Page 8 of 8 FirstFirst ... 678
Results 71 to 79 of 79
  1. #71
    Junior tacticalsnake's Avatar
    Weasyl
    tacticalsnake
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Georgia
    Gender
    male
    Posts
    3
    Since it takes me 12 years to type anything and there was a whole new page of posts, referencing the point about nipples--
    The problem is that, yeah, you can argue all day long about exceptions to the rules, and you can come up with ways in which the term is offensive, but most of that is just arguing for the sake of arguing. We know the terms is are inadequate, we know that there is a huge variety of people in the world.
    I still feel that it's preferable to iterate that it's only what's currently stipulated by law as that is apparently the major concern, that people know full well what is meant by "female nipples" and that the best clarification thereof is female presenting, in which the appearance is that of female breasts, whether modest or generous, and on one who is cis, trans*, intersexed or anything else. It's broad but it's also to the point, and common sense dictates that you know full well what that means. You shouldn't need bullet points because it's well known, or if it's not and someone tries to report and whine, it will become known via explanation.

    And again, it's better to do one on one explanation, because trying to do it inline results in... This thread.
    Last edited by tacticalsnake; 06-17-2014 at 03:47 PM. Reason: accidentally added something instead new post

  2. #72
    Toshabi Pronouns Only Toshabi's Avatar

    Weasyl
    Toshabi
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Gender
    Croc
    Posts
    962
    This whole entire trans debate....


    Wow. It really makes one question their stance on whether or not fighting for trans people is worth it. Kekeke.

  3. #73
    Premium User Runefox's Avatar


    Weasyl
    Runefox
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    NL, Canada
    Posts
    481
    The problem with bringing cis-, trans-, etc into the definition is that it's not common lexicon and it's specifically describing gender and not physical sex (intersex is different), which is what's pertinent to the rules and US law. The easiest to understand and most straightforward way to describe it is by defining it as physically female nipples. Doesn't matter what type of body they're attached to. You absolutely cannot describe them in a manner that omits "female" or language to that effect. The only way to be "gender neutral" is to make absolutely sure that you are referring to sexual characteristics and not gender.

  4. #74
    Toshabi Pronouns Only Toshabi's Avatar

    Weasyl
    Toshabi
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Gender
    Croc
    Posts
    962
    The problem is "WE DUNT LIEK THE WAY THIS IS WORDED, YOU OBVIOUSLY HATE TRANSEXUALZ YOU GODDAM KKK BIGGOTS HITLER NAZI CAPTAIN NOT-EARTH BASTARDS YOU WILL PAY FOR THIS DOWN WITH WEASYL" in my humble, non biased, Toshabi opinion, kekeke. It's a whole lot of putting words in people's mouth and creating a non problem into a problem. Kekekeke, I can't say I'm shocked that all the vocal and up-at-arms folks are-..... kekekeke, let's just not mention that last part, lest thingsget..... hairy..... kekekekekekekekekr

  5. #75
    Junior SpottyJaguar's Avatar
    Weasyl
    SpottyJaguar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Runefox View Post
    What about flat-chested females? Breast cancer survivors? Males with glandular problems? Fat males? Fat females?
    Flat-chested is subjective. I can only assume this would be handled on a case-by-case basis, and, again, the issue would only be whether or not the breasts in question are large/developed/obvious enough to be considered nudity, and not whether or not they are "female," which I have already explained would be a great improvement.

    For breast cancer survivors: since other people who have had their breasts removed would likely not count as being nude if their chests were visible, I would assume it'd be similar for those who have had their breasts removed for cancer reasons? Again, it would depend on the current state of their chests - whether they would be considered developed/obvious/large enough to warrant a higher rating.

    Same for glandular issues (I assume you're referring to things like gynecomastia?). As for body fat... I suppose that is a grey area. For instance, I'm a dude with breasts, but I'm also fat. Yes, my chest is large, but where does one end and the other begin? There's also the fact that breast tissue is fatty tissue. Regardless of where the line is drawn, though, I don't see how this can be remedied with more gendered language.

    Quote Originally Posted by Runefox View Post
    So what would make things comfortable? Would you go into great detail describing what a female sexed nipple looks like? Explain each fringe case that needs to be discussed in detail? Inundate the reader with a wall of text so that the general meaning of the rule no longer makes any sense?

    Oh hey, maybe just add the term "sexed" after "female".
    Again, using language like this is incredibly problematic. As you say in your earlier post, we can't really discuss this without getting into less common views of gender and body parts - using "female-sexed" instead of only "female" or (implicitly) "female-gendered" is just as transphobic and cissexist and uncool.

    Ultimately, the parameters around what can and can't be called nudity is outside of our control, due to the relevant US laws. The wording, however, is very much within our control, and very much needs to be changed. Saying "people are going to be upset no matter what you do" is unhelpful and, honestly, kind of dismissive.
    Last edited by SpottyJaguar; 06-17-2014 at 04:06 PM. Reason: Flubbed some wording.

  6. #76
    Premium User Runefox's Avatar


    Weasyl
    Runefox
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    NL, Canada
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by SpottyJaguar View Post
    Again, using language like this is incredibly problematic. As you say in your earlier post, we can't really discuss this without getting into less common views of gender and body parts - using "female-sexed" instead of only "female" or (implicitly) "female-gendered" is just as transphobic and cissexist and uncool.
    How is "female-sexed" transphobic? It's describing the female sex. The physical condition of being female. Which is what cis-female and transitioned transfemales are. The distinction between sex and gender are exactly why transgender exists to begin with - The inversion or general separation of gender identity from physical sex. To call someone female sexed simply means to call them physically female. But more importantly, referring to a body part as female or belonging to someone of the female sex succinctly remedies the problem of communicating what the rule applies to. And however sexist the rule itself may be (the language in the rule has to make it obvious what it applies to), the rule is in place because of the law. For the rule to change, first does the law.

    Ultimately, the parameters around what can and can't be called nudity is outside of our control, due to the relevant US laws. The wording, however, is very much within our control, and very much needs to be changed. Saying "people are going to be upset no matter what you do" is unhelpful and, honestly, kind of dismissive.
    It's true though. I'm upset right now. Very much so, mainly because it's painfully obvious that the intention behind the rule isn't transphobic, and from my point of view, this is a needless assault in the name of political correctness.
    Last edited by Runefox; 06-17-2014 at 04:13 PM.

  7. #77
    Junior tacticalsnake's Avatar
    Weasyl
    tacticalsnake
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Georgia
    Gender
    male
    Posts
    3
    Yeah, I read that paragraph, and I get what they're going for, and I still feel that they botched it horribly. All the good intentions in the world won't recover it.

    I know that, again, sexed is technically more correct, but since we're talking about artwork, I feel presenting is more accurate since the situation-- that showing parts has specific intent as far as describing a character as well as eliciting a reaction from the viewer of any sort-- is different and presentation describes it better.
    Context is still going to be very important regardless.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Also I don't know about you all but I'm talking about that wretched "clarifying" paragraph here:
    * Female in this case refers to organs which represent or imitate the traditional biological representation. While we understand many of our users may not subscribe to traditional gender/sex dichotomies, we are using this language to match present laws and entertainment requirements of the United States.

    That's the thing I think needs dropped or changed, and as far as I recall was what was brought up in the first place, because it is awful and it focuses on a specific group of users (namely, anyone who is trans or genderqueer), as well as saying bizarre things like, "traditional biologic representation," whatever the hell that's supposed to mean-- it's so muddy that you can, if you wish, argue what is or is not included until the end of time. If someone needs it defined, you can just say, "It means nipples on what appears to be a female breast for the purposes of US laws and regulations."

    Ah, I forgot to mention earlier-- the problem with saying sexed is that if sexed requires a total transition, and a character is shown without having had bottom surgery and is necessarily say, male sexed with female breasts, then what's going to be against US law would have to be allowed because the term sexed- which refers mostly to genitals, sometimes chromosomal sex as well- exempts the breasts incorrectly as male. Hence it's better to go by the appearance of the breast-- if it looks more like a female breast than a male one, regardless of the character's sex or gender, then it's a female breast for the purposes of abiding by US law.

  8. #78
    Junior SpottyJaguar's Avatar
    Weasyl
    SpottyJaguar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Gender
    Male
    Posts
    4
    Quote Originally Posted by Runefox View Post
    How is "female-sexed" transphobic? It's describing the female sex. The physical condition of being female. Which is what cis-female and transitioned transfemales are. The distinction between sex and gender are exactly why transgender exists to begin with - The inversion or general separation of gender identity from physical sex. To call someone female sexed simply means to call them physically female.
    The idea that physical/biological sex is set in stone and unchangeable without surgery or hormonal intervention is transphobic because it sets up parameters around what it means to "really be trans" that actively exclude trans people. For example, my body can be considered "female," however, the logic surrounding that assumption only leaves me two options if I want to be considered male: either just deal with it and be denied the ability to fully self-identify and self-label, or pursue hormone replacement therapy and/or surgery to "change my sex." But what happens if I don't want to pursue those things? Am I stuck being less trans, or not trans at all? Aren't I in charge of my own body? Why do other people get to define me? Policing identities and the bodies they're attached to in this way is transphobia and cissexism.

    Quote Originally Posted by Runefox View Post
    But more importantly, referring to a body part as female or belonging to someone of the female sex succinctly remedies the problem of communicating what the rule applies to.
    It does not, actually. Again, to only say "female breasts/organs/elbows/etc" is not only problematic, but vague. What does this mean? Even if we go with only non-trans persons and bodies, there are still enormous variations between body types, and not all will meet all/many of the chekpoints required to be "male" or "female." I.E., Wide or narrow hips or shoulders, body hair patterns, hormonal patterns, etc. - many people just don't fit into the boxes society has made surrounding these two things, so describing something as just "female" simply cannot be specific enough, on top of being offensive.

    Furthermore, the entire idea of "biological sexes," and that there are only ever two, and that they work ridgidly in X, Y, and Z ways, as opposed to recognized spectrum of gender and identity, is wildly flawed. [this is a spiffy post which goes into more detail on that subject.]

    Quote Originally Posted by Runefox View Post
    It's true though. I'm upset right now. Very much so, mainly because it's painfully obvious that the intention behind the rule isn't transphobic, and from my point of view, this is a needless assault in the name of political correctness.
    I can't speak for others, but I never, not once, said that this was Weasyl's intention. I will only go so far as to assume their intentions were to be specific, and all I'm doing is saying that they failed to do so, while also shitting on a lot of people.
    Last edited by SpottyJaguar; 06-17-2014 at 04:52 PM. Reason: Formtting/grammar

  9.   This is the last staff post in this thread.   #79
    Sentimental Machine Fiz's Avatar

    Weasyl
    Fiz
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Gender
    Female
    Posts
    1,476
    This thread has been retired. We have created a new thread to reflect new wording changes. Please use the new thread to continue discussion:

    https://forums.weasyl.com/vbulletin/...6817#post66817

 

 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •