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?
Does this mean that men with gynecomastia can be topless in public there without issue? If the original lawmakers had been smart, they would have outlawed developed breast and nipple exposure regardless of sex, so any flat chested, small nippled man/woman wouldn’t have trouble going topless.
Maybe it’s an old law?
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!!!!
they will never be Conservatives
I wish that were true, but I have family that is deeply conservative and so is her wife.
I just had a look at the global demographics
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.
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
ur*∞ ftfy.
(/bit)
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.
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
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)
A lot of them do.
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
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.
yeah, but they could have been arrested
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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
Malicious compliance at its best.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
Damn, these people are bold as fuck. Get it!
In America most men are overweight or obese and have pendulous lumps on their chests with nipples attached. Personally I don't love seeing them, but when the weather is right, they are all over the goddamn place. It's absolutely ludicrous that women can't do the same. If there were any logical rule it would be don't show your chesticles unless you are a woman who uses them for feeding a child OR everybody gets to have their tits out regardless of any gender types. Pick one and go with it, but the current laws are base AF.
When I was in pre-K, on a really hot day, I remember asking why the boys got to take off their shirts but I couldn’t.
Now that I’ve had top surgery, I can be the fat hairy bearded guy that mows lawns shirtless. It’s nice.
Sure, but it's a ridiculous privilege. Let's face it, many men have what meets the criteria for breasts. If we decide that breasts are outside of the Overton window then shirt those bitches up, all of them. If we are saying breasts on women are the only breasts outside the window then that's just plain old discrimination. Shift the window or cover them all up until we are ready to let them all out.
I'm happy for you that it worked out in the end.
Austin actually has a city ordinance with more or less this exact logic. Once you’ve seen a dozen or so average women with their chests uncovered at the pool, it loses any excitement it may have initially held.
i don't think that's really true, people in the west generally don't cover their faces and yet people find faces attractive anyways.
My preferred argument is just "if people find naked bodies so appealing why would you not want to see more of them?"
In other parts of the world nudity isn't seen as a big deal or in some cases even unusual in certain settings. Americans are so afraid of seeing a titty or penis or whatever else.
I mean in some parts it's not as big a deal yes. There are plenty of parts where it is like this. I think America is a good example primarily because so many American men have tits.
Isn't it technically legal there for women to be topless, too?
Edit: a bit dated, but it seems that they can go topless only in a few state.
My kind of party!
A living edge case. I love it.
I guess the only solution is to free the nipple
Fucking Genius
Love the message, but the blurb isn't correct. Police couldn't not arrest them because it would define them as a woman, outraging public decency and similar laws don't require specific genders.
I had a look further into this, because I wanted to better understand what factors might cause an act to be considered indecent exposure (or outraging public decency). This led me to some guidance on naturism and other non-sexual nudity, from the crown prosecution service.^1 It appears that having an "intention to cause alarm or distress" may be relevant for protests like this — arguably the entire point of the protest is to use the shock value of the nudity as a protest.
That being said, I think it's a bold move and possibly an effective protest. Even if public indecency laws are gender neutral, it would still be a strong message if any of these women got arrested for this — the reason why these women are capable of causing alarm or distress by going topless is because these are "female presenting nipples" (to use a heavily-memed phrase from the Tumblr porn ban era)
It appears that having an “intention to cause alarm or distress” may be relevant for protests like this — arguably the entire point of the protest is to use the shock value of the nudity as a protest.
I was looking at this, too, it looks like public nudity is legal, and I don't think peaceful protest counts as disorderly conduct. The policing aid cites relevant law & provides a decision aid. It states
Naturists have a right to freedom of expression which only engages criminal law if they commit sexual offences or use disorderly behaviour that they intend to or are aware may be disorderly within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress.
A decision aid clarifies
Decision aid for responding officers
Is there a clear sexual motivation to the subject’s actions?
↓ No
Has the person been ‘disorderly’ and caused another person ‘actual’ harassment, alarm or distress (as opposed to considering the likelihood of this or the complainant finding it personally distasteful or offensive)?
↓ No
It will normally be appropriate to take no further action
Advise complainant
Personally distasteful or offensive doesn't qualify.
Disorderly conduct seems to mean disruptions that intimidate or prevent people from exercising their lawful rights or accessing goods & services they are legally entitled to. Police can impose restrictions on start & finish times, location, noise levels.
Maybe someone better versed in UK law can clarify.
Yes it would also come under some public order offences. Bottom line is, the legal def of woman wasn't the reason they didn't get arrested.
The police in Edinburgh aren't going to do anything. People get their tits 'n' bits out regularly "for art/paganism"
It's the UK supreme court, not a Scottish court, that decided to stomp over all the progress we had made with trans rights.
The Scottish Parliament tends to be considerably more left wing than the UK Parliament. Left to their own devices they would probably be much more like a Scandinavian country.
But actually, yes, the Scottish people are indeed awesome.
Isn't public nudity legal in all UK? Policing aid:
Behaviour described by caller
Passive behaviours in public
↓
Sunbathing, walking, cycling, swimming, gardening, home maintenance, etc.
↓
Provide advice
If they are just being naked in public, it will be lawful activity
Explain to caller that no offences are being committed
No police action necessary
Wikipedia tells me UK includes England, Scotland, Wales, & Northern Ireland. Though each jurisdiction may have more specific laws, the laws on this seem to be broadly alike, and the guidance appears to apply to general policing in all of them. Someone better versed can get into the nuances.
I would just say that in very tense situations where the exact details of a law very much matters, the difference between different legal systems might be worth some consideration.
That's a good point. My understanding was College of Policing gives professional guidance for all UK, but its bearing on Scotland & Northern Ireland may be looser.
British Naturists seem to think it's legal in all UK, Scotland & Northern Ireland follow similar policing practices (consider every case on its merits) & may take that document into consideration. They provide a summary mentioning the Scottish counterpart of the law you mentioned: their language look quite similar (similar purposes/conditions to qualify as offenses).
While the similarity in these laws is compelling, and naturists report they are policed in similar ways, case law might qualify their interpretation.
The rando's writing shown in the OP could mean anything, and if you follow the link to that post, you'll find a similar discussion to this one that links similar content.
It gets even mader. If you take one step over the border into England, being topless suddenly becomes legal regardless of gender or birth sex.
however it is not an offence for a man or a woman to be topless in England and Wales, so long as the person has not taken off their clothes with the intention of shocking or upsetting others.
Am Newcastle. Can confirm.
UK Supreme Court:
"We now rule that while men and women are allowed to be topless, this doesn't apply to trans women. Trans women, and only trans women, can be tried for being topless."
Yeah. That seems sexist.
Free the nipple.
Genuine question, how is it sexist? Is their no acknowledgment of biological differences between men and women as a general rule (trans issues being more of an exception to the rule)? We acknowledge differences in general in regards to sports, bathrooms, fitting rooms, the way clothes are made, people’s consumption of pornography, magazines and media. Why on this point are we ignoring that all of those things ls are real and happen and pretending there’s no difference?
Because the sexualization of the female nipple is the only reason it is illegal to bare it in public. There is no universal or biological reason to ban it, just a cultural conditioning.
Yes, I guess what I’m asking is are we pretending that this “conditioning” isn’t a real thing? I also read recently (sorry if this is wrong) that there was a study done on arousal of breasts between societies where they are covered up vs where they are not. It found the level of arousal remained consistent.
I’m sorry I’m not following. What’s the “gender in power?” Is that societal or the individual?
Why should a nipple be hidden only if it is a female one. Why would man have the right to walk without t-shirts and woman be punished for the same walk?
Yet imo it should be the other way. Males need to cover up to. Lets see how fast they start complaining.
I think there’s less of a need for men to cover up. That not to say I don’t agree with your point entirely. While shirtless men do seem to arouse women and gay men, correct me if if wrong, it’s seems like it’s more of a overall thing, where with women the arousal is mostly centred around the breasts themselves and the nipples.
I think it’s also more appropriate to say feminine breasts, I know this opinion can vary person to person but most people can agree man boobs generally don’t excite people, it’s the muscle and tone that women find attractive. This can apply to feminine breasts but I think it’s generally more accepted that they are more likely to arouse or at least be interesting.
Because I think having breasts is different to not having them and that human arousal and disgust (may be a strong word) is real and that as a general rule it’s appropriate and even beneficial to exclude the extremes of these things from day to day life unless the individual wants to opt in. I suppose a line has to be drawn somewhere and given that there is a real reaction across most of society it’s a reasonable place to draw it.
It is sexist because you're treating them differently based on arbitrary cultural standards. Why are you pretending made up social constructs are real? We shouldn't be consistently sexist. We should want equality for all.
Ok. So if it’s based on arbitrary cultural standards that are made up, wouldn’t the new version just be a different made up social construct that we would pretend is real as well? Except we would just be pretending that boobs aren’t real? Or have no relevance
Genuine answer: I'm specifically speaking to how men and women are treated as a matter of law.
Laws should not differentiate between men, women, sexual orientation or identity, sexual preferences, kinks, lifestyles, etc.
If a thing is illegal, it should be illegal for everyone, or noone. In this case, the law says that it is legal to go topless unless you are a woman. It specifically cites, as a rule of law, that women are to be treated differently on purpose. That, by definition, is sexist.
Almost all of the other examples you provided are matters of social norms, comforts, and tropes. Nothing else you mentioned has the same weight as the rule of law.
Women have different clothing and different clothing styles than men, they're shaped differently so we make clothes that fit the female form better, just like we have clothes that fit the male form better.
Different washrooms, I disagree with; we should have gender neutral bathrooms and put all this transphobia bullshit about what bathroom people use, to bed. Bluntly: the bathroom isn't a social gathering, people generally are not walking around unclothed or partially clothed in the common areas of even a gendered bathroom. You go in there to resolve your bodily needs to expel waste. Get in, do what you need to do, and get out. With a little more effort in isolating stalls, an ungendered bathroom is the best option. You don't have a "men's" and "women's" bathroom at home... They don't pointlessly gender bathrooms in planes or busses, among many other places, so making bathrooms that are meant for larger groups in public spaces, gendered, does not really logically make any sense at all.
There's a ton more I could say about this or many other things but simply: I feel like I've addressed your question.
Let me know if you need any further clarifications.
Aren’t decency laws based on current societal norms? And age of consent laws often acknowledge a difference between genders.
I'm pretty sure it's not. It's not common for women to ever be topless in Scotland, but it's not explicitly illegal to be naked (men or women). Only more vague public decency and harassment laws. If a woman in Scotland was topless sunbathing, they'd definitely get some looks, but I think it's very unlikely the police would intervene.
On Saturday (17 May) the women stood outside the Scottish parliament building with their shirts off and their arms painted red, which they said was a mark of solidarity with anti-fascist feminists across Europe.
HA!
Oh jeez I just got a few looks from people around me...
To add to your question, I saw the Parisian feminist antifa protest group recently do something basically exactly the same as this a couple months ago.
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZP86EhcE7/
I think the group may be called" Brut".
Edit: woah thumbnail is all tittes. I'm not changing it, we all need to grow the fuck up and smell the fascism.
Edit 2: the fucking IRONY of TIKTOK being a more free place than Scotland. Jesus. Fucking. Christ.
I assume totons is boobies.
I'd bet it's also a double entendre for something that roughly means "bad guys". Assuming combattre probably has the same root as combat, the post has a cadence like "fight the transphobes with the tits!"
I also don't know French but guessing at it seemed fun
Pretty good yes. ToTon is the Québec version of têton (tits) And and calling someone ToTon is about equivalent to dumbass. It's a play on fighting fire with fire. Maybe you could changeto Guess-tephan
You're mostly right. To call someone a "toton" is an insult to that person's intelligence. It's also a derivative of the word "téton", which means tit.
"Combattre" is also effectively the verb "to fight".
Yes "Fight boobs with boobs!" would be a good English equivalent.
I R SMART
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.
Not the fucking Onion.
Katy Montgomerie a really good interview with one of the women at the protest: https://youtu.be/wbA0q0eqYnM
Awesome protest, but I'm not sure about the blurb ontop.
Do right-wing people deny that trans women can have breasts? I don't believe that is true in general. And do public decency laws specify that breasts can't be shown, or women can't show nipples?
That's part of what their protest is getting at — as you highlight, even "biological sex" is pretty complex (In science, I have heard that the "three G's" (Gonads, genetics, genitals) model is the standard definition, but scientists who research biological sex seem to consider this an extreme oversimplification). Fuzzy definitions like this are fine in science, but things get much messier when we try to write these things into law. One of my problems with the recent Supreme Court ruling on transgender rights is how they use the phrase "biological woman", as if it is a simple matter.
I find this especially striking because I'm a cis woman who has plenty of experience of being treated poorly due to being a woman, and I feel like my "biological sex" (as in gonads, genetics and genitals) don't factor into it much; far more significant is whether I am perceived as a woman, and this is why "gender" can be far more useful than "biological sex" in these discussions.
even "biological sex" is pretty complex (In science, I have heard that the "three G's" (Gonads, genetics, genitals) model is the standard definition, but scientists who research biological sex seem to consider this an extreme oversimplification)
Yupp. That's my understanding. I found this video by a biologist enlightening in this matter: Sex and Sensibility by Forrest Valkai (1:40:26, Youtube)
They have three categories: "biological woman," which is a fertile cis woman with XX chromosomes and a vulva; "biological man," which is a fertile or formerly fertile cis man with XY chromosomes; and undesirables, who are everyone else and are referred to by whichever terminology is convenient for them at any given point.
I'm trying to think of a situation where a penis, testicles, ovaries, etc, are required and the law would care but I'm not coming up with anything.
Like, you can't be a sperm donor if your body doesn't produce sperm. but that's not something the law needs to worry about, right?
I've got one for you, and it's not even hypothetical. Man rapes two women, gets caught, but transitions before being sentenced.
What's your point? Cool story, still raped two women. Don't put violent sex offenders with the demographic they victimized. Should lesbian sex offenders be incarcerated with other women? Probably not, right?
You've just made a great argument for why gendered prisons are a ridiculous notion in the first place, and why results-based decision making is more important than broad, impersonal classification-based decision making.
And that's before we even talk about how the overwhelming majority of prisons in general are inhumane and ineffective at reducing crime.
I'm not making a point, I'm responding to your request: "treat trans women as women. Because that’s what they are. Name a situation where you think this would be problematic" with the Isla Bryson case.
Initially she was treated as a woman and chucked in a female-only prison. According to you, this is 100% correct.
I agree with your point about prisons in general not being a brilliant solution to crime, being known as universities for criminals. But that - and gendered prisons - are what we've got, and we aren't going to rebuild the entire criminal justice system around the tiny number of trans criminals have a problem with this.
So anyone can self identify as anything and switch around on a whim?
Technically yes, but people don't tend to do that because identity runs deep and the trends is to correct a wrong like a mind-body mismatch.
whats the determining factor?
It's complex but it's usually gender dysphoria.
If I get arrested can I say I'm a female and get put in a women's prison for instance,
You'd probably go into the prison that matches your official documentation regardless of what you say.
everyone already self identifies. the fact that most people are cis doesn't change that fact.
the second is about procedures, and it would change from one jurisdiction to another. the real question is what ought to happen.
and think about what that means. why do we have gendered prisons, but not gendered parks? a prison surely must have more security than a public park.
Regardless of gender, if there is a prisoner who is likely to perpetrate sexual violence, then the great care needs to be taken to ensure the safety of other prisoners. Cis people are plenty capable of committing sexual assault. Trans people are far more likely to be victims of sexual violence than perpetrators of it.
Let me turn that around on you:
Should a male-presenting, gay sex offender go to a male prison or female prison? What is the purpose of gendered prisons? What problem is it trying to solve? And why are we using gender for that instead of "likely victims of the incarcerated individual"?
Gendered prisons are a ridiculous notion that only exist because our prison system itself is completely fucked up, profit-driven, and inhumane. It produces worse outcomes than almost any other form of legal consequences except in extreme cases.
at least you bring forward an actual argument.
i've seen so many transphobes who just say "god didn't want it" and that's the end of the story. we need more discussion in our world, and we need good arguments; even if i don't agree with you.
Rad.
My thoughts, exactly: https://hachyderm.io/...
It's grotesque enough to still be a problem, I'm sure. Perhaps the laws haven't caught up to stunts like these and that's why they are getting away with it?
Well, transwomen are women.
Lemmy is worst fucking place for scammers to advertise as hackers.
Average lemmy user could setup wireshark real quick even if they were paranoid about that stuff.
Try adding "AI powered" in there maybe. Lemmies love that.
Imo, the issue in your comment is not the fact that it might not be politcally correct - that's sounded kind of like a preemptive strawman.
It's that once more a body perceived as feminine is sexualized.
These people were protesting for their rights, not hoping to be ogled and commented upon by strangers on the internet.
Also, not everyone is attracted to the same traits in another person.
Yes I sexualize female bodies because I find them sexually attractive. Especially when I don’t know the person at all and it’s just a photo, so the only conclusion I can reach about them is: “Hot”.
I knew the comment was insensitive due to what it’s happening but I wanted to say it, so I said it. Downvote me, that’s why the mechanism is there.
No one needs to know your gooning preferences on a news comment section
I knew the comment was insensitive due to what it’s happening but I wanted to say it
I'm a bit surprised you don't seem to see what's wrong with this.
Would you mind explaining why you find it ok to write offensive things that are only tangentially related to the topic?
Yes I sexualize female bodies because I find them sexually attractive
What happens in your mind belongs to you and I'm not judging that.
On the other hand, posting it in a public place - especially commenting a news article about a fight for their rights - just adds to the societal misogynistic habit that it's ok to sexualize fem bodies anytime, anywhere and to care less about their message than the way we see them.
Downvote me, that’s why the mechanism is there
I don't feel like it's an appropriate response, I'd rather engage in the discussion for two reasons:
- I might be able to get to you and change your mind a bit or you might have arguments that'll make me rethink my position, downvoting has no chance of getting us there
- For the other people reading the comments here, seeing the discussion between us might help them understand the issue better and make their mind about it
I finally created an account just to say what a compassionate and well articulates response this is.
I feel so grateful when I get well articulates criticism because most people will not expense the energy to tell me why I'm wrong so when someone cares enough to do so its like a gift.
I was feeling like it was not a great thing to say either but wasn't sure how to articulate it.
I agree, it's not about policing what you think about these individuals it's about not perpetuating a kind of toxic pattern into the public sphere.
It's also true that most people will neither comment nor up/down vote and simply scan comments and form opinions. Thanks for taking the time to meaningfully reply.
You seem to imply that we have to maintain the same decorum in anonymous online spaces as we do in real life. When I’m online I can allow myself to be pure ego, because that’s the point of anonymity in the internet. I will continue to enjoy that as long as I can. Anything can be offensive to someone so I don’t worry too much about what is or isn’t offensive, especially so in anonymous online spaces.
To your second point. I think it is fine to sexualize all bodies, because we are sexual beings. I think women should embrace it and do it to men in return. The reason women don’t is often decorum or some idea of how a woman should properly think and act. We can acknowledge and respect the person for who they are after we know them, but before that I think it’s perfectly fine to let your first judgement be sexual. It’s wired into us and to act otherwise is denying human nature and even animal nature itself. By no means does that mean that I reduce people simply to their sex appeal, rather that without anything else to go on, that will be my first thought. I mean I can assume a lot of things about this lady from where she is, what she’s doing, other parts of her appearance etc. But I would only be assuming. Her being hot is the only objective (her attractiveness is a fact, fite me) assessment of her I can make.
So in a nutshell, I think humans better as monke and I allow myself to be monke online if I feel like it.
Your comment makes me think less of your intelligence, especially since all I know about you is from your comment. I thought this might be insulting, but I wanted to say it, so I said it.
I probably would think the same if you wrote a similar comment so can’t say you’re in the wrong here.
I know :(
Nah, just needed to say it. I knew it wasn’t going to be popular.
That is an astute observation. You got me.
Low key savage my man. Phew.
@lemmy.world
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, Twitter X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
RULES:
- Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
- Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
- You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
- Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
- Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
- Absolutely no NSFL content.
- Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
- No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.
RELATED COMMUNITIES:
go to feed...
@lemmy.world
A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, Twitter X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.
Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.
RULES:
- Your post must be a screen capture of a microblog-type post that includes the UI of the site it came from, preferably also including the avatar and username of the original poster. Including relevant comments made to the original post is encouraged.
- Your post, included comments, or your title/comment should include some kind of commentary or remark on the subject of the screen capture. Your title must include at least one word relevant to your post.
- You are encouraged to provide a link back to the source of your screen capture in the body of your post.
- Current politics and news are allowed, but discouraged. There MUST be some kind of human commentary/reaction included (either by the original poster or you). Just news articles or headlines will be deleted.
- Doctored posts/images and AI are allowed, but discouraged. You MUST indicate this in your post (even if you didn't originally know). If an image is found to be fabricated or edited in any way and it is not properly labeled, it will be deleted.
- Absolutely no NSFL content.
- Be nice. Don't take anything personally. Take political debates to the appropriate communities. Take personal disagreements & arguments to private messages.
- No advertising, brand promotion, or guerrilla marketing.
RELATED COMMUNITIES:
go to feed...
SOMETIMES A CHECKMATE IS JUST SO FUCKING POETIC.
Butters: weiners out!
save