You must log in or register to comment.
A living edge case. I love it.
I cannot imagine being a cop in this country the laws are just totally arbitrary and you’d have to enforce them even though they make zero sense.
Fucking Genius
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
I mean, cis dudes would work in that context too, no?
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.
Cause transwomen aren’t biological women?
Malicious compliance at its best.
Damn, these people are bold as fuck. Get it!
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call a brilliant catch-22 situation.
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.
Here in Fort Collins, it’s tits out for all. Come all and welcome for those that would like their tits out.
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.
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.
I’m happy for you that it worked out in the end.
I mow with a long sleeve that’s rated for 15fpf, skin cancer is a real concern. Stay safe out there fam
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.
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.
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.
Everyone can choose to have their tits out!
My kind of party!
Legendary behavior. Bigots can choke on it
actually proud of Scotland for once, not the government but the people
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.
I was particularly amused the time they decided to beat up a terrorist.
Yeah the government was kind of referring to the UK government there, they seem to ruin everything
The Scottish and Irish have been saying that for hundreds of years
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
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.
The police in Edinburgh aren’t going to do anything. People get their tits ‘n’ bits out regularly “for art/paganism”
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)
1 ↩︎
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.
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 complainantPersonally 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.
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.
As an exhibitionist:
:) i know.
If they let up on hating an outside groups for a moment, people might notice that they have no policies that anyone wants.
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.
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?
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
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?
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
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”.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
