If there’s one thing I don’t understand, it’s nipples. Oh, I know what they are, and I know what they’re for. But what I don’t understand are the rules that pertain to whether or not women can display them in public.
There was a post that was recirculated a week or so ago. It was from a Braun ad from two years ago showing a dysphoric woman who’d had her breasts removed and was using one of their shavers to remove her chemically induced facial hair. I’ll post a link at the end of this.
First of all. Ick.
Secondly, everyone seemed to focus on the obvious. That is, there’s yet another company bending the knee to promote the ridiculous notion that a woman can become a man.
Not me. I looked at the picture and immediately wondered why her nipples weren’t blurred out or covered with a couple pieces of virtual black tape.
For some strange reason, women’s nipples are considered to be obscene, indecent, lewd, and offensive. Their exposure is banned pretty much everywhere.
So how is it that the woman in the Braun ad could display hers?
Let’s Dig Deeper
To dig into that, let’s lift and separate the human female breast into two parts. You’ve got the boob/breast itself, and then you have the nipple. Now, I fully realize that it’s much more complicated than that. But for what I’m talking about here we don’t need to be any more detailed.
One could argue that nipples must be blurred out if they’re attached to boobs. But that can’t be true. Because there are plenty of men out there with moobs and their nipples aren’t considered obscene or offensive. They probably should be. Because, let’s face it, who really wants to look at moobs? Nobody I know.
But you could have side-by-side images of a woman’s boobs and a man’s moobs, both c-cups, and only the woman’s nipples would be blurred out. Unless the man with moobs declared himself to be a woman. Then his nipples would be blurred too.
That makes no sense.
Almost everywhere in the United States, a woman isn’t considered topless if she’s wearing pasties. As long as her nipples are covered, preferably with tassels, there’s no problem. And that means it’s not the breasts that are considered offensive and obscene. Nor is it a combination of boobs and nips. It’s just the nipples.
One of my guilty pleasures is watching the TV show “Botched”. Without giving away any spoilers, I can tell you that there are two plastic surgeons, one does noses, and one does boobs. Each episode, they’ll tackle one nose job and one boob job. Some of the women want their botched boob jobs fixed. Others are recovering from breast cancer, have had a mastectomy, and want reconstructive surgery.
No matter why they’re looking for surgery, the one thing all the female patients have in common is that, when their breasts are exposed, their nipples are blurred out. Every single time.
From a surgical point-of-view, there doesn’t seem to be any difference between a dysphoric woman having her breasts removed and a cancer survivor having done the same. It’s the same procedure.
If we’re shown the chest of a cancer survivor, her nipples will be blurred. Yet the nipples of the dysphoric woman in the Braun ad were fully exposed for all the world to see.
Social Media Nonsense
Social media also seems to believe that women’s nipples are offensive. If a woman took a topless selfie and posted it to social media, she’d likely be banned for posting obscene content. At the very least, her picture would be taken down.
Yet, if she Photoshopped in a set of male nipples on top of her own, that would be OK. To take it a step further, if she cut and pasted the nipples from the woman in the Braun ad to cover her own, THAT would be OK too.
That also makes no sense.
The fact that anyone believes this is reasonable and sane boggles my mind.
A Loophole
There seemed to be no way to fight against this insanity. Until a bunch of geeks cracked the code.
A couple weeks ago, there was a Women in Tech conference in Orlando. The conference was intended to be a place where women in various tech industries could network and find potential career opportunities without having any of those pesky men around.
Attendance was open to women and people who identify as “non-binary”. For some strange reason, this year there were a LOT of “non-binary” people at the conference. They all looked like men, but claimed they identified as non-binary.
The Left pitched a hissy fit claiming that the conference had been infiltrated by men who had no right to be there.
Before I continue, let’s review the rules of non-binary-ism.
- You identify as a man, a woman or both.
- You can change your identity as often as you wish.
- Nobody is allowed to question your chosen “identity of the moment”.
We’ve also been told that a very large portion of the population questions their gender identity.
I know that’s bullshit. And you know that’s bullshit. But there are a lot of people who claim to believe it.
I find it extremely hypocritical for ANYONE to bitch about how men pretending to be non-binary were falsely attending the conference and taking opportunities away from women. Because, according to their own rules, there is no such thing as a man pretending to be non-binary. Because no one can pretend to be non-binary. All you have to do is make a claim that you are non-binary, and you are. No questions asked.
Here’s What Happened
Now, you and I both know that what happened was that a bunch of clever tech guys found the loophole in the non-binary logic and decided to exploit it. But, if you truly buy into all this gender identity bullshit, then you’re not allowed to think that way. A true believer’s only option is to assume that the man pushing his way to the front of the line does, in fact, at that particular moment in time, believe he’s a woman. And no one can say otherwise.
The beauty of this is that the ONLY way for the people running this conference to fix their problem is to admit that they were wrong. Their only option is to do what they’ve been hesitant to do for…well…forever. They have to define what a woman is.
And they need to scrap this whole idea of inclusivity. Because, to close a loophole big enough for a grown man to walk through, they need to exclude anyone that doesn’t meet their definition of a woman. Whatever that is. Which means they’d have to specifically exclude anyone who identifies as non-binary.
Some might call this an ironic reversal, poetic justice or the Left being hoisted by their own petards. I call it hilarious.
Now, let’s get back to nipples.
But before we do that, I want to mention that in the Braun ad, her left arm isn’t shown. If it had been visible, and she had the full suite of body modifications offered to dysphoric women, we’d see that a good chunk of her forearm is missing because the tissue was used to fabricate a non-functional fake penis for her.
Again, I say, ick.
My Plan…
What have we learned? We’ve learned that there is a way to fight back against this whole trans bullshit. What we have to do is to force proponents of the ridiculous notion that a woman can become a man into situations where, playing by their own rules, they can’t win.
I have a plan to do just that. It’s a plan that will force the idiots promoting the trans ideology to decide what’s important to them.
So, ladies, here’s what we’re going to do. We’re going to weaponize your nipples.
If you’re a man with moobs, for God’s sake, cover up. Nobody wants to see that.
But if you’re a woman, and you find yourselves in a situation where men are allowed to go shirtless, I want you to go shirtless too. Then, if anyone tries to get you to cover up, you just declare that you identify as “non-binary”. And tell them that, at that particular point in time, you’re feeling like a man.
Anyone trying to stop you from being, apparently, indecent, lewd, obscene, and offensive will have to decide which they consider less offensive, a lack of inclusiveness and tolerance, or your nipples. Do they want you to put on a shirt, or allow you, as a person identifying as “non-binary”, to self-identify your nipples as non-offensive?
Because they can’t have both. What we’ll have created is another situation where, playing by their own rules, they can’t win.
Will this offend people? Undoubtedly. That’s the whole point. But they offended us first.
Some might call it turning the tables or giving them a taste of their own medicine.
I call it, tit for tat.
Here’s a link where you can see the Braun ad.
