A MTF TS took there shirt off showing large breast when they were not allowed into the women's restroom.itvwas a big story on the news.Google it..
Another ts took there shirt off at the beach showing enhanced breast to protest not having the rights of women.the courts said they was a man so they took there shirt off parading there breast.
Drivers license protest:
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/1097978
http://www.lgbtqnation.com/2011/11/t...t-dmv-protest/
Last edited by chinabrown; 10-06-2015 at 12:55 AM.
I'm an attorney. Here's some free legal advice - worth every cent you paid for it. This is all about not being a dummy. It is not difficult to figure out whether going topless for women....or those who present as women is going to be a problem. Whether this is due to law, custom, community mores or the enforcement ...or lack of enforcement of laws, regulations or ordinances. This is not a civil rights or human rights issue. In fact, it is trivial. Don't risk the embarrassment or possible legal consequences by offering yourself up as some sort of test case. If you are not in a place that clearly tolerates (for whatever reason) toplessness, then leave your shirt on. Nuff said?
Nuff said!
Frankly, any law restricting anything other than the causing of actual harm to another person (or the environment) is a nonsense, but there's plenty of nonsense to go round these days in our prudish post-puritan society.
Nudity is the natural human state, that is a fact. Protection of mating right and against incidental violation make for clothing and gendered restrooms; the basis of so-called civilisation.
As to topless or not. The hidden or partially-hidden bounty is more tempting than the actuality, the bra adds more - and show me a CD'er who prefers commando to panties!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJFyz73MRcg
I used to believe this, now I'm in the company of many tiggers. A tigger does not wonder why she is a tigger, she just is a tigger.
thanks to krististeph: tigger = TG'er .. T-I-GG-er
If you were the father (or mother) of small children, you would probably not have the same opinion. Would you want your five year old daughter approached by a man wearing no pants?
Wow Pamela! Then laws governing property rights, construction standards, food safety, educational standards, drug purity, fair housing, motor vehicle safety, child pornography, financial crimes etc. must all be nonsense too?? Clothing requirements and gender separated rest rooms are imposed by society (per your post) as the basis for "so called civilization"....seriously?? Not sure what you mean by "protection of mating right". Scratching my head here.
Legally, if someone is still legally a man they can expose theri breasts anywhere no matter what they look like.
As far as what states where it's legal for a female to to do so......
I know in NY State (where i live) it has be legal for decades for a female to expose their breasts in public as it has been ruled discriminatory to allow a man to do so but not a woman .
The irony is, almost no females in NY know this or, if they do, have no desire to exposes themselves .
Last edited by Barbara Jo; 10-06-2015 at 10:31 AM.
fighting comment about "bait"Originally Posted by Chriscrossed
Fishing nude is also a thing here
If that isn't a sexist remark I don't know WHAT is. Why do you assume any male approaching any child would be endangering that child in any manner? The OP asked about breasts, something the children in the US are taught are sexual in nature when they aren't. So pants is a red herring to start with. IF you taught your children that genitals are not something to be ashamed of or afraid of, why would a man or a woman approaching a child be any different with clothing or without?
The earth is the mother of all people and all people should have equal rights upon it.
Chief Joseph
Nez Perce
“Love isn't a state of perfect caring. It is an active noun like struggle. To love someone is to strive to accept that person exactly the way he or she is, right here and now.” - Fred Rogers,
Weird laws are all over. The big motorcycle rally at Sturgis SD for example. Women running around with not much more than a thong for bottoms, no tops are needed as long as the nipples are covered. So you see galls with the breasts running free with a tiny pasties over the nipples, and nothing covering the backside. I have seen gals from the back side you would swear they were naked until you look closer and see the almost invisible string for the thong, pretty much the same from the front other than the tiny thong and pasties covering the minimum. About as close to naked as you can get. Too bad 3/4ths of them really need to be covered, with a tarp!
You're not the only one Leigh... and you have highlighted the minor contradiction in Pamela's world view - are we as nature intended, or are we civilised people! Yes - men wearing women's clothing! Ahem... OK - I guess that's not an argument that will always hold water with the other 98% of males...
But look - laws do not define what you must wear, only that what you choose to wear conforms to an interpretation of what is decent (or more likely what does not cause a disturbance of an otherwise, law-abiding and harmonious peace...) - and it will be down to interpretation and judgment because laws like this are seldom rigid in western society and they do flex with time and fashion...
Can you imagine a hundred years ago, internet chat rooms were probably having the same discussions about women's ankles...Oh, I'm sure they were....
Katey x
"Put some lipstick on - Perfume your neck and slip your high heels on
Rinse and curl your hair - Loosen your hips, and get a dress to wear" Stefani Germanotta
katey you are a riot with you comments....lol...just the other day in my local park, kept my ladies top on when i was sunning myself on my back and took it off to sun my back. i wear a bikini to the beach so the white triangles are obvious...did my v best to keep them hidden...
my ankles were exposed the whole time - daring but necessary
Perhaps it is responses like this from people like you that cause people to leave this forum and not come back. http://www.crossdressers.com/forums/...-what-happened
If you seriously believe that a man walking around town with his genitals hanging out would not be a cause for concern by most people, you are seriously out of touch with the real world. My post was not at all "sexist", it was reality. Get out in the world and meet some "normal" people.
A man walking around with his genitals exposed (or a woman, for that matter) would be arrested by the police and charged with indecent exposure. It's crime.
I only surveyed two States, since I'm not licensed in others.
In Oregon the statute defines nudity to include the "post-pubertal female breast" but Oregon does not apparently prohibit public nudity in general. It prohibits display obscene materials to minors (obscene being defined to include depictions of nudity) and it prohibits display of nudity for advertising purposes.
In Washington the statute makes it a crime to make "any open and obscene exposure of his or her person ... knowing that such conduct is likely to cause reasonable affront or alarm." How vague is that? Obscene is not defined, and reasonable affront or alarm could mean almost anything to the meekest and mildest Washington resident I suppose.
It is notable that Oregon makes the crime, vis-a-vis breasts, dependent on the gender of the person since that is an element of the offense, whereas Washington does not. In Washington the issue is really the "cause reasonable affront or alarm" element, and the issue of gender doesn't really arise unless it arises in the context of what could "reasonably affront."
The advocate for TS rights in Oregon would take the view that a female for the purposes of the statute is not limited to sex assigned at birth females. The advocate for TS rights in Washington would not have the same opportunity to advocate for gender equivalency.
Last edited by Samantha Clark; 10-07-2015 at 04:25 PM.
Putting the y (chromosome) in girly!
Posting Permissions
