A woman called Ashley Del Valle who lives in New York, was arrested for allegedly wearing a top that caused "indecent exposure".

The top showed her breasts and nipples and as a result had been jailed for it. After her genitals were examined the authorities came to the conclusion that she was technically male.

She was then sent to an all male jail.

Indecent exposure of the breasts, a crime that is only existent for women, is the crime that Ashley Del Valle was unjustifiably jailed for. And yet regardless, the judicial system found that she should be jailed with men.

Read more here.

What.... the... fuck...?
Penis= man, no crime no problem.

Vagina= New shirt? jail with men? GOOD FUCKING IDEA! :D

What the hell is wrong with america...? -_-

>>2
"Penis= man, no crime no problem.

Vagina= New shirt? jail with men? GOOD FUCKING IDEA! :D"

I didn't get it... Explain that one more time, but with sentences.

Yeahhh... We're still trying to work the kinks out. It's all new. All of these... scenarios. Just like how cyber laws still need a bit more work (if we could reach Japan level, that would be fantastic), our protocols for dealing with law breaking transgenders, homosexuals, and bisexuals still need improvement as well. I mean, just imagine the olden days; never had to deal with these scenarios before, because if anyone ever found out about your dirty little secret, you would most likely be discriminated, persecuted, or/and killed. Your entire life would be ruined and crumble around you.

1. if she/he had a shirt that showed full breasts like in the discription, they should be jailed like any other woman.

2. i take pride in being a guy. i dont think that this person should get in trouble with their womanly parts, and attempt to get out of it just because of a gender issue.

>>5 The problem here is that she was put in a mens' jail despite the fact that she is now a woman.

i'm sorry, but she looks exactly like a guy fawkes mask.

Genitals determine the gender, breasts do not. In my opinion this could have gone either way

>>1 Transgendered people should be with the people they identify themselves as. SHE identifies as female, and should be sent to a female jail.

Also, it's just breasts. Prison shouldn't be for breasts, jails should house minor offenses such as this.

>>9 Who said she went to prison?
And he/she may identify with the women, but the women sure as hell won't identify with him/her in the shower rooms. He'll/She'll be harrassed in no matter what gender she's placed in.

I hate to say it, but...
We need a transgender section within Jails and Prisons. That's the only way to actually solve this problem.

>>10 The problem with that is that there are so few people who would actually fit in that category, that it would not be economical to do so. If 1 in 20,000- 50,000 people are transgender in some way, and there are maybe 10,000- 50,000 crimes per year including little things like indecent exposure, then even with these giant error margins, you will only have 0-3 transgender criminals in the US at any given time. Many of which will have only committed small crimes and won't be in for very long. Who would spend millions renovating prisons over these cases? Plus, no one is being creative here, what about fines? What about legalizing indecent exposure, but encouraging creepy staring? What about making it illegal for anyone to go topless, not just women? What about simply not caring about indecent exposure at all? Also, >>5 brings up a good point too. The constitution also protects against "cruel and unusual punishment," but it makes no reference to punishment that is just unusual, but not cruel. Still, as the law stands, she does face a potential loophole of either being in the wrong jail, or being innocent after all. The law just needs to get creative.

>>11 Pardon my bluntness, but what the actual fuck is wrong with you? You were using sarcasm right? Really obscure sarcasm?
Indecent exposure is INDECENT. It's not pretty. Don't like it. No.

We got clothes for a reason. What he/she was doing is called "flashing". Showing your junk, whether natural or unnatural, to unsuspecting people whether they cared to see them or not. Some people don't like being exposed to that or their children exposed to that.

Pshh. Making indecent exposure legal... How would you like to be stuck sitting next to someone who does not have an attractive face like the person in the picture, maybe obese even, with long floor touching tits being exposed for God and everyone?

But hey, it's not impossible. It's not like there aren't places where indecent exposure isn't indecent exposure. Become a nudist. And live in a nudist community. See you can't just go halfway. If you're cool with topless people, you gotta be cool with pantless people too.

>>11 But yeah, abou tthe first part of your argument, what if we had a jail for transgenders, gays and lesbians? That should be okay, right? Right?

...If there's a problem with that, I don't really see it. They could say that the government is discriminating, but I mean... If they've got a problem with that, then they need to think up their own solution.

Can we stop referring to her as he/she.

For fuck's sake, she is a she.

I have to disagree with you Magnolia. The idea that any part of the human body can be indecent is wrapped heavily in culture and religion. It isn't fact and there really should not be a law banning breasts, especially not when it is only applied to half of the population. Laws that enforce culture and laws that enforce religion are rarely if ever good laws.

>>15

So you'd rather it be legal then have people naked from head to toe walking around your area? It's not really something NEEDED, thus why really make it legal? It helps no one in anyway, to give people the right to be naked in public if they wish.

I'm afraid that argument doesn't follow logically. Consider applying it to something that is legal: smoking. Smoking is something that isn't really needed so why does it need to be legal? It helps no one to give people the right to smoke in public. Additionally, unlike nudity, smoking is actually harmful, both to the smoker and those nearby. It would follow then that smoking in public not only needs to be made illegal, but have a harsher punishment than public nudity.

Maybe this is just a fluke. Maybe smoking really should be illegal. Let's try a different example. Tattoos aren't something that is really NEEDED and they can be offensive to people. Why make tattoos legal? It helps no one in anyway.

Do you see why this line of reasoning doesn't hold up? Even if something is considered distasteful by a solid half of the population doesn't mean that the small percentage of people who want to do it should be punished by our legal system simply because it isn't deemed 'necessary'.

When we look at what should and should not be criminalized we are looking at acts that cause harm. Whether you like it or not, nudity harms no one. So yes, I'd rather it be legal that people be allowed to walk naked if they want to. And as it happens, in my area it is allowed, yet business continues as usual. Occasionally I even see a topless woman. Amazingly my eyes have not exploded.

>>17
Still, humans by nature are relativists not universalists.
We live in a culture that deems breasts and genitals unseemly, so we should treat them so. If you follow your path of logic it leads to things such as deceiving people in Maori culture was supposed to show superiority, so if they treated it as acceptable within their social confines, what gives us the right to say it is bad?

Relativism is a two way street and the opinion of the many will always be triumphent over the complexity of the few, if you believe yourself or those people who reckon it should be allowed are more important than the rest of society then go ahead, champion your cause with all your might.

"When we look at what should and should not be criminalized we are looking at acts that cause harm." That doesn't really make sense but I think your saying, what we look at doesnt cause harm so it shouldnt be illegal. Remind me of that next time I string incredibly realistic fake, rotting corpses outside your window. That didn't harm you so it isnt wrong right? Be just a tad considerate next time.

>>17 Dude, were you not listening? I'm saying there are options.

There are some areas where you are not allowed to smoke, and some areas permitting it.

There are some areas where you are not allowed to be naked, and some areas permitting it.

Because most people find the smell of smoke and the sight of a naked person distasteful.But if you disagree with that so strongly you have the option to move your ass to the smoking section or outside, or move yourself to a nudist colony or wherever you live.

Not everyone thinks the same. That's the whole reason why the world is in chaos and constant disagreement. That's why you can't make being naked legal (at least in the states), cuz while a small percentage might like that, the larger percentage would not.

Now, true, some of these views could exist because of the existence religion and/or culture, but 1) No one's getting rid of these anytime soon (at least in America and especially the middle East), and 2) even without religion or culture, sure my eyes won't explode at some naked people... But I will barf.

>>14 And no. He/She. Just because you live your life as one gender DOES NOT MAKE YOU THAT GENDER. She/He has the reproductive products of a man, that's why the jail nurses said "she is technically male". Because that's life. And no matter how many men live as women and no matter how many women live as men. That won't change the M/F on the birth certificate.

>>19 No 'he' is her sex. That's what it says on her birth certificate, male is her sex and what she was born. She is female, she looks female, she thinks female and therefore that makes her female, because female is her gender.

...No. He is a he that wants to be a she. Too bad HE was born with a penis. You can call him a her all you want so let me call him a he. Because it is what HE is. Technically, there is no right or wrong answer with which pronoun you call a transgender, so drop it.

Good point on my harm definition. I tried to keep it simple, but I suppose it was too narrow as a result. The problem with stringing rotting corpses outside somebody's window is that we are looking at what amounts to a passive aggressive act done with the specific purpose of bothering a person. Health and disposal concerns aside, this is quite different than a simple lifestyle choice that another person is taking offense at.

Moving to a nudist colony is not a realistic solution to women not being allowed to be topless while men are. I am sure you believe what you are saying, but I doubt you would actually barf at the sight of breasts. I rather strongly suspect that you would get over them in about an hour if not sooner.

And Takara is right. There are two classifications. Sex and Gender. Sex is physical. Gender is mental. The woman in the article is sexually male, but she is mentally female. The proper pronoun in this case is she.

Okay. Lemme put it this way. I'm calling him a he and there ain't a damn thing anyone can do about it. So let's move on.

Can we please stop arguing about what pronoun to use and worry about something a little more important, like the hypocrisy of what they're doing. They arrested her for showing tits, but then called her a male. If I remember correctly, it's perfectly okay for guys to walk around shirtless. As a side note, it is possible for someone to legally change what gender they are legally. Wouldn't it just be easier to ignore the fact that they're trans and just deal with them based on what their legal gender is? That seems simple enough to me, fucktards.

Either way, if she had legally changed her information to say that she's a girl, then I believe that the correct pronoun is "she". Then again, I don't know if she did or not, and frankly I don't care. For all I care she can claim to be a pink unicorn, I'm too lazy to argue it. As far as I'm concerned, do whatever the fuck you like as long as you're not hurting anyone mentally, physically, emotionally, legally, money wise, etc.

If he is being convicted for a female crime he should not be in the male jail, if they want to classify him as a he then they should let him go with no charges! Guys can show there chest no madder how big there man boobs!

matter*

I feel awkwardly sad for those men in jail if they ever try raping her.. Well at least she.. wait i mean HE will get popular there unless they knew she is a guy.

>>25

YES! I HOPE THAY KEEP THAT BITCH IN JAIL!

>>29 Look. It returned from the dead.

>>30 MAAAAAAN!!! DX Just when I was forgetting GHF's existence.

I honestly think that it should go by birth gender not gender identity. I have nothing against transgendered individuals, so don't misunderstand. Hear me out.

By birth, males and females have different physical needs. Gender identity doesn't change this. Jails that are sectioned by gender tend to cater to the needs of either gender but not both. The needs of a transgendered woman would be similar to those of a man because they have the body composition of a male. She's still a woman, as that's how she identifies, but her needs differ from most women.

See, it's about needs being met... Though the court was likely not as concerned as I am. They were likely being intolerant rather than worried about this lady's health.

On another note, I don't think that there's much difference (besides a bit of fat) in a man's chest and a woman's. You can't even argue sensuality. A man's are as asensitive as a woman's. You can't argue structure. Male mammals typically have rudimentary mammary glands and nipples. Testosterone is pretty much the only difference. And that's just a chemical.

I'm interested in this, but explain what you mean by a male or females "needs". Physical health? Mental health? Sexual Health?

>>25

Note: The following is partially unrelated to the OP

I do feel like really fat guys who walk around shirtless should be charged with indecent exposure :L Just because their tits don't make milk doesn't mean they're not tits. Also, flat chested women who walk around shouldn't be charged if normal men aren't charged; there's no difference other than a little blub.

The whole gender debate--even on the level of what is and isn't considered indecent exposure--all seems really stupid and fairly biased on several levels to me.

Physical, mostly. Mentally, women and men are about the same, but society leads us to believe that they are majorly different. (again, they're really not)

There's several issues, but I'm short on time to list them. (Yay! Calculus work!) Of course, you could fix it by catering to the individual. But, it's a prison. The mentality is that you shouldn't step out of your way to care for a criminal's non-life threatening issue.

>>34 "Stupid and biased"...
How so?

biased: Show prejudice for or against (someone or something) unfairly.
Prejudice: Preconceived opinion not based on reason or experience.

So far, we've only been stating opinions based on reason using this official case or another as the provider of our reasoning. The only person who's been prejudice so far has been GHF... But who even cares about that guy?

>>34 Oh, but I agree with you about men with man boobs should be charged as well. It'll be a hard case, because it's discriminating. A ripped shirtless guy is appealing, so him taking a shirtless jog will get him nothing but cat calls. Also, if men were to go to a pool or a beach, it would mean that they would have to cover up with a T-shirt, which kinda sucks for them.

>>36 Do I really need to explain how it's stupid? My entire post should have implied it enough.

The fact that we can't even say that two nearly identical body parts deserve equal charge is enough to say that the gender debate is biased and inspired by the stupid who can't look past traditional social norm.

And you say that ripped men who are shirtless are appealing. I completely agree. But a cute girl with huge tits who's shirtless is just as appealing, isn't it? Men can walk around without their shirts on, but if a woman does so, she is charged with indecent exposure, sent to jail, and put on the pedo list. She would be labelled easy - a slut - when men do the same thing constantly.

So what's the honest difference? They're the same body parts with slightly different properties. There's no unbiased explanation for why the law is set up that way.

>>37 & >>38: I disagree with both of you. I think that neither men nor women should be charged. Bam. No discrimination. Like I said previously, the only difference is estrogen/testosterone... and those are only itty bitty chemicals.

>>39 I still don't wanna see fat people naked. Especially in the summer heat. Especially when I'm eating.

Also, just imagine if indecent exposure was a-ok.

Wouldn't there be a growing issue of voyeurism? (If I spelled that right)

>>39 >>40 I prefer to take the opposite stand. I think, yes, indecent exposure should be illegal, but it should apply fully to both genders. Your nipples, asses, penises, and vaginas cannot be shown in public. Simple as that.

There are some countries that allow exposure, but they end up being the scene of pornos, so I'd rather not go there.

>>41 I think obscene exposure would be something as opposed to "indecent," obscene like cocks and vags and asses out. Everyone should be able to take of their shirt and wear whatever as long as those one or more of those three things aren't exposed.