-
Poppy is still gaslighting me with that false information again and somehow still thinks we don’t have diabetes lmfao
Why not blog a picture of your insulin or other medication as proof? Write your username and the date on a piece of paper, then take a picture of it with the medicine. Blur your real name and info, of course. Why is this so hard to prove if it’s not a lie?
Let’s do a thought experiment.
Let’s say you were looking for work, and I decided you didn’t have the qualifications to get hired. Not even at Starbucks. This isn’t based on any evidence of you as a person, just, your posts are kind of shitty to me and so I figure you’re a low-quality human being who doesn’t deserve an income.
Let’s also say that, since you didn’t have those qualifications, that I went around telling people, not that I thought you were shitty, but that you were objectively shitty. That you didn’t have any of the skills you have.
And they agree with me!
And this actually affects your prospects of being hired!
And now imagine that when you complain about this, some jerk comes onto your post and says, well, why not post a picture of your degree as proof? Or your skill with a particular tool? Or any number of other possible permutations on this theme?
Sure, you can, and it wouldn’t even take much effort to do it.
But there’s two problems.
One, in this hypothetical, I’m not working under factual premises. I’m just making a guess based on unrelated information. So I’m not inclined to accept your proof just because you’re offering it, and probably, neither are at least some of the people I’ve already convinced of your ineptitude.
And two… you didn’t ask for this. Someone decided they were just going to ruin your fucking day and they’re succeeding, and now the onus is on you to do something about it? What the actual hell? You’re literally getting blackmailed into doing a thing, and there’s no guarantee that it will get any one person, let alone everyone, off your back. The narrative is already against you and anything you do just looks like spin at this point.
So do you try anyway or do you say, fuck it, I’m not beholden to you assholes, I know my own skillset and I’m going to carry on whether you like it or not?
If I keep stirring the pot about you, it doesn’t really matter. And I know this because I follow transgemder. Kit has done both at different times, and neither has worked. The hounding just continues. It doesn’t change.
The choice you offer is lose-lose, because nobody is obligated to believe kit, because they’re not working from factual premises. They just figure, eh, kit’s a shitty person, kits blog is filled with garbage, so kit must be a low-quality person, and therefore kit must be faking kits disability for money. Also, kit spent $15 once on something that wasn’t insulin, so clearly kit’s running a scam.
That’s why there’s resistance to posting a picture like that. It’s not that it’s difficult. It’s that it’s an ineffective negotiation with abusers.
And intentional or not, you’re reinforcing that dynamic by adding pressure for kit to ‘prove’ kitself. So I would strongly urge you to reconsider your position here.
Reblogged from:theincredibleedibleintrovert
-
This Man Did Something That’s Already Expected Of Women But He Gets Extra Praise Cause He’s A Man
No. A lot of women don’t go to cosmetology classes to learn how to do hair, they have the experience from growing up-their mom doing their hair, Then experimenting which what they can do themselves. This guy probably had short hair his entire life with no clue on what to do. He didn’t just look up how to do a ponytail, he paid for actual classes so that he could do his little daughters hair in cool and creative ways so that SHE gets the learning experience and learns how to do it her own and then can go to school with fabulous.
This is A+ daddy right here, he went above and beyond because he knows that he lack in certain areas where a mom would pick this up. Please don’t destroy nice things that men do simply because they are men and you want to hate them.prolicidal So what you’re saying is a man did something that you expect women to have done —develop experience with hairstyling to teach their daughters —but he gets extra praise because he’s a man.
Alright then.
No. I’m saying that most women have developed this skill already and therefore don’t need the extra class. He could have watched a quick video on how to do a pony tail. But instead he took a class - went above and beyond. I mean, if a woman had the limited knowledge of hair (for example, my hair is short and I have no clue how to style hair) and did the same thing, then I would be praising her as well.
I’m really not sure what gives you the impression that you’re saying something differently from what I’m saying.
Let’s break this down a bit.
You say that “most women have developed this skill already”. Therefore, if you saw any given woman on the street, it is reasonable to expect her to have some skill at hairstyling, apparently equivalent to a cosmetology class. Because most women do.
Moreover because of the standards of beauty applied to women, women are expected to have this kind of skill on a societal level, or be able to pay for people who have it, because having short, easily manageable hair like men is atypical for women.
And this man took a class on something that, by your own admission, you would expect a woman to already know, something that she knows because of what is expected of her by society.
You state outright that a woman would not need this class because they already know something about styling hair, and I am pointing out that is because of what stereotypes and social obligations, by and large, apply to women.
And because this is a stereotype for a woman to know something about hair, how many articles do you think would be written about specific women taking a cosmetology class in order to better style her daughter’s hair?
To underscore this, I did a little experiment. I tried searching Google for ‘Mom Cosmetology Daughter -dad’ (-dad to remove results about the dad in this article) and got nothing except for a horrifying story about a mother who attempted to get her daughter to lose weight for a beauty pageant.
"Woman cosmetology" came back as its second hit ‘Beauty Tips & Tricks Every Woman Needs to Know’.
Therefore, bringing this all together, a man gains experience that women either already have or are told they need to have styling hair, but he gets extra praise in the form of articles, plural, written about him because he’s a man.
Please try to understand that we are saying mostly the same thing. You don’t actually disagree with me about any of the points I bring up. You just aren’t connecting them together into the conclusion I derive from those points.
Reblogged from:prolicidal
-
This Man Did Something That’s Already Expected Of Women But He Gets Extra Praise Cause He’s A Man
No. A lot of women don’t go to cosmetology classes to learn how to do hair, they have the experience from growing up-their mom doing their hair, Then experimenting which what they can do themselves. This guy probably had short hair his entire life with no clue on what to do. He didn’t just look up how to do a ponytail, he paid for actual classes so that he could do his little daughters hair in cool and creative ways so that SHE gets the learning experience and learns how to do it her own and then can go to school with fabulous.
This is A+ daddy right here, he went above and beyond because he knows that he lack in certain areas where a mom would pick this up. Please don’t destroy nice things that men do simply because they are men and you want to hate them.prolicidal So what you’re saying is a man did something that you expect women to have done —develop experience with hairstyling to teach their daughters —but he gets extra praise because he’s a man.
Alright then.
Reblogged from:superduperemily
-
daddypatriarchy:
I’m feeling like this is one of those times when an anti-sj blogger pretends to be a follower of mine but really is trying to give me just enough of what they think I want to hear. Often they display little tips offs that they’re unaware of because they don’t understand what we say on such a fundamental level
Because if you were really a follower of mine, you would see that I do debate things with people who aren’t completely entitled assholes. I have followers ask me questions all the time that I respond to. I have a response to an ask in my drafts right now that I just need to edit.
I don’t refuse to debate when “things get out of hand”. I refuse to debate when it becomes obvious that the other party thinks I owe it to them, if they have no intention of actually listening, if they’re dismissive, if they tone police, etc.. There are a lot of reasons I refuse to debate certain people, but to pretend like I refuse any and all discussion is so disingenuous it’s hilarious.
But ofc they prefer to frame me that way because it’s easier to pretend that the problem is with me rather than admit that they’re the assholes here
Notice how her tone changes when she realizes everyone sees through her? She’s start acting calm and dismissive even though her replies and rants show obvious signs of discomfort and paranoia.
daddypatriarchy I’m almost sure this was a comment meant for a different ask.
Given the preponderance of trolling that goes on in debates among people aligned with ‘social justice’, by choice or imposition, and aligned with ‘anti-sj’ or ‘real justice’ ideologies, it’s not terribly out of line to think that an ask like this could be one of those trolls.
In addition the point was answered, not dismissed. You can call someone dismissive for refusing to respond if you really want to use that as your strategy, but at least wait until they actually do.
Since you clearly misparsed this post, I’m going to break it down for you.
The ask has the following points in it:
- The asker claims to have followed the OP for a while.
- The asker claims that they haven’t seen the OP actually debate someone without practically being so dismissive when things get out of hand.
(Their pronouns are they, by the way. Use them.)
Going in order:
In response to 1: “…if you were really a follower of mine, you would see that I do debate things with people who aren’t completely entitled assholes.”
And in response to 2: “I don’t refuse to debate when “things get out of hand”. I refuse to debate when it becomes obvious that the other party thinks I owe it to them, if they have no intention of actually listening, if they’re dismissive, if they tone police, etc.”
There’s an important phrase in the ask: “I have yet to see”. I have yet to meet someone from Algeria but that doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Simply following someone is no guarantee of seeing the entirety of what they post, especially when phenomenon like confirmation bias comes into play.
Being charitable, I assume you are claiming that contradicting the asker’s viewpoint is dismissive. This is where you make your mistake: If you claim that you’ve never seen a red car, and I drive one, I’m not dismissing your viewpoint by telling you that red cars do exist. I’m just telling you that what you see is not all that is.
But let’s put the same kind of lens on you that you put on others. Could it be that you have a narrative already in mind for this person and you have decided to spin whatever post you can to fit that narrative? Confirmation bias is a powerful phenomenon. I wouldn’t blame you or the asker for falling into its jaws like you have.
Reblogged from:daddypatriarchy
-
inventing genders?
thats not very genderpunkrock of you
Idk if u meant for me to see this but uh
Transphobia isnt very punk rockSo are you saying that it is transphobic to oppose the invention of new genders? Cos last time I checked, people who invent new genders are not trans, they’re just fucking idiots.
get-me-my-latte-sweetie I wasn’t aware that the criteria for transness changed such that the act of inventing a gender determines whether you’re trans or not.
…Nope, I have a copy of the DSM-V here, and it says nothing about the invention of genders or conformity with established nomenclature. Just about the strong belief that one is not the gender assigned at birth and the strong urge to be treated as a gender other than the one assigned at birth. It even has specific allowances for gender language not covered by dominant paradigms. You can call yourself whatever you want; if you disagree with the gender assigned you at birth, if being treated as that assigned gender causes you significant distress, if it interferes with work and interpersonal relationships, you’re trans. Period.
This isn’t Tumblr, nor SJWs, nor transtrenders speaking here. This is the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, released by the American Psychiatric Association.
So yes, I would say using arbitrary linguistic restrictions to determine who is and isn’t trans is pretty transphobic.
Reblogged from:get-me-my-latte-sweetie
-
josiefur what research purposes are you referring to in your copyright page? Are you writing a paper on furry porn?
Let’s look at NYU’s actual page on copyright and fair use claims:
It is sometimes thought that materials available on the open web are in the public domain, or otherwise free to reuse. In fact, most works posted on the web are protected by copyright, and therefore reproducing or distributing web content may require permission from the copyright holder, just as with print materials. However, simply creating links to legally posted web materials typically does not require permission.
Conducting a Fair Use analysis: In order to determine whether permission is required for educational or research uses of copyrighted materials, the contemplated use should be subjected to a Fair Use analysis under this Policy prior to the occurrence of the use. Fair Use provides a legal defense to an assertion of copyright infringement. A finding of Fair Use of copyrighted material requires a two part analysis:
1) whether the use is for the purpose of “criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research”; and
2) if so, how would the particular use be categorized under the following four (4) Fair Use factors:
A. the purposes and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes and whether the use transforms the original work to serve a new use or purpose;
B. the nature of the copyrighted work, including whether it is informational in nature, or more creative/artistic in nature;
C. the amount and substantiality (both in length and in importance) of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
D. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.These are the criteria that need to be satisfied to legally find in favour of fair use.
Factor 1: The Purpose and Character of the Use:
• Is the use “transformative,” i.e. does the use change, repurpose, or recontextualize the original work (such as a parody or satire), or otherwise add value to the original work? If so, this weighs in favor of a finding of Fair Use.This does not apply. There is no recontextualization being done; you are simply posting the image on a website you control.
Factor 2: The Nature of the Copyrighted Work:
• Is the work primarily factual or informational, or is it a highly expressive or creative work (e.g. poetry, music)? Expressive or creative works typically receive greater copyright protection than works that are comprised mostly of facts, such as a simple timeline or graph.These being fictional erotic images and not fact-based images, they would receive greater protection, and so your job to prove fair use is harder.
Factor 3: The Amount and Substantiality of the Portion used in Relation to the Work as a Whole:
• Is the entire work used, or only a portion? Commonly, the smaller and less important the portion used in relation to the whole work, the lower the risk of infringement. However, a use is not necessarily a Fair Use simply because the quantity used is small — where the portion used is critical to the original work, even if quantitatively brief (i.e. the “heart of the work”), this weighs against a finding of Fair Use.
You’re reposting the entire work, not a small thumbnail or portion of the image.
• Is the amount used closely tailored to the educational and/or research purpose? This supports a finding of Fair Use. If a large portion or an entire work is used, this should be because the amount is necessary to achieve the educational purpose.
Again, what is the research purpose of posting these images? They are clearly intended to be for display, as you specifically call your site an ‘image archiving website’.
• If the work is an image, what is the size and resolution of the image? Courts have determined that smaller sized or lower-resolution copies of images (e.g. “thumbnails”) are analogous to using a smaller amount of the original work. Even when an image is used in its entirety, this factor will not necessarily defeat a finding of Fair Use if other factors are satisfied.
While using an image in its entirety is not necessarily an indicator of copyright infringement, the purpose of displaying that work needs to outweigh the need to preserve copyright. I see none of that.
Factor 4: The Effect of the Use upon the Market for the Work:
• Does the use render the original copyrighted work less marketable? In other words, does the use substitute for purchasing or licensing the work from the copyright owner so as to adversely affect the market for the work? If so, this is a good indication that the Fair Use exception will not apply, even if the impact is relatively marginal. This factor is typically given strong consideration by courts.This is expanded on below:
C. Can Attributions or Disclaimers Help Establish Fair Use?Hi Anon! I’d like to refer you to here: http://furrytastic.com/copyright/
The short answer is “no.” Some mistakenly believe it is Fair Use to use a copyrighted work, so long as the work is attributed to the author or copyright owner. However, copyright law does not take attribution into consideration when analyzing Fair Use. In addition, including a “disclaimer” that the use is not associated with or endorsed by the copyright holder does not help to establish Fair Use.
[…]
E. Special Considerations for Electronic Works
When conducting a Fair Use analysis for an electronic work, both the quality of publication and ease of distribution are usually important considerations. For instance, when a work can be easily redistributed via the internet, it is more likely to impact the market for the original work. Distinctions in the quality of reproduction can also be relevant. For example, reproductions that are of inferior quality and used for a different or “transformative” purpose have in some cases been permitted by courts as Fair Use (e.g. digital “thumbnail” copies of images that could not be enlarged without loss of resolution). Reducing the size and resolution of an image is not a guarantee of Fair Use, but can in some circumstances lower the risk of infringement.This is where your claim of ‘research purposes’ falls painfully flat, because it may not matter. These are images that can be reposted extremely easily (as you know, because you’re doing it). This affords them greater protection than other forms of media. The fact that you are reposting these images verbatim in the process does not help your claims — in fact, it harms them.
In short, you’re clearly trying to cover your ass, and it shouldn’t work. You must seek permission from the original copyright holders to post their work. This is what FurAffinity and other sites do when they have you sign up. They explicitly state, you grant FA a non-exclusive license to display the work when you upload an image to their site. This is because displaying copyrighted images without the consent of the original copyright holder is illegal.
The fact that my script blocker says that you have a script from exoclick installed, which is an ad serving platform, means that you are also profiting from this reposting, or attempting to, which is even more illegal. You are attempting to upload images to your own site without the permission of the owner and make money off their display. This is exactly what copyright was intended to prohibit.
I urge you to strongly reconsider your site’s purpose and its format. There is no way it can end well for you when you break copyright law this flagrantly.
Reblogged from:josiefur
-
you know you’ve made a dent in an sjw’s shield of ignorance when they post like three passive aggressive posts about you in a row
metafurically I counted. This was the last in a series of six passive-aggressive posts in a row about the same person.
If three posts in a row dents someone’s ‘shield of ignorance’, I hate to think about what happened to yours.
i saw this while getting ready and i had to jump forth to defend my honour
in my eyes, a vague passive aggressive post is a seperate post, not a reblog, and it’s usually, well, vague and passive aggressive
i posted two posts that could fall under this category, of which only one was specifically aimed at transfreq and wasn’t particularly passive aggressive (the above), and one was aimed at self-diagnosers on tumblr in general (i really don’t agree with self diagnosing)
i did make another “jab”, although i don’t feel like that sounded particularly passive aggressive either, i’ve been called classist about a billion times before as well
the rest were all responses, one of which, while still being related to the argument, wasn’t even for transfreq, and that one was the most passive aggressive reply i’ve ever given anyone
i can see how this post was a bit hypocritical, but rest assured that my shield of ignorance is still intact, i just like starting fires on occasion
metafurically, The distinction between a passive-aggressive post and a reblog in a thread is the least important part of my argument.
This is the OP.
This is the post previous to that. A clear reference to the argument you’re having with transfrequency over whether a working-class person can afford to seek diagnostic treatment for a condition you, in fact, tell kit that kit doesn’t have.
A side note: That argument is self-contradictory, for two reasons: one, why would someone go to a professional if there isn’t a chance they have the condition, and two, a negative diagnosis is still a diagnosis. your apparently authoritative claim that kit does not have DID has the same level of expertise behind it as kits claim that she does, unless you happen to study medicine in this field, and so they are either both valid or both invalid.
Also, this is sandwiched between posts about the argument and the poster. Your claims that it has nothing to do with that argument or its participants hold no water. Your entire modus operandi involves indirect engagement at best.
Here’s the post previous to that.
And the one previous to that. The one previous to that is your other reply in this chain.
I’m not especially interested in whether you’re talking to someone or about them. I’m also not interested in whether you posted all five about the same person, or just four. The fact remains that you posted a bunch of smarmy, condescending things, all in a row, in reference to the same subject. You decided to call two people pet names, throw in a French phrase, turn someone you were arguing with into a straw man, and then make the most un-self-aware post I’ve seen today.
Turns out I miscounted, and it was five instead of six, though. So there is that.
Even if you discount the other three statements, the thesis in the OP is clear: making those kinds of posts means that the poster is experiencing clear cognitive dissonance about what people are telling them. And you admit to making those posts.Maybe the defensiveness with which you replied to this post is a sign that I dented your shield, too.Think on that a while.
Reblogged from:metafurically
-
you know you’ve made a dent in an sjw’s shield of ignorance when they post like three passive aggressive posts about you in a row
metafurically I counted. This was the last in a series of six passive-aggressive posts in a row about the same person.
If three posts in a row dents someone’s ‘shield of ignorance’, I hate to think about what happened to yours.
Reblogged from: -
It really bothers me when people make fun of penises. You’re making fun of someone’s genitalia. Something they cannot control. Thats not okay.
Oh, but publicly speculating about whether someone’s lying about being DMAB and literally scrutinizing pictures of their naked body to determine if their penis is real is apparently totally okay.
Reblogged from:pixelatedcomplaints
-
Spotlight: pixelatedcomplaints
Two people running the same blog, pixelatedcomplaints have been undergoing a campaign of gaslighting and harassment that has culminated in their target password-protecting kits blog. My goal with this post is not to take sides in the ideological argument occurring. My opinion on that issue is not relevant. It is to say that the actions of pixelatedcomplaints are clearly not okay in any context.
fist-me-with-mayonnaise liked your post “Shout out to all the trans women/transfems who don’t use she/her…”
Don’t like my stuff
There is literally nothing you can do to stop someone from liking/reblogging your stuff.
This has been addressed elsewhere, but this line of thought is extremely harmful and abusive. Mod A is using a free speech argument to lord over the OP for having the gall to attempt to control who interacts with them, when no such argument exists for why someone shouldn’t engage in his abusive behaviour.
transphobic trans person
idislikecispeople is a plain old girl though….
IDCP is DMAB.
Got the message….but not quite buying it, honestly. See my previous commentary. No trans hate intended, in any way. Just stating my observations.
I read your commentary and I get it, I actually agree with you. E and I actually had a conversation about it awhile ago and came to the same conclusion. She does not look DMAB at all.
The only thing is, I’ve found NSFW pictures of her that she posted publicly on a thread on 4-Chan. The pictures are yet another set that are up to the person looking at them for interpretation on weather or not its real, because as E pointed out it could be a very well-made strap on. I’m going to post the picture I found under a read more. You can tell me if she looks DMAB to you after you see it.
Hmmmm….
I hate my morbid curiosity.I’m a super-skeptical person…I don’t see it attached to her body. It could be a hyper-realistic dildo. Honestly, that’s what the picture looks like to me. Like she’s just holding something there. It’s a sketchy shot, we don’t see much actual anatomy…. We’ll probably never know the truth honestly. Looks like a lot of blankets involved, etc….jesus, she could even be like, sitting on top of a real man or something.As you said, we’re never going to know. I doubt that she’s ever going to post a real picture of it attached to her body. Well, unless we could get a hold of the password to her NSFW blog.
Here we see pixelatedcomplaints having a conversation with goddess-of-nj about idcp’s body in an extremely invasive and transphobic way. If this were in any other context I think pixelatedcomplaints would say that distrusting someone’s stated designated gender at birth and scrutinizing images of them naked to prove their designated gender is disgustingly transphobic.
Mod A seems to believe that if you disbelieve someone’s trans status, it is acceptable to debate whether their genitals are how they appear in photos of them. This is impossible to defend even from an ideological standpoint — regardless of how you conceptualize transness, literally talking about people’s genitals in this way is unacceptable.
Kit blocked you and you’re trying to circumvent it wtf why are you so creepy and obsessed
Lel
What’s so funny? Doing creepy shit like that? Misgendering kit? Honestly, tell me, I’d love to hear so I can understand your humor
Nah, just the fact that you think she’s the most perfect human being just like the rest of the tucults. Also; we’re not misgendering her we use she/her pronouns for her and she has it clearly stated on her blog that people can use them.
Nah kit isn’t perfect kit has said a couple problematic things in the past but kit’s far far better than you are and the fact that you’re trying to circumvent the block feature is something that’s really messed up and kinda creepy and obsessive
We’re not even trying to circumvent the block feature? We were following her blog before she blocked us and an anon notified us that that was her blog. If we were trying to circumvent the block feature we’d be making new blogs just to reblog her stuff.
Here we see Mod A claiming that if someone blocks you on one blog they run, there is nothing ethically suspect about continuing to engage with them on another blog they run. They further define circumventing the block feature as ‘making new blogs just to reblog [kits] stuff’, a narrow definition that does not take into account the spirit of blocking someone, which is ostensibly to prevent them from interacting with you in any meaningful way (or at least, from any way you can see).
Given how the block feature is intended to work, Mod A is arguing that if someone is attempting to make sure that they do not see your posts or reblogs or any other interactions with you by blocking you, it is acceptable to continue reblogging their posts on a second blog you know they run until they block you there as well. In other words, it is acceptable to ignore someone’s wishes about who they would like to interact with them until they have exhausted every possible means to prevent you from doing so.
Bear in mind I am not making a legal argument, though I believe there is a legal case to be made for how this is harassment under federal U.S. law. I am making a moral argument for the ethics of social interaction on Tumblr, and elsewhere, on and off the internet. If I tell you not to contact me at my workplace and you find me at home, you are still in the wrong for attempting to contact me at all. I do not think this is a controversial position.
We know that pixelatedcomplaints is attempting to interact with this person through their personal blog because…
Hey look, a post about us.
…Mod A has reblogged from that blog. We also know that not only is pixelatedcomplaints aware of the fact that the first blog has been password-protected in an attempt to prevent further interaction…
We’re extremely satisfied with this turn of events over here on PC
…both mods celebrate it.
Mod A’s argument has been in the past that simply reblogging someone’s posts is not harassment:
tumblr user: *reblogs a post and adds a differing opinion*
pocaloids: stop talking to me you’re harassing me!!!!!11!
tumblr user: *does the same thing*
pocaloids: gO AWAY! YOU’RE HARASSING ME!!!1!!But this is a smokescreen at best. We all have phones; is calling someone after they have told you stop not harassment under the law? What about sending them letters after they have told you to stop? What about going to someone’s workplace? These are all normal behaviours twisted into abuse through the same context: They are knowingly being performed by someone who ignores the stated wishes of their target to be left alone. That is enough to be illegal in many contexts, but again, I am not making a legal argument here. Regardless of its legality its ethics are unquestionably unsound.
Please reblog this to spread awareness of pixelatedcomplaints and Mod A in particular. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with their views on transness and other identities, their behaviour is clearly dangerous and harmful.
lol
Was this done before or after IDCP’s volatile and blithering transphobic rants against transmen? Because I’m wondering if the OP is fucking retarded?
So your argument is that there are situations in which the disbelief and scrutinizing of nude images of a person’s body to disprove their stated trans status is justified?
Feel free to outline what these situations are, and how they justify such treatment.