- cross-posted to:
- lemmydirectory@lemmy.dbzer0.com
You must log in or register to comment.
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!!!
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
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)
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.
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?
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.
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
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)
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
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.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what we call a brilliant catch-22 situation.
not catch 22
You are only allowed to show your nipples if you have no desire to show your nipples.
Catch 22 could work for breastfeeding.
Removed by mod
Hack deez nutz
You lost bro? Shut the fuck up lol
I used CYBERGURU38 and have been assured that the Prince of Nigeria will be sending me an inheritance of 10,0000,000000,0 [curr_usd%] !
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.
Is it illegal for women to be 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 only reason to cover women’s nipples is because the gender in power may have hormonal changes that they are unwilling to control.
I’m sorry I’m not following. What’s the “gender in power?” Is that societal or the individual?
The patriarchy
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.
It is not the womans fault that a guy gets exited. It is not her duty to cover up to make sure his weak mind has a bit more ease. It is his to control his thinking and doing.
And btw why is males make woman/gay exited a good / allouwable ( is that a word ? ) thing and female nipples make man exited a bad one. 2 different rules because of sexe… That is sexist.
I don t think i would go naked shopping or so. The fact that some woman who want to can not do that is the thing that is wrong. Ergo hide the male body to => no more differences.
It’s not the woman’s fault that a guy gets excited
There has to be some acknowledgement that getting aroused by bare breasts is a completely normal and healthy thing. If I didn’t become aroused my gf would think there’s something wrong with me in fact a lot of women would say there’s something wrong with a man or even think they are broken if they didn’t. It’s generally accepted that the reason women modify their breasts are for purely sexual reasons and to create attraction and arousal. But arousal isn’t really the main point. The main point is a line has to be drawn somewhere that balances the generally accepted standards of decency with the individuals freedoms and the impact that freedom has on everyone else. I think current laws do a reasonable job of that. If I had kids I wouldn’t want a woman with large implanted boobs to stand in front of them on a bus for half an hour while they bounced up and down. I’m happy for the law to prevent this scenario from happening. I can acknowledge that I wouldn’t want a man with big gross man boobs to either but the difference in emotion that creates seems relevant.
There are differences, but there is no need for different rules.
Can you, or are you willing to, say outright, why it should be illegal?
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.
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.
If women everywhere suddenly felt that men showing their faces was arousing, should they be required to cover that too?
I’m sorry but I don’t feel that’s a reasonable hypothetical. Society would be so different in so many ways if that were true that the time line would look completely different, who know we probably wouldn’t have made it to now. And yes hypothetically if this did happen all of a sudden there would be lots of calls to do something about the new situation
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.
Why wouldn’t having to deal with that arousal be the problem and responsibility of the aroused instead of, by default and preemtively, limiting the rights of any prospective and involuntary “arousee” in existence?
If arousal isn’t a real thing and it’s the fault of the person being aroused, would that suggest total nudity should be ok as well?
If arousal isn’t a real thing and it’s the fault of the person being aroused, would that suggest total nudity should be ok as well?
Remember this whole discussion is about discrimination. So what you’re asking is “In contexts where full male body nudity is arbitrarily deemed acceptable, why wouldn’t full female body nudity be acceptable as well?”
And the answer, of course, is that there’s no reason to make a distinction, is there?
Some of these users are unironically repeating rape cultural word for word and in this case with the add on of “I’m just asking questions”. Thanks for sticking it to them. =)
Some of these users are unironically repeating rape cultural word for word and in this case with the add on of “I’m just asking questions”. Thanks for sticking it to them. =)
I really don’t think that’s a useful mindset. We’re all just people here, having conversations and - ideally - socratic dialogues. What could be gained by sticking anything to anyone?
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.
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
You being horny isn’t a justification treat women as second class citizens. Grow up.
I’m not talking about me, I’m talking about humans in general. I think it’s obscene on some level for a stranger to walk around topless in front of children.
That’s prudish. It’s the 21st century. This is a beach in America and it’s fine.
https://i.insider.com/5773e4c8dd089531228b4d84?width=700&format=jpeg&auto=webp
arbitrary cultural standards that are not applied equally are sexist.
If the rule changed as to be everyone has to cover up their chests it would become sexist to men because men don’t even have breasts.
Men have chests. Fat men also have breasts.
But it seems the defining feature is the nipple, and both sexes have those.
Men and women both have nipples. The difference is that women might need to pull them put to feed a baby. If we want to treat them differently, should it not be reversed?
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.
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’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?
A living edge case. I love it.
I guess the only solution is to free the nipple
Hmm…
spoiler
Pretty sure it’s just a bug in the federation of images between blahaj.zone and lemmy.world, but it was a funny coincidence.
Not to get sidetracked but what is the significance of the red right arms? Scots burn quickly in sunlight but not usually in such an isolated way.
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.
https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/05/17/scottish-parliament-holyrood-trans-protest-supreme-court/
Thank you.
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.
Isn’t it also not illegal to be topless. Pretty sure that one applies in Scotland as well anyway. Simply being naked isn’t a crime, doing it to cause distress is though. A protest like this would be fine.
Removed by mod
Well, transwomen are women.
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.
Combattre les totons par les totons!
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
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”.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
I ugly laughed at Guess-tephan :) thankyou for that
Yes “Fight boobs with boobs!” would be a good English equivalent.
I R SMART
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?
Not if the point is to make the government acknowledge their gender.
To many in alt right groups, trans men don’t exist.
How do you mean?
Whenever there is an issue with anything relating to genders it’s always about trans women, not trans men.
They talk about trans women in women’s bathrooms, but never trans men in men’s bathroom. If they wanted your original gender, then you’d have trans men in women’s bathrooms. Basically someone that looks like a guy in the women’s bathroom.
They talk about trans women dominating women’s sports, even though there are literally none. But what about a sport where being a women, i.e. smaller and more flexible, is a benefit. Something like gymnastics.
Women are also on average a better shot, yet we don’t see discussions around trans men dominating gun or bow related sports.
There are many other examples, but generally the right always tries to attack trans women. It has to do with macho “manosphere” and equating anything less manly as a weak liberal thing.
Maybe there is another side to this toxic macho “manosphere” you mention.
After all, as a baseline men are by nature predisposed and culturally conditioned to protect and be considerate to women.
Despite all lamentation, Chivalry is not dead for some.
So obviously the sanctity of a woman’s restroom is more highly valued than that of a men’s bathroom. After all, women are more vulnerable and more often targeted in that way.
So the debate tends to skew towards women spaces, as those are more likely to cause public discord if disturbed.
Rarely are men stepping up on the soap crate to defend their own spaces. Because after all, they are strong enough to take any number of “inconveniences” and disadvantages because to admit to struggling with them would be weakness.
I’m not saying it’s fair, or right, or how it should be. But maybe that bias isn’t always driven by hostility. Maybe it’s just that society still places more weight on protecting women, while expecting men to grit their teeth and deal with it. Even when those same men help reinforce that standard among themselves.
It doesn’t make the imbalance okay, and it doesn’t mean the outrage is consistent. But it might explain why all the noise gets focused on trans women. It’s not just transphobia, it’s the scaffolding of gender roles, still quietly deciding who gets defended, and who’s expected to tough it out.
It seems absurd to conceptualize a “chivalrous transphobe”. But we are all more than just one label.
I don’t really agree, because these people will absolutely defend their fragile “man” places. The manosphere is not something I just made up. It’s a complex network of influencers and media types. It’s why we have people such as Joe Rogan and Andrew Tate leading a generation of young men. It’s a gross perversion of what the right calls “being a real man”. It’s been discussed by phycologists and experts on men’s mental health. You should read up on it, but I warn you it’s a deep rabbit hole that may just piss you off how interconnected it is and supported by fascist authoritarians.
I agree, had thought of that before - it’s cognitive dissonance along the lines of “do I protect this person (who appears to be a woman but I’m not certain) or not (because they might not be)?” If society moved more to a model of ‘help people who need help’ it might improve matters.
yeah, but they could have been arrested
Rad.
