Hey, there! Log in / Register
Why, yes, there was a half-naked woman chilling in front of the State House this morning
By adamg on Fri, 09/20/2013 - 8:20am
A Worcester radio station (OK, a former Worcester station) brought in that topless Worcester woman to protest for topless equality and certainly not to boost ratings or anything. State Police were monitoring the situation closely.
Neighborhoods:
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Should have
made a swing by the iTards infront of the apple store.
Oh good
As citizens, we need to keep abreast of these protest situations.
Titular
Is she the titular head of the topless movement?
She
Looks like a man!
Might be something to do with this
From the article:
What.
Yes, the article says that she's a transgender woman, so it sounds like something she's completely comfortable with people knowing about her.
It isn't your place or anyone else's place though to comment on people's bodies and say that they don't look male enough or female enough. For who, anyway? For you? Who appointed you the how-men-and-women-ought-to-look police?
Whoa
I think you're reading a little too deep there.
All the anon said was that she looks like a man (to him/her). For whom? For that anon. They just said so. They get to decide the amounts to which a person looks like a woman or man to them. We all do. You may not agree with their decision and you might have a reasonable argument to be made that someone who judges whether a person looks more like a man or a woman is shallow or is being an asshole to share their opinion on the matter in public. But it is ultimately their opinion on the matter. You're not going to change that.
You may hold that the relevance of their opinion on the matter is small or non-existent, but who are you to tell them they can't have an opinion or voice it? I actually think the topic is somewhat relevant since it is exactly the point of the supposed impropriety that the law is protecting society from as well as Stacey's whole point in feeling justified in fighting the law as being unequal. She makes it well known that she is transgender because when male she was able to ride her bike without a shirt and now that she is female she can't legally do so any more. Thus, it is her appearance as a woman that makes it illegal to be topless by the law.
If we all thought, as the anon does, that she looks like a man, then it wouldn't be illegal for her to be topless, no?
Because
people who are transgender or gender nonconforming constantly get told that who they are isn't valid because some other person decided they don't look male or female enough. People get fired, evicted, beaten, and killed because someone decided that someone else's gender expression wasn't acceptable to them.
The comment above wasn't "hm, I wonder if this woman's facial features play in at all with regards to how this is being perceived." This, I imagine, would be viewed as a legitimate and respectful point of discussion by most people who are out as transgender and who are also choosing to put their experiences out there as a form of activism as this woman is. The comment I was responding to was just rude and uncalled for, and is the sort of comment that makes people think transgender people's bodies and identities are up for discussion.
In most of the US, it's completely legal to fire someone because they're transgender, or because they aren't transgender but someone decided they don't look enough like a man or like a woman "should" look. This isn't acceptable, and the body policing and identity policing needs to stop well before it gets to this point. When we let people make transphobic comments and say that the person is just expressing an opinion, we're saying that someone else's identity and validity gets to be up for discussion by others. It doesn't. Everyone is valid.
Looks Matter, At Least To Some Extent
While I would likely not fire someone for appearances sake, I believe it is entirely proper for business owners to have that option.
Some jobs require specified clothing - suits, ties, business attire - and the reason for that is because a company image is being represented by the employee. If the business owner believes that a certain image is detrimental to his or her bottom line, he or she has every right to can the person, IMHO. In many instances, employees are paid for their image as much as they are for their talent. Taken to a logical extreme, your position would have broadcasters and movie makers forced to hire people without respect to looks. Do you believe that would be the right thing as law? If so, any discussion we could have is done, of course, but if you believe those industries have a right to pick and choose based on looks, we're then at least talking about to what degree it should be allowable in other employment situations, no?
Suldog
http://jimsuldog.blogspot.com
Right...
There's caselaw about this. Yes, it's legal for people to choose models, actors, etc. based on appearance. I don't think anyone is questioning that. Nor is anyone questioning employers' rights to require suits and ties at a law firm, or slutty tops at Hooters. As long as it's applied to everyone, and has some sort of relevance to the type of business, it's completely legal.
It's also legal in most of the US to fire a transgender individual who comes to work in a nice suit and tie and is an amazingly talented and effective employee, JUST because the boss doesn't want a transgender employee. It's also legal in 29 states to fire someone because they're gay or lesbian. Completely legal, like, you could even write that on the form when you fire them. "I didn't want someone working for my company who doesn't look like a woman should look according to me." "I don't want a gay man inside my place of business touching my cash register." Completely legal and protected.
See why it's important to speak out about policing of people's appearance or identity?
You ignore the second half of my post
Except this particular transgender person's body IS up for discussion. It's half of the crux of their whole protest. The other half is that the law is applied unevenly to ANYONE's body based on their gender.
So, body appearance is ENTIRELY the point of the protest and the law being protested.
As I said, if this person truly looked like a man (as anon claims) then wouldn't this whole debate be moot? But she doesn't look like a man, thus anon is actually not only rude in their approach but simply wrong as well...AND subsequently the protest has validity.
Stacey has LITERALLY put her body on display for discussion of how it is NOW inappropriate for her to be topless in the eyes of the law even though when she was still a man it wasn't.
RIGHT
The comment was rude. And wrong, too, not that it would be an acceptable thing to say about someone even if she looked more like a stereotypical male. That's the point. Yes, I know she's putting herself out there, and I said so too.
That was
a lot of ultra-liberal babble.
Oh you poor thing. That must
Oh you poor thing. That must have been really stressful to read. You better go have a lie-down.
Disagree vehemently.
I couldn't disagree more.
If someone claims to be Jesus Christ, or the King of France, or John Smith of 2113 Main Street when he is not, then that claim does get to be up for discussion by others, and is not valid.
I also happen to believe that employment is and should continue to be a voluntary relationship that either side can terminate for any reason or for no reason. An employer (a.k.a. the buyer of the employee's labor) should be free to stop buying that labor from that person just as freely as you or I ought to be free to stop patronizing a given store or restaurant. I would make exceptions only for situations of grossly unequal bargaining power, such as company towns with only one significant employer, or an employer who dominates an industry.
Umm... what?
I am not the OP. While I completely agree with you that it is not my (or anyone else's) place to comment on anyone's body *in general*, I think it's entirely benign and appropriate to comment on the body of anyone who, for example, chooses to work as a fashion model, or as a professional athlete, or who enters a bodybuilding contest, or who becomes a public advocate for any particular mode of dress or undress.
Yes and no
No one needs to be making the sorts of remarks that just serve to cut people down. Saying a transwoman looks like a man is a common way of invalidating someone's identity. Quite different than talking constructively about what we do and don't like about various people in the public eye. Saying it as a one-liner like that is really just name-calling.
I mean, come on. Imagine if this woman were a friend of yours, chatting with you in your living room about her plans for this activist group. I think it would be quite reasonable to say to her, hm, this particular feature of yours could be read as male or female, while this other way you present yourself is all female all the way, and it will be interesting how people perceive this... But really, would you just say to a transgender woman, "you look like a man!" and think you were being polite and respectful and that she somehow deserved that because she is in the public eye? I really hope not. This isn't something I would want said about anyone I care about. Or about a random stranger in a news story, for that matter.
Not "in the public eye."
Being "in the public eye" is not the issue. Someone simply being in the public eye does not open him or her up to comments on appearance or gender: I don't think comments about her gender identity or appearance would be appropriate if she were, say, running for office, or the author of a book about economics or history, or featured in a newspaper article about bicycle lanes or restoration of old houses. I don't think comments about her appearance would be appropriate if she were a highly visible protester against war, or in favor of drug legalization, or against environmental sins of one sort or another. None of those cases involve making the protester's appearance the issue.
But, in this case, appearances and gender identity are right at the heart of her protest, which (among other ways) can be characterized as: "Why is it that people who look (stereotypically) like men can go shirtless, while people who look (stereotypically) like women cannot?" Her appearance, specifically as regards gender stereotypes, is pretty central.
You are sort of missing the point.
First of all, I have never seen this woman and I have no idea what she looks like, and I happen to think the "She looks like a man." comment is mean-spirited and gratuitously hurtful. With that said...
Nobody needs to be making any remarks, for that matter, but name-calling and cutting down one's adversary is pretty much par for the course in politics: it's the way the game is played.
Of course not, but I don't think demonstrating respect was the intention of the original poster of the "She looks like a man" quote. On the contrary, I believe his or her purpose was to display contempt for the protester and encourage that contempt in others. He or she certainly succeeded at the former; at the latter, not so much.
More shocking than a half naked woman at the State House
is that anyone still listens to WAAF.
Today is Friday
Besides, today is Friday - isn't WAAF supposed to be all about Whip 'em Out Wednesday (WOW!)?
Keep
your shirt on please!
Don't Worry
While I fully support her quest to get rid of antiquated nudity laws, I will continue to be *that* dork on a European beach with my top still on. I believe in supporting myself, too.
Let's just say that I would never be comfortable riding a bike like that - OUCH!
Swirly, let me tell ya, don't
Swirly, let me tell ya, don't knock it until you try it. It's VERY freeing. Just keep the sunscreen handy.
I
Sometimes ride pant-less through JP with no bike seat!
Women with breast enhancements seem more eager to show them
The article mentioned she had breast enhancement surgery. It seems like women having such surgery are often eager to show off their new toys not yet affected by gravity and time. Perhaps its just me. "YES, they are beautiful. Now, its time to put them away. Church is starting."
Correction
He
Nope
She. Just as with race and ethnicity, people self-identify.
Actually, not.
Legally, racial set-asides and quotas are not available to anyone who self-identifies; if I tried to self-identify as a minority-owned business for federal or state contracting purposes, I could go to jail for fraud.
Socially, on the other hand, I call people pretty much whatever they want to be called; why do anything else unless you're going out of your way to be a jerk?
The difference
Your tits are real.
If you had fake tits, you could have them engineered in any shape you want, at any age. It would be much easier to go without support if you were sporting silicone under very little natural breast tissue.
That's Opie and Anthony
Who haven't been on WAAF since 1998.
Does anybody work at the State House on Fridays?
Does anybody work at the State House on Fridays to see her? Well, work less than on a Thursday, anyway...
Old joke....
What's the thing you hear most frequently at the State House on Wednesday afternoon?
"Have a nice weekend!"
Helpful reminder:
Remember folks that people which want to take advantage of said change in the law are usually THE LAST PEOPLE IN THE WORLD you want to see taking advantage of a changed law.
The Herald comment section is that way
-------------->
And
MotherJones and the welfare office is
<------------------- that way..
Not true
I'd bet more Herald commenters are actually posting while in line at the welfare office than not.
no true
i work two blocks from the one downtown off Summer.
If you asked me to guess
If you asked me to guess where they were from... Somewhere in western mass..
Cool story, bro.
Cool story, bro.
Clutches pearls....
Won't. Somebody. Please. Think. Of. The children?! Who knows what kind of damage exposed female areolae can do to young minds?!
Breastfeeding until age 4
That's what a woman I know did with her first son. No wonder the Penthouse Magazine publisher filed for bankruptcy this week - boobs are not ALL hidden away, just more than in the 70's and 80's.
ah yes
Because women need to regulate their behavior and child rearing decisions because some immature males simply cannot control their own selves.
Right.
Hey
I'd rather regulate myself than trust a crazy person to regulate himself.
I trust me, so I place my safety in my hands. I don't trust strangers, so I do not place my safety in their hands.