Censoring Nipples

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

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

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
  
  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
- 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

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?
- yeah, but they could have been arrested
- I mean, cis dudes would work in that context too, no?
  
  Not if the point is to make the government acknowledge their gender.

Legendary behavior. Bigots can choke on it
- I haven't thought about that gag from that show in a while. Thanks for posting this, was nice to be reminded of it
  
  Duh and or hola
- A lot of them do.

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.
  
  If they let up on hating an outside groups for a moment, people might notice that they have no policies that anyone wants.
  
  I just had a look at the global demographics
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_sexual_orientation
  Those identifying as a different sexual identity from heterosexuality averages less than 10% of the overall population .... it could be argued that LGBTQ+ people who are stigmatized would be less likely to report their actual identities in these surveys ... but in progressive countries like Canada, Australia and most developed European countries who are supposedly more progressive and open still show a minority of the population identifying as such.
  It will forever be a stupid reason to fight over identity of any gender or identity in anyone .... especially at this point in our history when so much more should be more important to all of us ... we're facing an existential crisis right now as a species and instead we are spending a lot of time and energy debating our sexual morals and preferences?
  
  Disgust is a powerful motivator and influencer. It's an evolutionary survival trait we're wired to feel it easily and pick up on others felling it. Eww, this ham is awful. Everyone does a double-take, and many will perceive it as bad and consider throwing it out simply because someone else's judgment passed it as nasty.
  It's VERY easy to get many to feel disgust against something simply by pointing at it and saying it's disgusting. You point out a few things and make a face, neanderthal brain says you know they're likely onto something.
  
  As an exhibitionist:
  :) i know.
- There's nothing to understand. It's about hate and fear. Conservatives, specifically the alt-right, uses pre-existing prejudices to whip fear into their followers so that they get distracted.
  "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."
  You can change this to whatever out-group they have chosen:
  Trans-people
  autistic people specifically
  LGBT people
  neurodivergent people
  gay people specifically
  muslims
  non-white people
  black people specifically
  Catholics (if you're protestant)
  Protestant (if your Catholic)
  left handed people
  The list literally goes on. All so that their followers get distracted from the people who are picking their pockets.
  
  As far as I'm concerned, the only minority group of people we should all actively persecute is the ultra wealthy class of people who represent a small fraction of the global population yet control overwhelmingly all the wealth in our civilization. They would rather watch the world burn than in allowing anyone to create any kind of equitable society to share even a fraction of the wealth in our world.
- 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
- 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)

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.

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".
- 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.
  
  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.

Malicious compliance at its best.

A living edge case. I love it.
- I guess the only solution is to free the nipple

Fucking Genius

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.
  
  I mow with a long sleeve that’s rated for 15spf, 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.
  
  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.
- Everyone can choose to have their tits out!
  
  My kind of party!
- Here in Fort Collins, it’s tits out for all. Come all and welcome for those that would like their tits out.

Hmm...

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)
  
  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"
  https://beltane.org/about-beltane/

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.
  
  Yeah the government was kind of referring to the UK government there, they seem to ruin everything

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?
- 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.

No true Scotsman? 🤷‍♀️
Nyuk nyuk nyuk.

Took me a while to even notice they are censored, and not just weird looking

Fuck yes.

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
  
  Yes "Fight boobs with boobs!" would be a good English equivalent.

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.
- 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.
- 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/

Katy Montgomerie a really good interview with one of the women at the protest: https://youtu.be/wbA0q0eqYnM

This is fucking rad.

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?
- Depends entirely on the language of the law, not what right wing people think. The UK isn't like the USA in this regard, or at least Scotland isn't ...yet.
  
  Whether right wing people would censor the image or not is up to what right wing people think.

What do they mean by "biological" women? There are different characteristics to biological markers: gonodal, genetic / chromosomal, anatomical, hormonal. All can be manifested differently.
- 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.
  
  which is a fertile cis woman
  Alright, women beyond their menopause are no longer women. Check.

- Yes. Or treat trans women as women. Because that's what they are. Name a situation where you think this would be problematic and I'll show you why it's patently absurd.
  
  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?

Rad.

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.

Haha, got'em by the balls! (So to speak)

My thoughts, exactly: https://hachyderm.io/@BoydStephenSmithJr/114530340644075058

- 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.
- 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%] !
- You lost bro? Shut the fuck up lol
- Hack deez nutz

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.
- 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.
  https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/616538
  
  Does this mean you can stand on the south side of hadrians wall and wave your titties at the Scots without legal repercussions?
  
  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."

Nudity is legal in the UK for everyone, that's a non story. UK is not America.