SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Later this month, a North Carolina high school student will appear in a state court and face five child pornography-related charges for engaging in consensual sexting with his girlfriend.
What's strange is that of the five charges he faces, four of them are for taking and possessing nude photos of himself on his own phone—the final charge is for possessing one nude photo his girlfriend took for him. There is no evidence of coercion or further distribution of the images anywhere beyond the two teenagers' phones.
Similarly, the young woman was originally charged with two counts of sexual exploitation of a minor—but was listed on her warrant for arrest as both perpetrator and victim. The case illustrates a bizarre legal quandry that has resulted in state law being far behind technology and unable to distinguish between predatory child pornography and innocent (if ill-advised) behavior of teenagers.
The boy is being charged with child pornography for taking pictures of himself.
[These teens were of the age of consent in North Carolina and could legally have had sex with each other. Juvenile court jurisdiction ends at age 16 in North Carolina, however, so they are being tried as adults on felony charges of possessing child porn... of themselves. -Ed.]
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Saturday September 05 2015, @04:05PM
In man's world, cisfemales are sacred objects. Feminism completely supports this kind of objectification.
In man's world, the men at the top will come down on you if you don't give cisfemales their sacred objectification.
Feminism is dead.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday September 05 2015, @05:21PM
Uhhhh - it's "male", "female", or other. Cisgender seems an oxymoron. More than 90% of the earth's population is "cis", making it a meaningless term. Only the outliers need other descriptions.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 05 2015, @06:50PM
Tell that to the psychos.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday September 06 2015, @02:33AM
You're wrong! 99.9% of the world is cis! (Depending who you listen to, could be 99.99%!)
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 06 2015, @03:39AM
We agree that the vast majority of males are happy to be male, and seek relations with females. Likewise, the vast majority of females are happy to be female, and seek relations with males. This being the "norm", there are all manner of ways to deviate from the norm.
There are those men and women who simply don't desire or pursue relations with members of the opposite sex. I've known a small handful of people (usually guys) who have never displayed an interest in sex of any type. Percentage? I've never heard or seen an estimate.
There are gays, who prefer relations with members of their own sex. Depending on who you listen to, they range from 2% to 3% of the population.
"Gender confused", for my purposes, would include all manner of people who want to be the opposite sex. Their percentage is obviously lower than gays - I could look it up, but simply not that interested.
What else do we have? I suppose that we could consider predators of various kinds as "non-cis". I mean, seriously, a guy who stalks women for purposes that include rape, torture, murder, mutilation, cannibalism, or whatever else isn't "cis". He's some kind of outlier, just as the other groups are outliers.
"Cis" may be a convenient term (if we chose to adopt that particular term) to quantify all people who deviate from the norm. And, the numbers are higher than you suggest, at least. The most credible estimates of the gay population seem to be 2%, whereas gays make claim to as much as 6%. Other deviant groups are smaller, I believe - but when taken all together, I'm fairly sure that it comes up to at least 3%, possibly as much as 8% of the population.
And, of course, pedophiles and pedarists have to be included in any such accounting.
Seriously, every non-normative group in existence would have to be included in any estimate of "non-cis".
But, no matter how we look at it, today, the tail wags the dog. A small percentage of the population today dictates to the vast majority how things are going to be. And, that majority falls into line, obeying the very small minority. Crazy world we live in, huh?
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday September 06 2015, @04:13AM
Thank you for your candor.
(Score: 2) by kurenai.tsubasa on Sunday September 06 2015, @02:42AM
Oh, also make sure to contact 3rd wave feminists who are "womyn-born-womyn" and let them know they can just be women now! Aaah! But then they would have no recourse against somebody who is visibly indistinguishable from their own, and they wouldn't know who to throw out of the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival! Total confuse! *confuse!* Blame feminism for the term cisgendered.
I don't want it. Trans women don't want it. Only feminists want it. I use it to be specific. Violence against trans women, indeed even premeditated murder, is hardly a crime in man's world. In the Amazon world, premediated murder against any woman, cis or trans, would be swiftly avenged.
(Score: 1) by SiriusStarr on Sunday September 06 2015, @05:52PM
For most of my life, I've lived where the population is 90% caucasian and went to school in classes that are 90% male. That doesn't mean that "white" and "male" are not descriptive terms. Majorities need descriptions too. It'd be terribly inconvenient to have to talk about, "yeah, the uh, people who aren't asian, african american, native american, hispanic, etc. etc. etc." and it's terribly inconvenient to have to say "uh, people who aren't trans-, a-, bi-, -queer, etc. gender."
Or is your complaint that it's cis and trans, not E and Z, and thus doesn't accurately reflect the absolute stereochemistry of gender?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday September 06 2015, @07:03PM
The word "normal" would be more than sufficient. "Plain" might work. Or, no descriptive terms at all. "Man" and "woman", "male" and "female", "boy" and "girl" have worked for eons. The normative group doesn't need a descriptor, unless maybe "control". Geez, Louise.
(Score: 1) by SiriusStarr on Wednesday September 09 2015, @06:02PM
"Normal" is by definition normative, or at least strongly carries the connotation in the English language. It would be considered pretty damn rude to talk about normal people and black people, seeing as how it implies that black individuals are somehow inferior or abnormal, and the same is true of saying "gay people and normal people" or "trans people and normal people." To your later point, man/woman, male/female, and boy/girl do not distinguish cis and trans individuals, thus the necessity of cis (or natal) as a descriptive terms in instances where one does wish to distinguish them.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday September 10 2015, @12:06AM
Rude or not - trans is not normative, "cis" is normative.
Rude? WTF? Why does anyone CARE that the non-normative think that the norms are rude? Why are we wasting people's time and energy catering to that tiny percentage of people who are out in left field?
They simply cannot demand that their way of life changes the lives of all about them.