You must log in or # to comment.
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.
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!!!
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.
deleted by creator
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?
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?
ur*∞ ftfy.
(/bit)
Legendary behavior. Bigots can choke on it
Duh and or hola
I haven’t thought about that gag from that show in a while. Thanks for posting this, was nice to be reminded of it
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
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.
I mean, cis dudes would work in that context too, no?
Not if the point is to make the government acknowledge their gender.
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
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.
-
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.
Yes. But a drawing of a woman is not a woman. It’s a drawing.
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.
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.
The fact they just censored the nipples still 🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂
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.
Nice
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call a brilliant catch-22 situation.
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.
What do they mean by “biological” women? There are different characteristics to biological markers: gonodal, genetic / chromosomal, anatomical, hormonal. All can be manifested differently.
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.
which is a fertile cis woman
Alright, women beyond their menopause are no longer women. Check.
They won’t always admit it, but they definitely imply it.
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.
Not the fucking Onion.
Biological women can do it too if they print and cut out pics of men nipples and stick them on top.
Omg I hate it so much, thank you
You’re welcome‽
