To say bras are not for boys

[AssignedPuuurfectAtBirth]

Another trans bully nightmare. Targetting the yellowberry bra brand now

lilymaynard.wordpress.com/2017/12/31/bra-gate-yellowberry-products-now-for-everyone/

When will this BS end?

I think posters grouping boys together with girls/women with very little breast tissue together doesn't help the matter. I'm surprised that women can view other women as not needing to wear a bra because of the latter.

All women have the right to feel feminine no matter what their size. Bras don't however need to be advertised for boys. If boys want to wear bras they have the freedom to buy them and do so I matter who the target audience are.

no

The advice Blanchard gives to parents of girls with rapid onset gender dysphoria is to seek to identify the issues present prior to the GD and treat these, and to delay as much as possible gender transition.

He is not saying that girls should have their breasts cut off etc. In fact, I am not even sure the Travistock Clinic is saying that.

I don’t disagree with your analysis UpABit Late; my point was really that the fastest group of trans identifying people are natal, teenage females.

Blanchard and his co-authors suggest that teenage onset dysphoria on males is AGP (excluding people who have been dysphoric from an early age).

In the context of the bra article in the OP, a PP suggested that trans identifying females would be better served by bras for people than binders, hence boys can wear bras too. I see where that view comes from, particularly if there are lots of ROGD females.

But I am not sure this was the context of the Twitter storm, the Twitter storm is about the word girl, and erasing the distinct market for girls, not making it about females who present in different ways. It is also attacking a small retailer, as others have said.

Boys do not need bras, physically speaking, unless they transition. And then the trans logic is that they are girls. So, I am confused by the whole thing.

If the idea is that males should blatently be included in Yellowberries advertising , wouldn't they just be selling to transvestites ?

Boys can wear bras if they choose to. Just as girls are "allowed" to wear trousers instead of skirts
Pathetic, what on earth for when they don't need them. Shall we let them wear sanitary towels too, because they might "choose" to?

Sure by definition the purpose of a bra, especially a younger persons bra, is to support the breast and a well supportive bra will then eliminate hopefully, back pain ect.
I see no reason that this product should or would be marketed at boys.

It's all a bit bizarre really. Also wondering if we need to stop using the term "feminine hygiene" in case that offends......

Shall we let them wear sanitary towels too, because they might "choose" to?

Let them? I don't believe we have they power to stop them. Of course they can wear sanitary towels if they want to. They can shove a tampon up their arse if they want to. What we shouldn't do is change the marketing to be inclusive of males for a product that is specifically designed to prevent period blood flowing freely down our legs when they can never and will never have that problem

For clarity again I imagine they are arguing that trans boys (who do have breasts and periods probably) are excluded.

A friend who was into the bdsm scene used to tell me about an old man a judge or former judge who used to turn up at her sex parties with a tampon shoved up his arse. Even my friend found it a bit odd and she had seen it all. Just thought I would add that lovely story. As you were.

The fact that they specifically mentioned inersex and non-binary people is interesting.

The use of intersex is a blatant exploitation of a disorder to shore up their daft ideology.

But they relentlessly include non-binary everything Trans.

Non-binary has the effect of erasing absolutely everything to do with biological sex differences.

It's the constant search for a generic term to cover the lot.

Whilst at exactly the same time insisting that men are women.

This, apparently conflicting, double pronged approach is incredibly sinister.

It really is eradicating biological females and then replacing them with biological males.

Anything to do with biological females is taboo, because non-binary.

Except if you're a biological man identifying as a female, because trans.

So a trans identifying young female is a boy. A boy who still needs a bra. But we are not supposed to say this boy is a girl or young woman even though they breasts growing (and periods).

Have I got this correct now? It is about natal females who identify as masculine in gender terms, not wanting their sexual biological attributes to be called female. Or someone making this argument on these grounds. It’s not about biological males feeling excluded from the bra buying milestone of young women.

Generally yes that's it.

However it often seems to be adult or older TIMs who make this argument "on behalf of" that anything relating female body stuff to words meaning female is wrong, which benefits them as it has the further effect of muddying the meanings of words around female/woman/girl and makes it easier for them to argue that they belong wholly in that category and always have.

Okay, that makes sense.

From The Spectator in October -
‘...in its submission on proposed amendments to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Foreign Office suggested the term ‘pregnant women’ might be offensive to ‘transgender people who have given birth’. The covenant, a UN treaty, says society must protect ‘pregnant women’ and never subject them to the death penalty. The Foreign Office wondered if ‘pregnant people’ might be a preferable term, to avoid offending the infinitesimally small number of women who identify as men who have given birt

blogs.spectator.co.uk/2017/10/the-word-woman-is-being-erased-from-public-life/

Blame the Government for introducing laws meaning that you cant point out that a boy in a female body is not a girl without being arrested for hate speech.

Therefore the world must acquiesce to the demands of mentally unbalanced teenage trans activists. The tail wags the dog because we have been silenced.

Are transgender people really bothered by the term 'pregant women' or advertisements aimed at girls? Or is it everybody else? It makes me wonder.

men in a dress and heels can look really hot

I must live on a different planet to you.

Ooohh. My moobs could use some support.

Are transgender people really bothered by the term 'pregant women' or advertisements aimed at girls? Or is it everybody else? It makes me wonder.

It's transactivists. Targeting bra retailers, women's swimming pools, feminist restaurants, women's libraries, girls' shops, etc.

There have been times in human history when men made a concerted effort to erase women, their words and their achievements, from the record. Everything from using the male spelling instead of the female when copying religious texts to the current forcible transitioning of Joan of Arc and the women at the Stonewall Riot.
It is always about obedience.

I guess sanitary products that are aimed at young teenage girls will soon have to be advertised for young people who have periods

And I wish I could laugh at the stupidity but I can’t becuase stupidity is taking away our rights and eroding our needs (ours being girls/women)

It is like a bizarre re-institution of coverture laws. Terrifying in its implications.

men in a dress and heels can look really hot

I must live on a different planet to you.

This whole topic is mindboggling to be honest, and probably causing less acceptance rather than more, although clearly more 'rights' for trans activists.

I think this brand has been targeted because they are celebrating young girls growing into women, but also providing for girls who are not yet ready to be 'women'. I can see some argument for the cause of teens who identify as male but who have breasts (not moobs!) and need bras but don't want to have to look in the 'women's section' for bras. They are specialising in providing bras for young girls 'at whatever stage' who don't want adult/padded/sexualised bras - this probably would therefore be a logical choice of retailer in preference to a 'lingerie shop' or a department store where underwear is divided into girls or boys sections. The problem for this retailer is that in theory if they are providing only bras etc there is no need to describe things as being for girls as it is obvious who bras are for, but adopting this policy would potentially undermine the ethos of their whole brand.