BMTea@lemmy.world
on 31 Oct 2024 13:45
nextcollapse
“I’ve definitely learned that gender classifiers are an unreliable and flawed technology, especially when it comes to trans people’s gender expression,” Ada Ada Ada said. “I regularly see my algorithmic gender swing back and forth from week to week.
Says the person changing themselves week to week to fit different classifications?
knightly@pawb.social
on 31 Oct 2024 13:52
nextcollapse
Precisely.
Gender isn’t binary, there is no such thing as a male or female nipple. That distinction is something that Humans made up.
riskable@programming.dev
on 31 Oct 2024 14:38
nextcollapse
Not true! The female nipple is actually useful.
UNY0N@lemmy.world
on 31 Oct 2024 14:48
nextcollapse
Define useful.
Just a rhetorical request, I’m not expecting an answer.
Rampsquatch@sh.itjust.works
on 31 Oct 2024 14:52
collapse
Biological males can also lactate, it just takes a lot more effort.
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
on 31 Oct 2024 14:59
collapse
Great, just another thing to make me feel like a failure at.
riskable@programming.dev
on 01 Nov 2024 01:48
collapse
It takes effort but you have to milk it for all its worth!
Apytele@sh.itjust.works
on 31 Oct 2024 14:41
nextcollapse
To the extent that men can lactate! It’s one of the possible side effects of risperdal, which I have to be aware of because I give it fairly regularly. It’s all the same structures it’s just a matter of the hormone signals they’re getting.
spamfajitas@lemmy.world
on 31 Oct 2024 15:10
nextcollapse
This got me curious whether the milk would be any different and, if I’m reading this study correctly, there’s practically no difference in content
Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
on 01 Nov 2024 15:25
collapse
Yep. Same software, same hardware, just different config files.
JWBananas@lemmy.world
on 31 Oct 2024 15:17
collapse
In 2024? Why? Risperdal is such a blunt instrument with respect to its broad affinity for receptors.
Apytele@sh.itjust.works
on 31 Oct 2024 21:07
collapse
Dude sometimes we still give thorazine. And tbh ime the 3rd gens don’t do shit for my typical patient. For context also though, I’m essentially providing ICU level care, so when you say the word “symptom control” it’s often referring to like, fists.
We had a Lady maxxed on Haldol BID one time and she managed to cheek for a week and eventually she just hauled off and rapid fire punched a nurse in the head three times. She legit thought a man was entering through her window every night on a beam of light to forcibly impregnate her and deliver the baby. She kept demanding to see the 50 babies she had up on L&D from the past few months. I’ve actually seen quite a few pregnancy delusions and they’re almost always completely wild psychosis. Another was such an angry manic but high insight enough that when she couldn’t take it anymore she would just come scream at me for the thorazine.
I’m unsure if you don’t work inpatient psychiatry or you just work somewhere significantly classier than I do. I do work in an inner city area that’s flush with people stuck in a cycle of drugs / homelessness so I’m also not going to tell you that any of this is the best solution, just that it’s the only one avaliable to any of us right now due to shitty government policies.
JWBananas@lemmy.world
on 31 Oct 2024 22:00
collapse
ICU level care
Acute care, understood.
referring to like, fists.
i.e. “I need Olanzapine [broad receptor affinity, highly anti-cholinergic, well-tolerated], but, like, faster.” I’m surprised that particular aspect of the side effect profile comes into play with acute usage.
I’m unsure if you don’t work inpatient psychiatry or you just work somewhere significantly classier than I do.
Ah, yes, this happens a lot. No, I don’t work in the medical field at all. I just know things, for reasons.
I do work in an inner city area that’s flush with people stuck in a cycle of drugs / homelessness
i.e. the psychosis has done so much cumulative damage at this point that you need to fall back to the typicals. That explains why the third-gens are useless.
On a different note, have you heard about Cobenfy yet?
It obviously isn’t suited to the needs of your practice. But I’m really glad we’re making progress on alternative treatment approaches, especially novel ones like anti-muscarinics.
Hopefully the new glutamatergics can reach your setting soon.
Apytele@sh.itjust.works
on 01 Nov 2024 09:30
collapse
I’m surprised that particular aspect of the side effect profile comes into play with acute usage.
Well obvs. It’s basically,“idk which receptor is making them _____ (punch people, refuse to eat or drink, or whatever other immediate harm to themselves / others), but we need it to stop 3 days ago and can figure out the details or a potential cross-taper to something better later.”
Ah, yes, this happens a lot. No, I don’t work in the medical field at all. I just know things, for reasons.
Color me fascinated, lol. My guesses are personal experience / reading up on your own treatment or that of a loved one, tangential relation to the field such as clinical research, or just plain personal fascination. Given you linked to a drug that appears to be in trials my first guess is actually the second one. Hadn’t heard of it, and I’m hopeful, but after seeing abilify get approved for acute agitation I’m… skeptical.
i.e. the psychosis has done so much cumulative damage at this point that you need to fall back to the typicals. That explains why the third-gens are useless.
Yeah a lot of people don’t realize the damage is additive, both people w/ these disorders and unrelated laypeople who think “talented artist stops taking their meds and continues to be talented but starts creating art with weirder subject matter as their brain boils” is a cool story.
I’m mostly replying to add though that risperdal also has the distinction of being avaliable as a long-acting injectable, and if you’re trialing oral meds before committing to an LAI, your options are somewhat narrowed. Zyprexa does have an LAI available, but I’ve actually never seen it used and while I can’t tell you why for certain, I do have a guess.
If you have a patient sick enough that you’re considering an LAI, you don’t want to take benzos off the table for an entire month, especially if it turns out to be inadequate after discharge and they wind up in an ED agitated and unable to report their own med hx and get B52ed and stop breathing. I’ve had a pharmacist tell me considering that interaction is going out of style but a history of that kind of adverse event is difficult for a med to shake. Accutane still has suicidal ideation in adolescents listed as a side effect but I have a strong suspicion that it’s less causation and more correlation with the impact of pizza face on the self and social esteem of a teenager.
Biological sex != gender. There’s not even 2 classes of biological sex. There are men born with biological female organs and women born with biologically men’s organs. We all as humans do share common organs, one of which happens to be the nipple.
Regardless of what your actual biological sex is a gender is simply a social construct used to identify someone. A person who is “non-binary” feels that their gender does not conform to what you would typically expect of either male or female based on appearances or behavior.
Sure but there are two major biological sexes. I can understand how gender can be defined as something else though.
Non-binary can decide what gender they feel like.
BassTurd@lemmy.world
on 31 Oct 2024 17:38
collapse
Anyone can decide what gender they feel like. Most people identify with one of the major genders, but many people don’t for multiple possible biological reasons. Nobody is in good faith identifying as a gender they don’t actually feel like.
Sure. If you define the word gender as identifying what you feel like, then it makes sense from that perspective. If I felt like my gender is someone who feels like a cat, that would be my gender then.
BassTurd@lemmy.world
on 31 Oct 2024 17:53
collapse
I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you had a genuine question, but I now feel that was a mistake.
It was a genuine question, and I listened to your opinion. My own opinion differs from your own. This happens sometimes in conversations. To me, that doesn’t mean that we need to leave the discussion or downvote eachother. :)
The thing is, these conversations usually go the same way. People like yourself try to step in and guide people who ask questions. And if they don’t 100% share your own opinion, then you feel it’s a waste of time. And also you think you know me. I must be a troll. Right?
It’s a bit funny, you have to admit. Online discussions are not sniper battles. Or they shouldn’t be.
Maybe I have a different point of view on this because of my own upbringing and my own experiences. Seems pretty likely, no? And maybe one comment online will not change all of that in an instant. Also makes sense, no?
So just relax… We don’t have to fight online. I promise.
feedum_sneedson@lemmy.world
on 31 Oct 2024 20:05
nextcollapse
Nor in person. Just let people be, right? If it doesn’t harm, let people do it.
Snapz@lemmy.world
on 31 Oct 2024 16:57
nextcollapse
Poster below gave you all the answer you’d ever need on this question you beg… If you have any integrity, add a note to your original comment to clarify that you were mistaken in your initial assumption and why.
BMTea@lemmy.world
on 31 Oct 2024 18:41
nextcollapse
Their argument is that “gender is just a social construct”, without acknowledging that some of the most paramount aspects of human existence are “social constructs” (i.e language) and that gender is one of them. And without addressing why sexual taboos (like public nudity) are gendered - to them its a form of irrational injustice. But expore the social ramifications -through real and hypothetical examples- and you quickly find that it is indeed rational to treat bodies different according to their gender, and that human social psychology does have strong roots in human phsyiognamy.
From the person I talked to above, they are using gender to describe how they feel about who they are. So maybe it’s just a word difference.
I’m very downvoted for being in this thread though and so are you. It’s a bit funny.
A mod deleted my comment it seems.
Anyway, guess I leave this strange thread and leave people here with their beliefs.
knightly@pawb.social
on 31 Oct 2024 21:22
collapse
I’ll take this as a good faith question, and the short answer is that gender is a lot more complicated than that.
Yes there are two archetypal roles involved in sexual reproduction, but even that isn’t so simple. There isn’t just one feature that defines male or female, but a combination of traits including chromosomes, gametes, anatomy, hormones, etc. In the real world, some folks are born with features that don’t all agree with one or another archetype. Intersex people aren’t common, about 1 in 2,000, but their existence proves that sex isn’t just a binary. There’s diversity to sex that requires a more complicated scheme to account for everybody.
Gender, likewise, doesn’t follow the one-or-the-other model. Most folks are cisgender, but some folks have a gender that doesn’t agree with what people assume their sex is, or no gender at all, or a gender that doesn’t fit into the man/woman spectrum. It gets complicated quickly because gender is where sex and society intersect. Some cultures have different expectations based on gender, and some even have more than two recognized genders. That’s why we say “gender is a social construct”, because we all get to define for ourselves what it means to be a man, woman, or otherwise. And that’s also how gender is constructed, it’s a social project we all engage in collectively whether we realize it or not. Most just pass along the traditional gender roles that were passed to them, but those can change rather rapidly as society changes, like when clean-shaven faces became “manly” in response to WW1 soldiers having to shave so that their gas masks could maintain a good seal.
Cypher@lemmy.world
on 01 Nov 2024 04:11
nextcollapse
their existence proves that sex isn’t just a binary.
This argument has always struck me as odd as in virtually every other discussion we would accept that the exception ‘proves the rule’.
Humans have two hands, except when they don’t due to something impacting fetal development.
Humans have two kidneys, except when they don’t due to an error in fetal development or as a result of disease or injury.
There’s diversity to sex that requires a more complicated scheme to account for everybody.
Or just let the exceptions be exceptions with no social stigma rather than refusing to recognise that the vast majority of humans, and mammals, can be accurately identified as one of two distinct sexes.
1984@lemmy.today
on 01 Nov 2024 07:49
nextcollapse
It feels like underneath all this, it’s actually about people refusing to be marginalized and they want to be accepted as everyone else. But I think instead of trying to change words and ban conversations, maybe it’s better to teach people to accept and even enjoy more variations?
Because right now it’s a bit ridiculous. We are told to ignore obvious differences between people so nobody feels marginalized. That’s likely to make it very difficult to even have a conversation.
It’s like when you can’t describe someone as black or white, or fat or thin, and it just becomes really humorous in the end, as you are struggling to find other words that are identifying the person.
knightly@pawb.social
on 02 Nov 2024 12:27
collapse
But I think instead of trying to change words and ban conversations, maybe it’s better to teach people to accept and even enjoy more variations?
This is naive.
How are we supposed to teach people to accept variation when they insist that there can be no deviation from the norm?
Because right now it’s a bit ridiculous. We are told to ignore obvious differences between people so nobody feels marginalized.
I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make here. Just a moment ago you were complaining that the language we use to talk about this topic was a problem, now we’re supposedly telling people not to talk about it? Pick a lane!
Who are you talking about that is insisting there can be no deviation from the norm? And maybe you don’t realize how teaching works… You need someone willing to learn to be able to be able to have a teacher. Banning words and discussions is absolutely the wrong way to go. History has shown this many times.
And my point is very simple. Don’t ban words. Have open discussions. Don’t support censorship of opinions or words. Don’t be afraid of what people are actually thinking of things. Stop trying to control what people should think, and stop trying to teach them what you think is right.
People will not read something online and change their minds. Just like you are currently reading my words here, and you will not agree or change your mind. Neither will I. That’s how it works.
I can’t be your teacher unless you want to be my student.
knightly@pawb.social
on 02 Nov 2024 14:21
collapse
Who are you talking about that is insisting there can be no deviation from the norm?
Right-wingers, the only people who have ever had a problem with diversity.
Banning words and discussions is absolutely the wrong way to go.
I’m confused about what you mean, because the only people doing that are the “Don’t Say Gay” Florida Republicans.
And my point is very simple. Don’t ban words.
I get the feeling that you’re going to be angry when I point out that the only people banning words are the ones who want to make it illegal to teach kids that people like me exist.
Have open discussions. Don’t support censorship of opinions or words.
Make up your mind, do you want to actually have open discussions or do you think that avoiding censorship of the “opinions and words” of discriminatory groups is more important than the presence of the groups they discriminate against?
Stop trying to control what people should think, and stop trying to teach them what you think is right.
…
What do you think “teaching” is?
knightly@pawb.social
on 04 Nov 2024 17:45
collapse
Hey @1984@lemmy.today, did you forget about me?
MirthfulAlembic@lemmy.world
on 01 Nov 2024 13:26
nextcollapse
I’m not quite certain the point you are making here. Is the implication that because humans typically have two hands, those that do not are not a group that can be described? Or that they can be, but only should be as the product of developmental errors?
We don’t generally, where we know exceptions exist, refuse to acknowledge their existence. Saying sex is a binary is saying there are only males and only females. That’s literally what binary means. Like binary notation either uses 0 or 1. If it was possible for sometimes to have a 2, it wouldn’t be binary anymore. That’s a different thing.
This is especially true for something like sex that is based on a grouping of traits, genes, expressions, etc. which are not universally 0 or 1. Sure, we generally agree on a category when some are different, but there’s some points where it’s not so stark. Hence, the binary fails because there can be overlap and grey.
Nobody is saying we have to stop using male and female to describe sex in most cases, especially in a medical setting. But if you had a child born intersex, and the doctor turned to you and said, “Nah, my gut says male. Nothing will be different,” you’d probably ask for a second opinion.
I think I was fairly clear, it is a binary system that has some rare exceptions.
Saying sex is a binary is saying there are only males and only females.
In healthy examples of mammals where development has occurred normally this is true.
This whole ‘its a spectrum’ argument is like saying humans aren’t bipedal, there’s a spectrum because some people are born without legs! It doesn’t make any sense.
That doesn’t mean that society should refuse to accept, include and support people born without the ability to walk.
MirthfulAlembic@lemmy.world
on 01 Nov 2024 15:15
nextcollapse
Then it’s not a binary system. It’s a system with two extremely dominant members. Those are different things. You can be more binary in specific contexts e.g., gametes and egg vs sperm.
I’d be very cautious about the healthy description in reference to intersex people. I don’t believe you are trying to say anything nefarious, but there’s a reason it shows up in eugenics arguments.
I didn’t say sex was a spectrum, though perhaps someone else you were speaking with did. I wouldn’t use spectrum for sex, since there are multiple differentiating factors with differing measures.
It helps if you read and comprehend the comment chain to understand what is being discussed before you jump in with ‘I didn’t say that’ when I never claimed you did.
I don’t see why it’s so hard for you to actually read the comment chain. It is right there. You can re-read it at any time.
knightly@pawb.social
on 05 Nov 2024 11:56
collapse
I think I was fairly clear, it is a binary system that has some rare exceptions.
You are describing a “Bimodal Distribution”, where most but not all fall into one of two categories.
If it were a binary system, there would be no exceptions.
Saying sex is a binary is saying there are only males and only females.
In healthy examples of mammals where development has occurred normally this is true.
This whole ‘its a spectrum’ argument is like saying humans aren’t bipedal, there’s a spectrum because some people are born without legs! It doesn’t make any sense.
That doesn’t mean that society should refuse to accept, include and support people born without the ability to walk.
Make up your mind, are people who are not bipedal still human?
If they are, then obviously humanity is not exclusively bipedal and attempting to define us as such will cause problems with everyone from non-bipedal infants to the non-bipedal elderly and disabled folks of all ages.
Ultraviolet@lemmy.world
on 01 Nov 2024 15:29
nextcollapse
Sure. Let’s just apply that consistently then. Atoms are binary, the vast majority (with fewer than 1% of atoms being exceptions) can be accurately identified as one of two distinct elements, hydrogen or helium.
knightly@pawb.social
on 06 Nov 2024 03:54
collapse
This argument has always struck me as odd as in virtually every other discussion we would accept that the exception ‘proves the rule’.
This is category theory, the existence of exceptions means that the model is incomplete because it cannot categorize everyone. In this case, the exceptions prove that the rule cannot be binary, but must instead be bimodal to allow for the variation seen in the population.
Humans have two hands, except when they don’t due to something impacting fetal development.
Are you defining people without two hands as non-human, or are you admitting that defining humanity as exclusively two-handed will necessarily fail to account for all the exceptions to the rule?
Or just let the exceptions be exceptions with no social stigma rather than refusing to recognise that the vast majority of humans, and mammals, can be accurately identified as one of two distinct sexes.
Again, this is category theory. Exceptions mean you have forgotten to account for someone. Admitting that some people don’t fit neatly into the only two boxes you’ll recognize as legitimate is itself a form of social stigma that you perpetuate with your desire to “let exceptions be exceptions”.
All you have to do is recognize the obverse, that regardless of how vast the majority of allosexual folks and critters might be, it is not the totality.
I think it’s fine that everyone gets to say what their gender is, as long as the archetypal roles stay the same - man or female.
Gender can be a word for how people define themselves, as long as we instead use “archetypal roles” to define what our physical body looks like.
I think what is frustrating is when people start to say that we shouldn’t include our physical body type at all in discussions. That’s taking it too far in my opinion. Going to the doctor and not telling what body type you are makes diagnosis impossible in same cases. And for what reason? That part doesn’t make any sense to me. Race, body type, and other things are important to know in many cases.
But otherwise, sure, people can define their gender how they like.
knightly@pawb.social
on 01 Nov 2024 10:13
collapse
I think it’s fine that everyone gets to say what their gender is, as long as the archetypal roles stay the same - man or female.
But otherwise, sure, people can define their gender how they like.
I’m noticing a contradiction here.
Gender can be a word for how people define themselves, as long as we instead use “archetypal roles” to define what our physical body looks like.
And for those of us who don’t fit those archetypes?
I think what is frustrating is when people start to say that we shouldn’t include our physical body type at all in discussions. That’s taking it too far in my opinion.
Generally, it is considered impolite to talk to strangers about one’s genitals.
Going to the doctor and not telling what body type you are makes diagnosis impossible in same cases.
The medical setting is one of the few contexts where talking about one’s anatomy isn’t considered a faux pas.
And for what reason? That part doesn’t make any sense to me.
Do you want the historical explanation of how puritainism affected our culture?
Race, body type, and other things are important to know in many cases.
They’re relevant a lot less often than you’d think.
flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz
on 31 Oct 2024 13:51
collapse
The only thing changed between photos is clothing and pose. Is that gender? Well maybe it is, but it’s useless for classification.
If it’s one thing I learned from the thread, it’s that the word gender can be anything at all.
MonkRome@lemmy.world
on 01 Nov 2024 00:40
collapse
It’s these bad faith arguments that caused the thread to turn against you. Gender isn’t a cat, and it certainly isn’t anything at all. You claim you wanted earnest conversation, but you undermined that with snide comments you knew would result in negative reaction.
TropicalDingdong@lemmy.world
on 31 Oct 2024 13:59
nextcollapse
tits out for harambe
ThePantser@lemmy.world
on 31 Oct 2024 14:10
nextcollapse
Small boobies = nipple ok
Big boobies = nipple not ok
Is what I think this Instagram is trying to say. I don’t agree and think let the boobies be free.
EngineerGaming@feddit.nl
on 31 Oct 2024 21:30
collapse
Would that mean censorship of moobs?
iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works
on 31 Oct 2024 14:32
nextcollapse
If women’s nipples are censored because they are considered sexual, men’s should be too. I know more than a few women who are sexuality aroused by topless men.
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
on 31 Oct 2024 14:52
nextcollapse
Why ban male nipples? Fuck that all nipples should be allowed.
iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works
on 31 Oct 2024 15:03
nextcollapse
That’s my point.
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
on 31 Oct 2024 15:10
collapse
I was wondering but I guess I don’t understand why say it that way instead of the other way around.
iAmTheTot@sh.itjust.works
on 31 Oct 2024 15:32
collapse
To highlight the absurdity of the concept. I think the majority of people would agree that topless men should not be censored.
SpruceBringsteen@lemmy.world
on 31 Oct 2024 17:13
collapse
Gonna make a novelty insta devoted to hairy male nipples
Bet it can beat Tik Tok to a congressional ban
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net
on 31 Oct 2024 19:37
collapse
If you need some hairy male nipples to show off then let me know, I’ll contribute to the cause 😂
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
on 31 Oct 2024 14:57
nextcollapse
Do you have like a list or anything? Friend wants to know.
ODuffer@lemmy.world
on 31 Oct 2024 16:38
nextcollapse
As a bloke who’s had his pecs groped in intimate acts, I would agree.
It is however worth mentioning that the sexualisation of the pecs and boobs is a man-made construction brought upon by Christian values and one day we may even move past those values and desexualise these body parts.
NatakuNox@lemmy.world
on 31 Oct 2024 14:39
nextcollapse
Ya it’ll be a cold day in hell before Instagram requires men to hide their nipples. Just shows how ingrained America’s views on sex, sexuality and gender are in Christianity.
krashmo@lemmy.world
on 31 Oct 2024 14:45
nextcollapse
Christian tradition, sure, but the Bible doesn’t have much to say about nipples so any specific rule regarding them seems to be more of an inference than a command.
NatakuNox@lemmy.world
on 31 Oct 2024 15:12
nextcollapse
The Bible stopped being a real guide for American Christians the moment they landed on our coast
ICastFist@programming.dev
on 31 Oct 2024 15:27
nextcollapse
Doesn’t stop them from using it as the “reason” for several rules
moseschrute@lemmy.world
on 01 Nov 2024 01:19
collapse
Isn’t the constitution the New New Testament.
JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
on 31 Oct 2024 19:50
collapse
I read once that it had more to do with not seeing wealthy women’s nipples. For example wealthy women would hire a wet nurse to breast feed their babies. It was a way to show off wealth and social standing. So the hired help in the form of a wet nurse could show her breasts, but her wealthy employer would not because its beneath her.
So not showing breasts, even for the purpose of breast feeding became affiliated with wealth and power, whereas the inverse was true, showing breasts meant you could not afford to keep them covered.
And that’s not even including the influence of brothels and prostitution.
Let that cook for however many hundreds of years, mix in religion and you get whatever the fuck we have now.
It was an interesting theory and seemed to make sense to me. I’ll have to try to find the article later. I read it maybe 10 years ago so it might take some looking.
The Wikipedia article says historically wet nursing was available to all social classes, so that doesn’t really jive.
JovialMicrobial@lemm.ee
on 01 Nov 2024 10:27
collapse
I wanted to find that article before I responded to you, but like I said it read about 10 years ago and not having much luck finding it.
But yes wetnurses were available to all women because not all women can produce breast milk.
If one poor woman’s baby is starving it was not uncommon for a friend or sister to fulfill that role to help them. Women were pregnant more frequently due to no birthcontrol. So a woman lactating was more common. However they weren’t hiring a wet nurse in the same way the wealthy were, and if a poor woman could feed her baby she would. A rich woman(almost) always hired a wet nurse regardless of her ability to produce milk.
Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
on 31 Oct 2024 14:56
nextcollapse
What does the pope have to say about nipples? I’ve seen some in Christian art (didn’t touch myself to these, just in case), but didn’t realize there was an opinion on this?
The forms taken by modesty vary from one culture to another. Everywhere, however, modesty exists as an intuition of the spiritual dignity proper to man. It is born with the awakening consciousness of being a subject. Teaching modesty to children and adolescents means awakening in them respect for the human person." (C.C.C. # 2524)
People here are not serious, they repeat slogans and polemics very superficially. The nipple taboo is found across pre-Christian and non-Abrahamic societies, probably because of breasts’ association with fertility. I.e
When did bare breasts become taboo in Western civilization?
Probably around 3,000 years ago. Women are displayed with exposed breasts in Minoan artwork from 1500 B.C. Some historians believe that these ancient women went topless only during religious rituals—bare-breasted, buxom goddesses have been worshipped since the dawn of civilization—but some of the artworks depict everyday activities, suggesting that bare breasts may have been commonplace. Just across the Mediterranean, ancient Egyptian women sported elaborate dresses that could either cover the breasts or leave them exposed, depending on the whim of the designer. Over the next few centuries, however, breasts become strictly private parts. Ancient Athenian women were wearing flowing, multilayered robes that concealed the shape of the bosom by the middle of the first millennium B.C. Spartan attire was more risqué, exposing the female thigh, but breasts were always covered.
yetAnotherUser@discuss.tchncs.de
on 01 Nov 2024 11:18
collapse
But that would be worse?
The solution to women being treated unfairly is not to start treating men unfairly too. It’s to treat women fairly.
Apytele@sh.itjust.works
on 31 Oct 2024 14:39
nextcollapse
FilthyShrooms@lemmy.world
on 31 Oct 2024 15:51
nextcollapse
sign up to keep reading
No, no I don’t think I will
mosiacmango@lemm.ee
on 31 Oct 2024 17:30
nextcollapse
It’s annoying, but at least this is an independent, worker owned 4 man outfit that got its start when Vice went bankrupt.
Here is the article:
For the past two years an algorithmic artist who goes by Ada Ada Ada has been testing the boundaries of human and automated moderation systems on various social media platforms by documenting her own transition.
Every week she uploads a shirtless self portrait to Instagram alongside another image which shows whether a number of AI-powered tools from big tech companies like Amazon and Microsoft that attempt to automatically classify the gender of a person see her as male or female. Each image also includes a sequential number, year, and the number of weeks since Ada Ada Ada started hormone therapy.
In 2023, after more than a year into the project which she named In Transitu, Instagram removed one of Ada Ada Ada’s self portraits for violating Instagram’s Community Guidelines against posting nudity. We can’t say for certain why Instagram deleted that image specifically and whether it was a human or automated system that flagged it because Meta’s moderation systems remain opaque, but it was at that moment that Instagram first decided that Ada Ada Ada’s nipples were female, and therefore nudity, which isn’t allowed on the platform. On Instagram, shirtless men are allowed and shirtless women are also allowed as long as they don’t show nipples, so what constitutes nudity online often comes down to the perceived gender of an areola.
“I’m really interested in algorithmic enforcement and generally understanding the impact that algorithms have on our lives,” Ada Ada Ada told me in an interview. “It seemed like the nipple rule is one of the simplest ways that you can start talking about this because it’s set up as a very binary idea—female nipples no, male nipples, yes. But then it prompts a lot of questions: what is male nipple? What is a female nipple?”
In Transitu highlights the inherent absurdity in how Instagram and other big tech companies try to answer that question.
“A lot of artists have been challenging this in various ways, but I felt like I had started my transition at the end of 2021 and I also started my art practice. And I was like, well, I’m actually in a unique position to dive deep into this by using my own body,” Ada Ada Ada said. “And so I wanted to see how Instagram and the gender classification algorithms actually understand gender. What are the rules? And is there any way that we can sort of reverse engineer this?”
While we can’t know exactly why any one of Ada Ada Ada’s images are removed, she is collecting as much data as she can in a spreadsheet about which images were removed, why Instagram said they were removed, and to the best of her knowledge if the images’ reach was limited.

That data shows that more images were removed further into her transition, but there are other possible clues as well. In the first image that was removed, for example, Ada Ada Ada was making a “kissy face” and squeezing her breasts together, which could have read as more female or sexual. Ada Ada Ada was also able to reupload that same image with the nipples censored out. In another image that was removed, she said, she was wearing a lingerie bra where her nipples were still visible.
“But then again, you have this one where I’m wearing nipple clamps, and that didn’t do anything,” she said. “I would have expected that to be removed. I’ve also had another picture where I’m holding up a book, Nevada by the trans author Imogen Binnie. I’m just holding a book and that was removed.”
Ada Ada Ada also maintains a spreadsheet where she tracks how a number of AI-powered gender classifiers—Face++, face-api.js, Microsoft Azure’s Image Analysis, Amazon Rekognition, and Clarifai—are reading her as male or female.

Experts have criticized such gender classifiers for often being wrong and particularly harmful for transgender people. “You can’t actually tell someone’s gender from their physical appearance,” Os Keyes, a researcher at the University of Washington who has written a lot about automated gender recognition (AGR), wrote for Logic in 2019. “If you try, you’ll just end up hurting trans and gender non-conforming people when we invariably don’t stack up to your normative idea of what gender ‘looks like.’”
“I’ve definitely learned that gender classifiers are an unreliable and flawed technology, especially when it comes to trans people’s gender expression,” Ada Ada Ada said. “I regularly see my algorithmic gender swing back and forth from week to week. In extension to that, it’s also fascinating to see how the different algorithms often disagree on my gender. Face++ (which is a Chinese company) tends to disagree more with the others, which seems to suggest
S13Ni@lemmy.studio
on 31 Oct 2024 19:44
nextcollapse
I make an exception for one of the best tech outlets
GreenKnight23@lemmy.world
on 01 Nov 2024 00:52
collapse
Isn’t it free?
peopleproblems@lemmy.world
on 31 Oct 2024 16:03
nextcollapse
… Because it all becomes Crab?
finitebanjo@lemmy.world
on 31 Oct 2024 20:06
nextcollapse
We really live in somebody’s dystopian fiction. Life imitates art.
pinkystew@reddthat.com
on 01 Nov 2024 00:11
nextcollapse
this is interesting as fuck
“I’m really interested in algorithmic enforcement …” Ada Ada Ada told me in an interview. “It seemed like the nipple rule is one of the simplest ways … because it’s set up as a very binary idea—female nipples no, male nipples, yes. But then it prompts a lot of questions: what is male nipple? What is a female nipple?”
She’s using her own journey as a trans person to document how AI tools like those used by Instagram identify potentially obscene material.
socsa@piefed.social
on 01 Nov 2024 00:52
nextcollapse
New passing meta just dropped
SynopsisTantilize@lemm.ee
on 01 Nov 2024 02:38
nextcollapse
Why are you using Instagram enough for this to even be a question?
ipkpjersi@lemmy.ml
on 01 Nov 2024 02:51
nextcollapse
I think they call it “female-presenting”, so if it looks like female nipples to them, then they ban it.
orgrinrt@lemmy.world
on 01 Nov 2024 11:53
collapse
Chill, friend. People die naturally and fade from memory, this is how we move on and progress. There are way too many issues at the same level of importance as the nipples in social media, and way too many ought to be terminated if we placed the line there.
In place of termination, I’d love to see education, practical activism and just good old time.
We’ll get there. The weirdos opposing mundane shit like nipples will die and fade naturally, and our efforts spent in education and activism will shift the larger tides such that new ones like them will get fewer and fewer each generation.
And since we are humans, new issues will arise, and we’ll fight them the same. They are, and always have been, doomed to die out with the rest of the ass-backwards ideas, this is what progress is.
And you can’t speed up progress with blood. That is how you slow it down. The ideas will root in the blood and refuse to fade like they should and as they eventually unavoidably will, with the temporal resistance brought up by the rushed show of force.
Let the fuckers fade out and be forgotten, as much as possible, as fast as possible, and help the process by being active. Be loud, be persistent, but be not violent.
Any and all violence has always been, and always will be, resisted eventually by a larger force. If the nipple-opposers (I.e conservatives) choose violence, that’ll only serve to speed up the progress for us, by the way of rising more forceful resistance, and after overcoming the oppression, having the majority to instantly implement changes with popular support.
Oppressors will never be popular in the long run, and the oppressor’s ideas are bound to die with them. Not for good, as we’ve seen with the rise of neo-nazism, but they’ll never again be as popular so as to rise into power without blood, and with blood, they’ll repeat the cycle of ultimately weakening themselves and their ideas out of existence for good. But in the short-term, the polar opposites of the oppressor’s ideas will gain flash popularity and those ideas will get rapidly implemented, thus speeding up the progress.
It’s complex and unintuitive, perhaps, but the history has shown that any and all attempts to speed up any ideological progresses by way of violence or oppression, has ultimately ended in those very ideas being in ruin, and the opposing ideas getting stronger, more persistent in their standing.
Though for a short while, those ideas will be in power, and a lot of bad stuff will happen. Even if the ideas should be good from our point of view. But that is just a temporary state, which will always end in resistance winning, and opposing ideas gaining standing and popularity.
This became a very tangential and random outburst, of which I’m not very proud, but I think it best to leave it up if not for anything else but to show everyone my unfounded idea of self-importance and a rambling, cringeworthy brain. Yikes. I’m fucking ashamed. But this is how I think, I suppose, maybe someone will set me straight.
interdimensionalmeme@lemmy.ml
on 01 Nov 2024 14:04
collapse
I would offer clemency to any that woyld confess the sight of boobies is not in fact evil.
I agree violence is not the way but indecision and magnanimity is allowing the anti-human ideas to fester.
There are many tgat seem disgusted of their own human animal form and project it as hatred into society.
They imagine all sorts of harms from its sight alone. They create enormous hurdle to the simple act of touch. They invent rules and codes that keep us apart and separated.
I don’t even think they really know why, it is as thought they are ideologically possessed against our flesh itself. We must reject their virulent shame and self -hate with compassion as much as possible and with violence as much as necessary.
Thank you for letting out what was in your heart, I am touched to have sung with you internet stranger.
kent_eh@lemmy.ca
on 01 Nov 2024 15:32
nextcollapse
In most states, it’s legal to walk around toppless.
However that doesn’t atop some Karen type from calling the police to come and harass you. And there’s no guarantee the cop that shows up won’t decide you are disturbing the peace or something.
Nor does it stop immature bros from being idiots about it and making the person feel unsafe.
sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
on 01 Nov 2024 16:34
collapse
Not in my state. In fact, you can’t even show underboob, because anything “the female breast below the top of the areola” is illegal. It’s legal in Alaska and a super conservative neighbor state, so why not my stupid state?
FlyingSquid@lemmy.world
on 01 Nov 2024 10:34
collapse
I have manboobs from when I was fat. I almost want to take a self-portrait and see what Instagram thinks.
Shou@lemmy.world
on 01 Nov 2024 13:51
nextcollapse
threaded - newest
Says the person changing themselves week to week to fit different classifications?
Precisely.
Gender isn’t binary, there is no such thing as a male or female nipple. That distinction is something that Humans made up.
Not true! The female nipple is actually useful.
Define useful.
Just a rhetorical request, I’m not expecting an answer.
Biological males can also lactate, it just takes a lot more effort.
Great, just another thing to make me feel like a failure at.
It takes effort but you have to milk it for all its worth!
To the extent that men can lactate! It’s one of the possible side effects of risperdal, which I have to be aware of because I give it fairly regularly. It’s all the same structures it’s just a matter of the hormone signals they’re getting.
This got me curious whether the milk would be any different and, if I’m reading this study correctly, there’s practically no difference in content
Said study: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/7462406/
Yep. Same software, same hardware, just different config files.
In 2024? Why? Risperdal is such a blunt instrument with respect to its broad affinity for receptors.
Dude sometimes we still give thorazine. And tbh ime the 3rd gens don’t do shit for my typical patient. For context also though, I’m essentially providing ICU level care, so when you say the word “symptom control” it’s often referring to like, fists.
We had a Lady maxxed on Haldol BID one time and she managed to cheek for a week and eventually she just hauled off and rapid fire punched a nurse in the head three times. She legit thought a man was entering through her window every night on a beam of light to forcibly impregnate her and deliver the baby. She kept demanding to see the 50 babies she had up on L&D from the past few months. I’ve actually seen quite a few pregnancy delusions and they’re almost always completely wild psychosis. Another was such an angry manic but high insight enough that when she couldn’t take it anymore she would just come scream at me for the thorazine.
I’m unsure if you don’t work inpatient psychiatry or you just work somewhere significantly classier than I do. I do work in an inner city area that’s flush with people stuck in a cycle of drugs / homelessness so I’m also not going to tell you that any of this is the best solution, just that it’s the only one avaliable to any of us right now due to shitty government policies.
Acute care, understood.
i.e. “I need Olanzapine [broad receptor affinity, highly anti-cholinergic, well-tolerated], but, like, faster.” I’m surprised that particular aspect of the side effect profile comes into play with acute usage.
Ah, yes, this happens a lot. No, I don’t work in the medical field at all. I just know things, for reasons.
i.e. the psychosis has done so much cumulative damage at this point that you need to fall back to the typicals. That explains why the third-gens are useless.
On a different note, have you heard about Cobenfy yet?
npr.org/…/karxt-cobenfy-schizophrenia-psychosis-f…
It obviously isn’t suited to the needs of your practice. But I’m really glad we’re making progress on alternative treatment approaches, especially novel ones like anti-muscarinics.
Hopefully the new glutamatergics can reach your setting soon.
Well obvs. It’s basically,“idk which receptor is making them _____ (punch people, refuse to eat or drink, or whatever other immediate harm to themselves / others), but we need it to stop 3 days ago and can figure out the details or a potential cross-taper to something better later.”
Color me fascinated, lol. My guesses are personal experience / reading up on your own treatment or that of a loved one, tangential relation to the field such as clinical research, or just plain personal fascination. Given you linked to a drug that appears to be in trials my first guess is actually the second one. Hadn’t heard of it, and I’m hopeful, but after seeing abilify get approved for acute agitation I’m… skeptical.
Yeah a lot of people don’t realize the damage is additive, both people w/ these disorders and unrelated laypeople who think “talented artist stops taking their meds and continues to be talented but starts creating art with weirder subject matter as their brain boils” is a cool story.
I’m mostly replying to add though that risperdal also has the distinction of being avaliable as a long-acting injectable, and if you’re trialing oral meds before committing to an LAI, your options are somewhat narrowed. Zyprexa does have an LAI available, but I’ve actually never seen it used and while I can’t tell you why for certain, I do have a guess.
If you have a patient sick enough that you’re considering an LAI, you don’t want to take benzos off the table for an entire month, especially if it turns out to be inadequate after discharge and they wind up in an ED agitated and unable to report their own med hx and get B52ed and stop breathing. I’ve had a pharmacist tell me considering that interaction is going out of style but a history of that kind of adverse event is difficult for a med to shake. Accutane still has suicidal ideation in adolescents listed as a side effect but I have a strong suspicion that it’s less causation and more correlation with the impact of pizza face on the self and social esteem of a teenager.
I don’t understand this. We have two genders, how is it not binary and how is it made up? Honest question.
Biological sex != gender. There’s not even 2 classes of biological sex. There are men born with biological female organs and women born with biologically men’s organs. We all as humans do share common organs, one of which happens to be the nipple.
Regardless of what your actual biological sex is a gender is simply a social construct used to identify someone. A person who is “non-binary” feels that their gender does not conform to what you would typically expect of either male or female based on appearances or behavior.
Sure but there are two major biological sexes. I can understand how gender can be defined as something else though.
Non-binary can decide what gender they feel like.
Anyone can decide what gender they feel like. Most people identify with one of the major genders, but many people don’t for multiple possible biological reasons. Nobody is in good faith identifying as a gender they don’t actually feel like.
Sure. If you define the word gender as identifying what you feel like, then it makes sense from that perspective. If I felt like my gender is someone who feels like a cat, that would be my gender then.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt that you had a genuine question, but I now feel that was a mistake.
It was a genuine question, and I listened to your opinion. My own opinion differs from your own. This happens sometimes in conversations. To me, that doesn’t mean that we need to leave the discussion or downvote eachother. :)
The thing is, these conversations usually go the same way. People like yourself try to step in and guide people who ask questions. And if they don’t 100% share your own opinion, then you feel it’s a waste of time. And also you think you know me. I must be a troll. Right?
It’s a bit funny, you have to admit. Online discussions are not sniper battles. Or they shouldn’t be.
Maybe I have a different point of view on this because of my own upbringing and my own experiences. Seems pretty likely, no? And maybe one comment online will not change all of that in an instant. Also makes sense, no?
So just relax… We don’t have to fight online. I promise.
Everyone on here is stupid and wrong.
Cartman is that you?
Nor in person. Just let people be, right? If it doesn’t harm, let people do it.
Poster below gave you all the answer you’d ever need on this question you beg… If you have any integrity, add a note to your original comment to clarify that you were mistaken in your initial assumption and why.
But, doesn’t seem likely that you will.
.
Their argument is that “gender is just a social construct”, without acknowledging that some of the most paramount aspects of human existence are “social constructs” (i.e language) and that gender is one of them. And without addressing why sexual taboos (like public nudity) are gendered - to them its a form of irrational injustice. But expore the social ramifications -through real and hypothetical examples- and you quickly find that it is indeed rational to treat bodies different according to their gender, and that human social psychology does have strong roots in human phsyiognamy.
From the person I talked to above, they are using gender to describe how they feel about who they are. So maybe it’s just a word difference.
I’m very downvoted for being in this thread though and so are you. It’s a bit funny.
A mod deleted my comment it seems.
Anyway, guess I leave this strange thread and leave people here with their beliefs.
I’ll take this as a good faith question, and the short answer is that gender is a lot more complicated than that.
Yes there are two archetypal roles involved in sexual reproduction, but even that isn’t so simple. There isn’t just one feature that defines male or female, but a combination of traits including chromosomes, gametes, anatomy, hormones, etc. In the real world, some folks are born with features that don’t all agree with one or another archetype. Intersex people aren’t common, about 1 in 2,000, but their existence proves that sex isn’t just a binary. There’s diversity to sex that requires a more complicated scheme to account for everybody.
Gender, likewise, doesn’t follow the one-or-the-other model. Most folks are cisgender, but some folks have a gender that doesn’t agree with what people assume their sex is, or no gender at all, or a gender that doesn’t fit into the man/woman spectrum. It gets complicated quickly because gender is where sex and society intersect. Some cultures have different expectations based on gender, and some even have more than two recognized genders. That’s why we say “gender is a social construct”, because we all get to define for ourselves what it means to be a man, woman, or otherwise. And that’s also how gender is constructed, it’s a social project we all engage in collectively whether we realize it or not. Most just pass along the traditional gender roles that were passed to them, but those can change rather rapidly as society changes, like when clean-shaven faces became “manly” in response to WW1 soldiers having to shave so that their gas masks could maintain a good seal.
This argument has always struck me as odd as in virtually every other discussion we would accept that the exception ‘proves the rule’.
Humans have two hands, except when they don’t due to something impacting fetal development.
Humans have two kidneys, except when they don’t due to an error in fetal development or as a result of disease or injury.
Or just let the exceptions be exceptions with no social stigma rather than refusing to recognise that the vast majority of humans, and mammals, can be accurately identified as one of two distinct sexes.
It feels like underneath all this, it’s actually about people refusing to be marginalized and they want to be accepted as everyone else. But I think instead of trying to change words and ban conversations, maybe it’s better to teach people to accept and even enjoy more variations?
Because right now it’s a bit ridiculous. We are told to ignore obvious differences between people so nobody feels marginalized. That’s likely to make it very difficult to even have a conversation.
It’s like when you can’t describe someone as black or white, or fat or thin, and it just becomes really humorous in the end, as you are struggling to find other words that are identifying the person.
This is naive.
How are we supposed to teach people to accept variation when they insist that there can be no deviation from the norm?
I don’t understand the point you’re trying to make here. Just a moment ago you were complaining that the language we use to talk about this topic was a problem, now we’re supposedly telling people not to talk about it? Pick a lane!
Who are you talking about that is insisting there can be no deviation from the norm? And maybe you don’t realize how teaching works… You need someone willing to learn to be able to be able to have a teacher. Banning words and discussions is absolutely the wrong way to go. History has shown this many times.
And my point is very simple. Don’t ban words. Have open discussions. Don’t support censorship of opinions or words. Don’t be afraid of what people are actually thinking of things. Stop trying to control what people should think, and stop trying to teach them what you think is right.
People will not read something online and change their minds. Just like you are currently reading my words here, and you will not agree or change your mind. Neither will I. That’s how it works.
I can’t be your teacher unless you want to be my student.
Right-wingers, the only people who have ever had a problem with diversity.
I’m confused about what you mean, because the only people doing that are the “Don’t Say Gay” Florida Republicans.
I get the feeling that you’re going to be angry when I point out that the only people banning words are the ones who want to make it illegal to teach kids that people like me exist.
Make up your mind, do you want to actually have open discussions or do you think that avoiding censorship of the “opinions and words” of discriminatory groups is more important than the presence of the groups they discriminate against?
…
What do you think “teaching” is?
Hey @1984@lemmy.today, did you forget about me?
I’m not quite certain the point you are making here. Is the implication that because humans typically have two hands, those that do not are not a group that can be described? Or that they can be, but only should be as the product of developmental errors?
We don’t generally, where we know exceptions exist, refuse to acknowledge their existence. Saying sex is a binary is saying there are only males and only females. That’s literally what binary means. Like binary notation either uses 0 or 1. If it was possible for sometimes to have a 2, it wouldn’t be binary anymore. That’s a different thing.
This is especially true for something like sex that is based on a grouping of traits, genes, expressions, etc. which are not universally 0 or 1. Sure, we generally agree on a category when some are different, but there’s some points where it’s not so stark. Hence, the binary fails because there can be overlap and grey.
Nobody is saying we have to stop using male and female to describe sex in most cases, especially in a medical setting. But if you had a child born intersex, and the doctor turned to you and said, “Nah, my gut says male. Nothing will be different,” you’d probably ask for a second opinion.
I think I was fairly clear, it is a binary system that has some rare exceptions.
In healthy examples of mammals where development has occurred normally this is true.
This whole ‘its a spectrum’ argument is like saying humans aren’t bipedal, there’s a spectrum because some people are born without legs! It doesn’t make any sense.
That doesn’t mean that society should refuse to accept, include and support people born without the ability to walk.
Then it’s not a binary system. It’s a system with two extremely dominant members. Those are different things. You can be more binary in specific contexts e.g., gametes and egg vs sperm.
I’d be very cautious about the healthy description in reference to intersex people. I don’t believe you are trying to say anything nefarious, but there’s a reason it shows up in eugenics arguments.
I didn’t say sex was a spectrum, though perhaps someone else you were speaking with did. I wouldn’t use spectrum for sex, since there are multiple differentiating factors with differing measures.
It helps if you read and comprehend the comment chain to understand what is being discussed before you jump in with ‘I didn’t say that’ when I never claimed you did.
I don’t see why it’s so hard for you to actually read the comment chain. It is right there. You can re-read it at any time.
You are describing a “Bimodal Distribution”, where most but not all fall into one of two categories.
If it were a binary system, there would be no exceptions.
Intersex mammals aren’t “unhealthy”, they’re simply different.
Make up your mind, are people who are not bipedal still human?
If they are, then obviously humanity is not exclusively bipedal and attempting to define us as such will cause problems with everyone from non-bipedal infants to the non-bipedal elderly and disabled folks of all ages.
Sure. Let’s just apply that consistently then. Atoms are binary, the vast majority (with fewer than 1% of atoms being exceptions) can be accurately identified as one of two distinct elements, hydrogen or helium.
This is category theory, the existence of exceptions means that the model is incomplete because it cannot categorize everyone. In this case, the exceptions prove that the rule cannot be binary, but must instead be bimodal to allow for the variation seen in the population.
Are you defining people without two hands as non-human, or are you admitting that defining humanity as exclusively two-handed will necessarily fail to account for all the exceptions to the rule?
Again, this is category theory. Exceptions mean you have forgotten to account for someone. Admitting that some people don’t fit neatly into the only two boxes you’ll recognize as legitimate is itself a form of social stigma that you perpetuate with your desire to “let exceptions be exceptions”.
All you have to do is recognize the obverse, that regardless of how vast the majority of allosexual folks and critters might be, it is not the totality.
I think it’s fine that everyone gets to say what their gender is, as long as the archetypal roles stay the same - man or female.
Gender can be a word for how people define themselves, as long as we instead use “archetypal roles” to define what our physical body looks like.
I think what is frustrating is when people start to say that we shouldn’t include our physical body type at all in discussions. That’s taking it too far in my opinion. Going to the doctor and not telling what body type you are makes diagnosis impossible in same cases. And for what reason? That part doesn’t make any sense to me. Race, body type, and other things are important to know in many cases.
But otherwise, sure, people can define their gender how they like.
I’m noticing a contradiction here.
And for those of us who don’t fit those archetypes?
Generally, it is considered impolite to talk to strangers about one’s genitals.
The medical setting is one of the few contexts where talking about one’s anatomy isn’t considered a faux pas.
Do you want the historical explanation of how puritainism affected our culture?
They’re relevant a lot less often than you’d think.
The only thing changed between photos is clothing and pose. Is that gender? Well maybe it is, but it’s useless for classification.
If it’s one thing I learned from the thread, it’s that the word gender can be anything at all.
It’s these bad faith arguments that caused the thread to turn against you. Gender isn’t a cat, and it certainly isn’t anything at all. You claim you wanted earnest conversation, but you undermined that with snide comments you knew would result in negative reaction.
tits out for harambe
Small boobies = nipple ok
Big boobies = nipple not ok
Is what I think this Instagram is trying to say. I don’t agree and think let the boobies be free.
Would that mean censorship of moobs?
If women’s nipples are censored because they are considered sexual, men’s should be too. I know more than a few women who are sexuality aroused by topless men.
Why ban male nipples? Fuck that all nipples should be allowed.
That’s my point.
I was wondering but I guess I don’t understand why say it that way instead of the other way around.
To highlight the absurdity of the concept. I think the majority of people would agree that topless men should not be censored.
Gonna make a novelty insta devoted to hairy male nipples
Bet it can beat Tik Tok to a congressional ban
If you need some hairy male nipples to show off then let me know, I’ll contribute to the cause 😂
Do you have like a list or anything? Friend wants to know.
They’d love Newcastle www.taps-aff.co.uk
Omg that is funny.
As a bloke who’s had his pecs groped in intimate acts, I would agree.
It is however worth mentioning that the sexualisation of the pecs and boobs is a man-made construction brought upon by Christian values and one day we may even move past those values and desexualise these body parts.
Ya it’ll be a cold day in hell before Instagram requires men to hide their nipples. Just shows how ingrained America’s views on sex, sexuality and gender are in Christianity.
Christian tradition, sure, but the Bible doesn’t have much to say about nipples so any specific rule regarding them seems to be more of an inference than a command.
The Bible stopped being a real guide for American Christians the moment they landed on our coast
Doesn’t stop them from using it as the “reason” for several rules
Ah yes, and then uses Jesus’ name in the same sentence as USA. The guy hated capitalism more than anything.
Technically correct, because they weren’t “American” before they landed.
They abandoned the Bible as a real guide long before that, though.
<img alt="" src="https://lemmy.world/pictrs/image/2f673e8a-7e7c-43b1-8493-bfb80ae040fd.gif">
Isn’t the constitution the New New Testament.
I read once that it had more to do with not seeing wealthy women’s nipples. For example wealthy women would hire a wet nurse to breast feed their babies. It was a way to show off wealth and social standing. So the hired help in the form of a wet nurse could show her breasts, but her wealthy employer would not because its beneath her.
So not showing breasts, even for the purpose of breast feeding became affiliated with wealth and power, whereas the inverse was true, showing breasts meant you could not afford to keep them covered.
And that’s not even including the influence of brothels and prostitution.
Let that cook for however many hundreds of years, mix in religion and you get whatever the fuck we have now.
It was an interesting theory and seemed to make sense to me. I’ll have to try to find the article later. I read it maybe 10 years ago so it might take some looking.
The Wikipedia article says historically wet nursing was available to all social classes, so that doesn’t really jive.
I wanted to find that article before I responded to you, but like I said it read about 10 years ago and not having much luck finding it.
But yes wetnurses were available to all women because not all women can produce breast milk.
If one poor woman’s baby is starving it was not uncommon for a friend or sister to fulfill that role to help them. Women were pregnant more frequently due to no birthcontrol. So a woman lactating was more common. However they weren’t hiring a wet nurse in the same way the wealthy were, and if a poor woman could feed her baby she would. A rich woman(almost) always hired a wet nurse regardless of her ability to produce milk.
What does the pope have to say about nipples? I’ve seen some in Christian art (didn’t touch myself to these, just in case), but didn’t realize there was an opinion on this?
The Catechism of the Catholic Church reads:
People here are not serious, they repeat slogans and polemics very superficially. The nipple taboo is found across pre-Christian and non-Abrahamic societies, probably because of breasts’ association with fertility. I.e
But that would be worse?
The solution to women being treated unfairly is not to start treating men unfairly too. It’s to treat women fairly.
an oldie but goodie
Huh, I was honestly expecting something like youtube.com/watch?v=dcYlytyuKsc
No, no I don’t think I will
It’s annoying, but at least this is an independent, worker owned 4 man outfit that got its start when Vice went bankrupt.
Here is the article:
For the past two years an algorithmic artist who goes by Ada Ada Ada has been testing the boundaries of human and automated moderation systems on various social media platforms by documenting her own transition.
Every week she uploads a shirtless self portrait to Instagram alongside another image which shows whether a number of AI-powered tools from big tech companies like Amazon and Microsoft that attempt to automatically classify the gender of a person see her as male or female. Each image also includes a sequential number, year, and the number of weeks since Ada Ada Ada started hormone therapy.
In 2023, after more than a year into the project which she named In Transitu, Instagram removed one of Ada Ada Ada’s self portraits for violating Instagram’s Community Guidelines against posting nudity. We can’t say for certain why Instagram deleted that image specifically and whether it was a human or automated system that flagged it because Meta’s moderation systems remain opaque, but it was at that moment that Instagram first decided that Ada Ada Ada’s nipples were female, and therefore nudity, which isn’t allowed on the platform. On Instagram, shirtless men are allowed and shirtless women are also allowed as long as they don’t show nipples, so what constitutes nudity online often comes down to the perceived gender of an areola.
“I’m really interested in algorithmic enforcement and generally understanding the impact that algorithms have on our lives,” Ada Ada Ada told me in an interview. “It seemed like the nipple rule is one of the simplest ways that you can start talking about this because it’s set up as a very binary idea—female nipples no, male nipples, yes. But then it prompts a lot of questions: what is male nipple? What is a female nipple?”
In Transitu highlights the inherent absurdity in how Instagram and other big tech companies try to answer that question.
“A lot of artists have been challenging this in various ways, but I felt like I had started my transition at the end of 2021 and I also started my art practice. And I was like, well, I’m actually in a unique position to dive deep into this by using my own body,” Ada Ada Ada said. “And so I wanted to see how Instagram and the gender classification algorithms actually understand gender. What are the rules? And is there any way that we can sort of reverse engineer this?”
While we can’t know exactly why any one of Ada Ada Ada’s images are removed, she is collecting as much data as she can in a spreadsheet about which images were removed, why Instagram said they were removed, and to the best of her knowledge if the images’ reach was limited.

That data shows that more images were removed further into her transition, but there are other possible clues as well. In the first image that was removed, for example, Ada Ada Ada was making a “kissy face” and squeezing her breasts together, which could have read as more female or sexual. Ada Ada Ada was also able to reupload that same image with the nipples censored out. In another image that was removed, she said, she was wearing a lingerie bra where her nipples were still visible.
“But then again, you have this one where I’m wearing nipple clamps, and that didn’t do anything,” she said. “I would have expected that to be removed. I’ve also had another picture where I’m holding up a book, Nevada by the trans author Imogen Binnie. I’m just holding a book and that was removed.”
Ada Ada Ada also maintains a spreadsheet where she tracks how a number of AI-powered gender classifiers—Face++, face-api.js, Microsoft Azure’s Image Analysis, Amazon Rekognition, and Clarifai—are reading her as male or female.

Experts have criticized such gender classifiers for often being wrong and particularly harmful for transgender people. “You can’t actually tell someone’s gender from their physical appearance,” Os Keyes, a researcher at the University of Washington who has written a lot about automated gender recognition (AGR), wrote for Logic in 2019. “If you try, you’ll just end up hurting trans and gender non-conforming people when we invariably don’t stack up to your normative idea of what gender ‘looks like.’”
“I’ve definitely learned that gender classifiers are an unreliable and flawed technology, especially when it comes to trans people’s gender expression,” Ada Ada Ada said. “I regularly see my algorithmic gender swing back and forth from week to week. In extension to that, it’s also fascinating to see how the different algorithms often disagree on my gender. Face++ (which is a Chinese company) tends to disagree more with the others, which seems to suggest
I make an exception for one of the best tech outlets
Isn’t it free?
… Because it all becomes Crab?
We really live in somebody’s dystopian fiction. Life imitates art.
this is interesting as fuck
She’s using her own journey as a trans person to document how AI tools like those used by Instagram identify potentially obscene material.
New passing meta just dropped
Why are you using Instagram enough for this to even be a question?
I think they call it “female-presenting”, so if it looks like female nipples to them, then they ban it.
Instagram is stupid anyway.
.
Chill, friend. People die naturally and fade from memory, this is how we move on and progress. There are way too many issues at the same level of importance as the nipples in social media, and way too many ought to be terminated if we placed the line there.
In place of termination, I’d love to see education, practical activism and just good old time.
We’ll get there. The weirdos opposing mundane shit like nipples will die and fade naturally, and our efforts spent in education and activism will shift the larger tides such that new ones like them will get fewer and fewer each generation.
And since we are humans, new issues will arise, and we’ll fight them the same. They are, and always have been, doomed to die out with the rest of the ass-backwards ideas, this is what progress is.
And you can’t speed up progress with blood. That is how you slow it down. The ideas will root in the blood and refuse to fade like they should and as they eventually unavoidably will, with the temporal resistance brought up by the rushed show of force.
Let the fuckers fade out and be forgotten, as much as possible, as fast as possible, and help the process by being active. Be loud, be persistent, but be not violent.
Any and all violence has always been, and always will be, resisted eventually by a larger force. If the nipple-opposers (I.e conservatives) choose violence, that’ll only serve to speed up the progress for us, by the way of rising more forceful resistance, and after overcoming the oppression, having the majority to instantly implement changes with popular support.
Oppressors will never be popular in the long run, and the oppressor’s ideas are bound to die with them. Not for good, as we’ve seen with the rise of neo-nazism, but they’ll never again be as popular so as to rise into power without blood, and with blood, they’ll repeat the cycle of ultimately weakening themselves and their ideas out of existence for good. But in the short-term, the polar opposites of the oppressor’s ideas will gain flash popularity and those ideas will get rapidly implemented, thus speeding up the progress.
It’s complex and unintuitive, perhaps, but the history has shown that any and all attempts to speed up any ideological progresses by way of violence or oppression, has ultimately ended in those very ideas being in ruin, and the opposing ideas getting stronger, more persistent in their standing.
Though for a short while, those ideas will be in power, and a lot of bad stuff will happen. Even if the ideas should be good from our point of view. But that is just a temporary state, which will always end in resistance winning, and opposing ideas gaining standing and popularity.
This became a very tangential and random outburst, of which I’m not very proud, but I think it best to leave it up if not for anything else but to show everyone my unfounded idea of self-importance and a rambling, cringeworthy brain. Yikes. I’m fucking ashamed. But this is how I think, I suppose, maybe someone will set me straight.
I would offer clemency to any that woyld confess the sight of boobies is not in fact evil.
I agree violence is not the way but indecision and magnanimity is allowing the anti-human ideas to fester.
There are many tgat seem disgusted of their own human animal form and project it as hatred into society.
They imagine all sorts of harms from its sight alone. They create enormous hurdle to the simple act of touch. They invent rules and codes that keep us apart and separated.
I don’t even think they really know why, it is as thought they are ideologically possessed against our flesh itself. We must reject their virulent shame and self -hate with compassion as much as possible and with violence as much as necessary.
Thank you for letting out what was in your heart, I am touched to have sung with you internet stranger.
yeah, but this is about where that distinction is.
404 Media neglected to link to her website, which is ada-ada-ada.art
In most states, it’s legal to walk around toppless.
Most tribes walk around topless. Theyre teenagers aren’t mentally damaged by seeing nipples. Maybe someday, society will grow beyond christian values.
You mean Judaeo-Christian Islamic values. Let’s at least be inclusive here.
Abrahamic, they’re all sects of Abraham.
But not all are “christian” as YOU put it…
Sorry, wrong person response My bad. But the point stands.
I’m aware, I’m just pointing out that there’s a word for it.
That sadly, most wouldn’t “get” the point of.
However that doesn’t atop some Karen type from calling the police to come and harass you. And there’s no guarantee the cop that shows up won’t decide you are disturbing the peace or something.
Nor does it stop immature bros from being idiots about it and making the person feel unsafe.
Not in my state. In fact, you can’t even show underboob, because anything “the female breast below the top of the areola” is illegal. It’s legal in Alaska and a super conservative neighbor state, so why not my stupid state?
I have manboobs from when I was fat. I almost want to take a self-portrait and see what Instagram thinks.
Hey. If you can make bank out of it.
You might be able to take downblouse cleavage shots to direct them to your OF.
If there’s a big enough market for hairy cleavage, it might be worth it!