about that gag from that show in a while. Thanks for posting this, was nice to be reminded of it
Duh and or hola
A lot of them do.
A living edge case. I love it.
I guess the only solution is to free the nipple
Fuck yes.
Another example of the Scots fighting for freedom … they’ve been doing it successfully for thousands of years and they’re still doing it!
I will never in my life ever understand the fight against gay, lesbian, bi, queer, LGBTQ+
They are a fraction of the population yet the majority causes them immeasurable harm simply because they exist. The louder they persecute, the more prominent LGBTQ+ movement becomes … it’s contradictory. If conservatives had just left them alone, there would almost be no issue about any of this at all.
There are far more important debates and fights to be had in our society … namely the fight to preserve the survivability of our species in the coming centuries … yet here we are fighting about who gets to show or not show their tits!!!
Conservatives need a demographic to hate. This one is perfect because they will never be Conservatives, and most hardcore Conservatives can’t stand to see homosexual PDA.
they will never be Conservatives
I wish that were true, but I have family that is deeply conservative and so is her wife.
Same. I used to work with a lesbian who was a born-again Christian who thinks gay people shouldn’t kiss or hold hands in public becuase it could indoctrinate children (she literally used the word indoctrinate when talking about this with me). They do exist.
If they let up on hating an outside groups for a moment, people might notice that they have no policies that anyone wants.
I just had a look at the global demographics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation
Those identifying as a different sexual identity from heterosexuality averages less than 10% of the overall population … it could be argued that LGBTQ+ people who are stigmatized would be less likely to report their actual identities in these surveys … but in progressive countries like Canada, Australia and most developed European countries who are supposedly more progressive and open still show a minority of the population identifying as such.
It will forever be a stupid reason to fight over identity of any gender or identity in anyone … especially at this point in our history when so much more should be more important to all of us … we’re facing an existential crisis right now as a species and instead we are spending a lot of time and energy debating our sexual morals and preferences?
Disgust is a powerful motivator and influencer. It’s an evolutionary survival trait we’re wired to feel it easily and pick up on others felling it. Eww, this ham is awful. Everyone does a double-take, and many will perceive it as bad and consider throwing it out simply because someone else’s judgment passed it as nasty.
It’s VERY easy to get many to feel disgust against something simply by pointing at it and saying it’s disgusting. You point out a few things and make a face, neanderthal brain says you know they’re likely onto something.
As an exhibitionist:
:) i know.
There’s nothing to understand. It’s about hate and fear. Conservatives, specifically the alt-right, uses pre-existing prejudices to whip fear into their followers so that they get distracted.
“If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”
You can change this to whatever out-group they have chosen:
- Trans-people
- autistic people specifically
- LGBT people
- neurodivergent people
- gay people specifically
- muslims
- non-white people
- black people specifically
- Catholics (if you’re protestant)
- Protestant (if your Catholic)
- left handed people
The list literally goes on. All so that their followers get distracted from the people who are picking their pockets.
As far as I’m concerned, the only minority group of people we should all actively persecute is the ultra wealthy class of people who represent a small fraction of the global population yet control overwhelmingly all the wealth in our civilization. They would rather watch the world burn than in allowing anyone to create any kind of equitable society to share even a fraction of the wealth in our world.
Class warfare >>>>> Culture warfare
and people who use your and you’re interchangeably… right?
When gay marriage was being debated here in Australia my sister (who is gay) was super upset the whole time. She talked about how much the fight affected her and wished that people who were against would just understand.
I told her I was a complete supporter of gay marriage for a whole bunch of reasons including:
- human decency
- equality
- people who don’t like gay marriage can just… Not get married to another person of the same gender.
- people should just mind their own fucking business
However I did also point out that a lot of the loudest voices against gay marriage literally did not give a flying fuck about the issue, it was a convenient wedge and distraction for them, the people who need a group to vilify for political reasons would have to find another target for persecution as soon as they lost this particular convenient red rag to a bull.
Today in Australia, I believe, the usual suspects who use fear and hatred as the bedrock of their politics have been able to tap into a deeper vein of ignorance to make Trans people that target.
that whole time was fucked… our lgbt community experienced drastically higher suicide rates, mental health support services were begging for temporary volunteers to help with the load
and then tony fucking abbot - whose electorate voted the highest yes in the country - abstained from voting
One of the reasons LGBTQ+ people get so much hate is because of male insecurity and the global crisis increasing feelings of helplessness and despair.
It’s also got to do with the haters projecting the things they deny themselves (to be manly or whatever) onto LGBTQ+ persons - and then hating them for allegedly having those freedoms.
Nothing is wrong with being LGBTQ+. It’s the people who hate them for not fitting their norm who need help.
I will never in my life ever understand the fight against gay, lesbian, bi, queer, LGBTQ+
One argument is that any (fictional) male can just put on a wig and a dress and enter any “women designated” area.
The people making this argument are usually men and rarely has an actual incident occurred.
(This opinion is based on trying to give Graham Linehan a benefit of doubt)
Lol it’s because when you start digging in intellectually/philosophically, it starts raising some pretty serious questions about the state of society and free will and rights and autonomy and capitalism and slavery copyrights and gender and biology and religion and stuff.
We, quite literally, are their antichrist.
🤘🔥🔥🤘 This is why trans people are metal af
it’s because it’s not a fraction of the population… it’s all of us. it’s a threat to one’s own identity to hear someone challenge the little delusional box we place ourselves in
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call a brilliant catch-22 situation.
not catch 22
You are only allowed to show your nipples if you have no desire to show your nipples.
Catch 22 could work for breastfeeding.
Fucking Genius
Malicious compliance at its best.
Tits censored, guess they are women then. Fuck the transphobes
Unfortunately, in these cases, people make the mistake of thinking the law works like computer code. In reality, it doesn’t.
People have this idea that law is just like computer code. You make one single definition and then build laws, like a mathematical edifice, around that definition. They think that if the law uses one definition in one place, it must use that definition in all places. They think the law works like a computer program or a physics equation. Change the constant and changes cascade through.
The law however is not a computer code. It is not a physics equation. The law has not, does not, and will likely never use consistent definitions throughout all contexts. Laws can be written with the same term defined multiple ways in different contexts. A tomato can be a vegetable in some legal contexts and a fruit in others. Someone can be legally male in some contexts but legally female in others.
Traditionally how this works with trans folks is, “your legal sex will be defined as whatever hurts you the most in the moment.” Does a trans woman want to use a women’s restroom? She will be defined as legally male and thrown out. Does she show her breasts in public as protest? Her chest will be considered legally female breasts. She will then be arrested and thrown in a male prison.
The law is not internally consistent. Don’t make the mistake of thinking it is. Usually individual laws have their own definitions written into them. These definitions define what terms mean for the sake of applying that and only that law. And the definitions used can differ between different laws.
People have this idea that law is just like computer code. You make one single definition and then build laws, like a mathematical edifice, around that definition.
That’s pretty much the fucking definition of a law.
Law is a set of rules that are created and are enforceable by social or governmental institutions to regulate behavior, with its precise definition a matter of longstanding debate. It has been variously described as a science and as the art of justice.
– https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law (look it up elsewhere and the definition is almost word for word the same)
They think that if the law uses one definition in one place, it must use that definition in all places. They think the law works like a computer program or a physics equation. Change the constant and changes cascade through.
Laws are rules that are worded specifically to match criteria to ensure that the spirit of the law can be maintained and served to protect the public. the interpretation of a law can change once a precedent can be set, but that law is still the rule until it’s been amended.
you’re being disingenuous and ambiguous in your understanding of law or you’re just playing the fool to serve your point.
either way you look like an ass and are too arrogant to be using that much confidence in your conviction.
your are the definition of “confidently incorrect”.
You wrote a whole lot while saying very little.
You’re completely missing the point. You can have two laws:
-
Defines that for the purposes of import tariffs, a tomato is a fruit.
-
Defines that for the purposes of school lunch funding, a tomato is a vegetable.
Both of these laws can be passed, exist, be upheld and enforced at the same time. People would get confused and say, “but…but…a tomato is a tomato, it can’t be both a fruit and a vegetable depending on context! That’s not fair!”
Well, I’m sorry, but the law is not required to be internally consistent. No where in the US constitution or the UK’s equivalent will you find language that says that all laws must use consistent definitions in all contexts.
I get it, this truth of the law offends people. People with STEM backgrounds are often particularly incensed by it, as it goes so against their way of understanding the world, scientific and mathematical axioms and such. But the law is not a computer code. The law is not a physics equation. It has all sorts of internal contradictions. Definitions are often highly contextual.
Also, quit being such a jackass. You don’t need to start throwing around insults just because you disagree with a post.
This is basically why a handful of “STEM” people want smart contracts to take over the legal system.
And there’s a reason smart contracts haven’t taken off. Because at the end of the day, people want language in their contracts that protects them from flagrant abuse. And that is not possible with smart contracts.
For example, provisions of contracts can be thrown out in court because they’re unconscionable or because they violate various doctrines of fairness or proportionality. If I offer a service, I can put a provision in my service contract that a cancellation fee applies if a client cancels early. But that fee has to be reasonable and proportional. I can’t say, “if you cancel your contract early, you owe me $10 million USD.” Maybe if that fee was for a hundred million dollar construction project? Maybe. But for a simple consumer service like a plumber or an electrician? No court in the world would uphold such a fee. Contracts can’t have language in them that, completely out of the context of the contract, just entitles one party to vastly unreasonable and disproportionate benefit.
The law around real contracts has provisions relating to “unconscionable language” or “a reasonable person.” These are things that cannot be defined mathematically. They have to be decided by an actual human being assessing the situation.
And this is also why smart contracts haven’t taken off. I don’t want to lose my house because some hidden provision of a smart contract flips and now my home belongs to some NFT bro. I don’t want my retirement savings disappearing in a puff of logic because of some indecipherable code in a smart contract. I want the contracts governing all the important things in my life to be well-trodden, boring, well-established contracts operating in decades of contract law meant to keep people mostly safe. I don’t want whatever snake oil some smart contract coder is trying to sell me. Mandatory binding arbitration is bad enough. The last thing we need is smart contracts.
Sure, someone can try and weasel out of it by saying, “don’t like it, don’t agree to the smart contract!” To that I say stuff it. We don’t let people write language into minor contracts that lets them steal the homes out from little old ladies. We have extensive state regulation of contracts because we’ve learned the hard way that rigidly enforcing contracts with zero thought or consideration of fairness just ends up rewarding the most vile and wicked people in society.
Yes, it’s tempting to do away with lawyers and judges and to replace them all with objective mathematical language. But there’s a reason that is never going to happen. People do not want to trust their major financial decisions to some inscrutable code that provides them no legal protections.
That’s an interesting point! Although I would suspect that for the “STEM people”, today’s legal system is even more inscrutable and indecipherable. A reasonable person would say that tits are tits, and might more easily notice
from tariffs import tomatothan notice which legal definition applies in that particular situation.
-
You could not have missed the point harder if you replied to another post.
Why the hostility?
It seems pretty clear to me that they meant there’s no “what is a woman” definition that’s shared between all laws of a government.
Each law defines the terms they contain, which can contradict definitions found in other laws.
When one law changes its definition of a term, it doesn’t mean other definitions of the term are also changed.
I don’t think this the own people think it is. Drawings and sculptures are often censored. Implanted brests can be seen as similar works of art and still censored by transfobes.
Transfobes don’t operate on logic or facts.
Drawings and sculptures are often censored.
So they’ll censor the nipples on a drawing of sculpture of a woman?
That still indicates that a woman is being depicted, just like in this picture.
I think jols point they’re trying to make is that breasts are censored, on whomever they’re on.
But that also probably doesn’t hold up, because I bet if these women had a fat guy with man-titties stand with them, he wouldn’t be censored.
Yes. But a drawing of a woman is not a woman. It’s a drawing.
If it makes me cum, it’s a man -WAIT, no! A woman. Orrrr… Both? A NB PERSON YEAH! No wait. If you make me cum you’re a superhero! I’m just a confused poly subby pan bottom girl looking for love and good feelings uwuuuuuu the smelllllllllllssssss ahhhh im too gayyy
This is not a pipe
Right, and a picture of a woman is not a woman, it’s a picture.
You’ll find that pictures of women get blurred more often than actual women.
Well, that’s my point. Depictions of female looking breaths get blurred
Oh, wow, are nipples of sculptures and paintings being censored in Scotland? I didn’t know that. I’d expect it in other countries, mostly not European ones.
