Transgender men go topless at non-nude beach

Aaaaaaaaaaaand scene.

Quote :

AP) REHOBOTH BEACH, Del. (AP) - Rehoboth Beach in Delaware isn't a topless beach - but a few transgender men caused a stir by treating it like one.

Police say passers-by complained after the men removed their tops and revealed their surgically enhanced breasts over Memorial Day weekend. A lifeguard asked them to put their tops back on. The men initially refused, but covered up before police arrived.

Even if they hadn't, though, Police Chief Keith Banks notes the men were doing nothing illegal. Since they have male genitalia, they can't be charged with indecent exposure for showing their breasts. Banks says there's no need for a specific law to address the issue.

Rehoboth Beach commissioner Kathy McGuiness isn't so sure. She says the matter will be discussed at a town hall meeting next week.

Thats pretty much the entire article.

Now wank. I command it.

What gets me is this:

Quote :

Even if they hadn't, though, Police Chief Keith Banks notes the men were doing nothing illegal. Since they have male genitalia, they can't be charged with indecent exposure for showing their breasts.

In other words, if you have a penis, you can show off your breasts to your heart's consent. But if you have a uterus the GOOD GOD COVER THOSE THINGS UP YOU JEZEBEL.

(By the way, I know about as much as the average person about transsexuality, but if these people were male to female transsexuals, shouldn't they be treated the same as cisgendered—if that's the word—women? What I'm saying is, if they consider themselves women then the rule should cover them, too, no?)

Wait a minute, wouldn't they be transgendered women if they have male genitals and augmented breasts?

Also, lol if a law gets introduced that technically stops men from showing their moobs, but if that happened police would probably turn a blind eye to any beboobed cismen.

Yeah, I saw this earlier, and ultimately, if anything comes of the issue, it may be just the opposite of what the complainers want. If they try to say that men with breasts above a certain size must wear tops, those most affected would be overweight men, and can you imagine how they would react? And there'd still be the issue of women whose chests are smaller than that cut-off. By the time everything is sorted, either all men would have to wear tops also, or female toplessness would have to be allowed.

Who votes for the former?

Sutremaine wrote:

Wait a minute, wouldn't they be transgendered women if they have male genitals and augmented breasts?

If they identify as women. CBS fail, they make fuck all of a mention whatsoever, just that they were born male.

Adagio wrote:

What gets me is this:

Quote :

Even if they hadn't, though, Police Chief Keith Banks notes the men were doing nothing illegal. Since they have male genitalia, they can't be charged with indecent exposure for showing their breasts.

In other words, if you have a penis, you can show off your breasts to your heart's consent. But if you have a uterus the GOOD GOD COVER THOSE THINGS UP YOU JEZEBEL.

But of course, naïve Adagio. Although more than uterus, just a vagina. Men with uterus don't get much consideration either.

At least the article is being honest- all this is going on is PENIS Y/N, which is pretty much every gender related thing ever.

Adagio wrote:

(By the way, I know about as much as the average person about transsexuality, but if these people were male to female transsexuals, shouldn't they be treated the same as cisgendered—if that's the word—women? What I'm saying is, if they consider themselves women then the rule should cover them, too, no?)

I would think so, but we're not technically even sure what they identify as. In any case, as this igorantly blunders into is, all anyone cares about is whatever's between the legs.

Edit:
Here's the full, original article.

Is it me, or does it seem like a troll? Reported by "Ira Porter" ? The comments? lol.

It sounds like they're MtF, from the article. And if that's the case, frankly I don't feel at all bad for them. Yes, the laws are sexist, and unfair. However, they knew exactly what they were doing. Either buck up, and accept what comes, or don't do it in the first place.

ETA: Hrm, on second look, it does seem a bit fake. I'm halfway tempted to call my grandma. She lives in Rehoboth.

NO WAY MY BOYFRIEND'S GRANDMA'S SISTER HAS A HOUSE THERE TOO


No, I'm serious.

Verandering wrote:

Is it me, or does it seem like a troll? Reported by "Ira Porter"?

Well, his name's on a whole lot of other articles on the site, so I'm going to guess... not a troll.

Wow, I was actually at Rehoboth Beach two weeks ago (cool story, I know). Pity I missed the excitement! lol Even if this is a troll, which I doubt, this is pretty awesome.

Drabbler wrote:

Yeah, I saw this earlier, and ultimately, if anything comes of the issue, it may be just the opposite of what the complainers want. If they try to say that men with breasts above a certain size must wear tops, those most affected would be overweight men, and can you imagine how they would react? And there'd still be the issue of women whose chests are smaller than that cut-off. By the time everything is sorted, either all men would have to wear tops also, or female toplessness would have to be allowed.

Who votes for the former?

I vote for the latter, actually!

Unfortunately, this:

Quote :

"Whoever called and complained [initially] complained about a woman having her top off," he said. "The people now trying to make something about the fact that they were also men, they are trying to have it both ways. You can't have it both ways."

Yes, rather than promoting a discussion of the law being sexist, it's those damn trannies trying to have it both ways again. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Owlish wrote:

Unfortunately, this:

Quote :

"Whoever called and complained [initially] complained about a woman having her top off," he said. "The people now trying to make something about the fact that they were also men, they are trying to have it both ways. You can't have it both ways."

Yes, rather than promoting a discussion of the law being sexist, it's those damn trannies trying to have it both ways again. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Considering the quote before that was:

Quote :

Elkins said he also thinks that it is horrific that some people who voiced outrage through radio talk shows and the Internet only have a problem because they were transgendered.

I think he meant the complainers were trying to have it both ways, like they were morally outraged by bare boobs and by biological males having them...or something.

That said, yes, the law and the fact that they wouldn't consider reversing it are sexist, but my feelings are pretty much this:

Quote :

Now if someone is going to go through the process of having implants, then they probably should think about following the laws of the person they would like to become," McGuiness said.

Steve Elkins, executive director of CAMP Rehoboth, a nonprofit based in Rehoboth that aims to promote a positive environment for the gay and lesbian community, essentially agreed.

"Technically it wasn't against the law. However, there are situations where people who -- because of feelings about their birth, because of who they are -- perceive themselves as females. I think we have to respect that, but on the other hand since they chose to identify themselves as females, they have to respect the law."

Adagio wrote:

What gets me is this:

Quote :

Even if they hadn't, though, Police Chief Keith Banks notes the men were doing nothing illegal. Since they have male genitalia, they can't be charged with indecent exposure for showing their breasts.

In other words, if you have a penis, you can show off your breasts to your heart's consent. But if you have a uterus the GOOD GOD COVER THOSE THINGS UP YOU JEZEBEL.

What I wonder is if he has some precedent he's going on.

"Yeah, we had something like this a few years back. The judge said the law only pertained to those lacking dongs."

Or if there's really a bit in the law that says "Thou shall not expose thine tittehs unless thou possess convex transmission."

maladroit_mooncalf wrote:

Owlish wrote:

Unfortunately, this:

Quote :

"Whoever called and complained [initially] complained about a woman having her top off," he said. "The people now trying to make something about the fact that they were also men, they are trying to have it both ways. You can't have it both ways."

Yes, rather than promoting a discussion of the law being sexist, it's those damn trannies trying to have it both ways again. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Considering the quote before that was:

Quote :

Elkins said he also thinks that it is horrific that some people who voiced outrage through radio talk shows and the Internet only have a problem because they were transgendered.

I think he meant the complainers were trying to have it both ways, like they were morally outraged by bare boobs and by biological males having them...or something.

That said, yes, the law and the fact that they wouldn't consider reversing it are sexist, but my feelings are pretty much this:

Quote :

Now if someone is going to go through the process of having implants, then they probably should think about following the laws of the person they would like to become," McGuiness said.

Steve Elkins, executive director of CAMP Rehoboth, a nonprofit based in Rehoboth that aims to promote a positive environment for the gay and lesbian community, essentially agreed.

"Technically it wasn't against the law. However, there are situations where people who -- because of feelings about their birth, because of who they are -- perceive themselves as females. I think we have to respect that, but on the other hand since they chose to identify themselves as females, they have to respect the law."

Why should there be separate laws for men and women? Some women have little breasts (or no breasts) and some men have rather large breasts. Who cares if they're exposed? They're just body parts--and in ciswomen, they can be used to feed babies.

Lady Anne wrote:

maladroit_mooncalf wrote:

That said, yes, the law and the fact that they wouldn't consider reversing it are sexist, but my feelings are pretty much this:

Quote :

Now if someone is going to go through the process of having implants, then they probably should think about following the laws of the person they would like to become,"
but on the other hand since they chose to identify themselves as females, they have to respect the law."

Why should there be separate laws for men and women? Some women have little breasts (or no breasts) and some men have rather large breasts. Who cares if they're exposed? They're just body parts--and in ciswomen, they can be used to feed babies.

To answer your question, refer to the bolded part. I don't think there should be seperate laws, I'm only saying that since there currently are, they have to be followed until they're changed. Granted, sometimes the best way to change a law is to break it, but without knowing how their refusals were worded, I've no way of knowing if that was the intent or they were actually trying to have it both ways. Was it "No, I'm not putting my shirt on because seperate laws are stupid and sexist" or "I don't have to, I'm a man"?

most transwomen dont actually need implants they grow bombass titties on e

just throwin this out there

Jesus. wrote:

Now wank. I command it.

Have a maggot sundae.

so basically what i'm getting here is "no exposure of breasts if you theoretically have a use for them"

I've got one thing to say about all this: Not sure if want.

There's something hilariously surreal about the article's wording though.

Quote :

so basically what i'm getting here is "no exposure of breasts if you theoretically have a use for them"

Or...if you have a dick I guess?

There needs to be a law against exposing one's mantits whilst mowing their yard though.

maladroit_mooncalf wrote:

That said, yes, the law and the fact that they wouldn't consider reversing it are sexist, but my feelings are pretty much this:

Quote :

Now if someone is going to go through the process of having implants, then they probably should think about following the laws of the person they would like to become," McGuiness said.

Steve Elkins, executive director of CAMP Rehoboth, a nonprofit based in Rehoboth that aims to promote a positive environment for the gay and lesbian community, essentially agreed.

"Technically it wasn't against the law. However, there are situations where people who -- because of feelings about their birth, because of who they are -- perceive themselves as females. I think we have to respect that, but on the other hand since they chose to identify themselves as females, they have to respect the law."

All I'm hearing is
"You CHOSE to be the inferior gender, now suck up all our sexist bullshit like a good little bitch."

Seule wrote:

so basically what i'm getting here is "no exposure of breasts if you theoretically have a use for them"

WHAT

SEULE ARE YOU MAD

YOU CAN'T BREASTFEED IN PUBLIC PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE TO SEE A BABY EATING

Penguin wrote:

Jesus. wrote:

Now wank. I command it.

Have a maggot sundae.

You first. Seriously, man, what's the burr up your butt lately?

Cyberwulf wrote:

WHAT

SEULE ARE YOU MAD

YOU CAN'T BREASTFEED IN PUBLIC PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE TO SEE A BABY EATING

I've never understood what's so incredibly offensive about that. Granted, I think I'd ideally want some privacy and peace and quiet to feed a baby, but for the onlookers, is it really that big of a deal? Another kid might see a breast; so what. A guy might see a breast; so what -- I'm sure he's seen plenty of 'em. A woman might see another woman's breast; so what, she has her own. I really don't see the offense here.

Malganis wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Jesus. wrote:

Now wank. I command it.

Have a maggot sundae.

You first. Seriously, man, what's the burr up your butt lately?

Cyberwulf wrote:

WHAT

SEULE ARE YOU MAD

YOU CAN'T BREASTFEED IN PUBLIC PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE TO SEE A BABY EATING

I've never understood what's so incredibly offensive about that. Granted, I think I'd ideally want some privacy and peace and quiet to feed a baby, but for the onlookers, is it really that big of a deal? Another kid might see a breast; so what. A guy might see a breast; so what -- I'm sure he's seen plenty of 'em. A woman might see another woman's breast; so what, she has her own. I really don't see the offense here.

I don't see what's so offensive about it, either, but when my sister was breastfeeding her daughter, she had to put up with all kinds of stupid when the baby needed to nurse in public. I guess these offended people would rather listen to a baby scream.

NO NO NOT THE MIRACLE OF CHILDBIRTH ANYTHING BUT THAT

Yeah. You must HAVE the baby but by God we don't want to see any of the details.

Malganis wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Jesus. wrote:

Now wank. I command it.

Have a maggot sundae.

You first. Seriously, man, what's the burr up your butt lately?

Cyberwulf wrote:

WHAT

SEULE ARE YOU MAD

YOU CAN'T BREASTFEED IN PUBLIC PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE TO SEE A BABY EATING

I've never understood what's so incredibly offensive about that. Granted, I think I'd ideally want some privacy and peace and quiet to feed a baby, but for the onlookers, is it really that big of a deal? Another kid might see a breast; so what. A guy might see a breast; so what -- I'm sure he's seen plenty of 'em. A woman might see another woman's breast; so what, she has her own. I really don't see the offense here.

So, uh, why am I not allowed to tinkle in public?

Mikey Go WOOGA wrote:

Malganis wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Jesus. wrote:

Now wank. I command it.

Have a maggot sundae.

You first. Seriously, man, what's the burr up your butt lately?

Cyberwulf wrote:

WHAT

SEULE ARE YOU MAD

YOU CAN'T BREASTFEED IN PUBLIC PEOPLE MIGHT HAVE TO SEE A BABY EATING

I've never understood what's so incredibly offensive about that. Granted, I think I'd ideally want some privacy and peace and quiet to feed a baby, but for the onlookers, is it really that big of a deal? Another kid might see a breast; so what. A guy might see a breast; so what -- I'm sure he's seen plenty of 'em. A woman might see another woman's breast; so what, she has her own. I really don't see the offense here.

So, uh, why am I not allowed to tinkle in public?

Because no one's ever seen anything quite like that, and no one ever should.

Cyberwulf wrote:

All I'm hearing is
"You CHOSE to be the inferior gender, now suck up all our sexist bullshit like a good little bitch."

But of course.
You think all these damn, no good, inferior weirdo freaks will be allowed to partake in the elite superior class phallic-shaped pie?

It's the Country Club of the Privileged Birth-Peen.