WTF?!? Minnesota Democrat Introduces Legislation to Make it Legal for Women to go Topless, Citing “Gender Identity”

Macgyver

Has No Life - Lives on TB
1711414519386.png



Minnesota Democrat Introduces Legislation to Make it Legal for Women to go Topless, Citing “Gender Identity”

Credit: Minnesota House of Representatives
If one Minnesota Democrat has her way, women and those who identify as female will soon have the right to bare their assets.

As the Star Tribune reported on Sunday, Minnesota State House Rep. Samantha Sencer-Mura has proposed amending the state’s law so exposed breasts cannot be considered indecent exposure.

Sencer-Mura told the outlet that she was outraged after learning that a woman had been sentenced to 90 days in jail for going topless in public. She went on to claim the indecent exposure law is outdated given society’s “shifting understanding of gender.”

“That to me just seems really wrong,” Sencer-Mura said. “Particularly now, as we as a society are thinking differently about gender and gender identity, I think this law feels very antiquated.”


“If law enforcement believes that someone identifies as a female, then they’re going to treat them differently if they have their shirt off than they would someone that they perceive to be a male, she continued. “As we have a shifting understanding of gender, that law just doesn’t make sense anymore.”

Indecent exposure in Minnesota is defined as when someone “willfully and lewdly exposes the person’s body or the private parts thereof.” There is an exception for mothers breastfeeding.

But as the Star-Tribune notes, the statute defining indecent exposure does not specify what counts as private parts.

The Star Tribune previously reported that a woman named Eloisa Plancarte was sentenced to 90 days in jail after she was arrested by Rochester police in 2021. Police said Plancarte allegedly walked around a convenience store parking lot with her breasts fully exposed.

Plancarte appealed the conviction, saying it violated her constitutional right to equal protection under the law. She further claimed that men would not be charged if their chests were publicly exposed.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals denied her appeal in a 2-1 decision. Writing for the majority, Judge Kevin G. Ross mentioned a nearly 40-year-old decision that upheld a conviction for a woman sunbathing topless in Minneapolis Park.


Judge Diane B. Bratvold cast the dissenting vote. She claimed the decision “raises more questions about criminal conduct than it clarifies.”

She also queried whether it would be illegal for a “transgender” man who did not have breast removal surgery to be exposed in public. Judge Jon Schmidt, who upheld the conviction, also said he was concerned the current state law could be used to attack trans people for behavior that was “not lewd.”
 

Countrymouse

Country exile in the city
There WAS once a time when a MAN or BOY going around shirtless was considered a sign of VERY poor taste.

"No shirt, No shoes, No service."

And the Andy Griffith show where Aunt Bee scolds Opie for coming out on their back porch without a shirt on a broiling summer day: "Opie! Where's your shirt! You can't go around like that--a naked savage!"
 

Toosh

Veteran Member
Go for it, honey. It's fine, I'm good with that.

It will last about as long as "defund the police" did before there are major problems. But I don't wanna hear no complains about how you were disrespected - you earned it. In the meantime, we'll get all the freaky judges and so called "public servants" out in the open where we can see them.
 

Matt

Veteran Member
The leftists deserve what is going to happen to them.....

Feminist and Sharia Law go together like peas and carrots!


1000000341.png
 

Swampdweller

Senior Member
View attachment 467092



Minnesota Democrat Introduces Legislation to Make it Legal for Women to go Topless, Citing “Gender Identity”

Credit: Minnesota House of Representatives
If one Minnesota Democrat has her way, women and those who identify as female will soon have the right to bare their assets.

As the Star Tribune reported on Sunday, Minnesota State House Rep. Samantha Sencer-Mura has proposed amending the state’s law so exposed breasts cannot be considered indecent exposure.

Sencer-Mura told the outlet that she was outraged after learning that a woman had been sentenced to 90 days in jail for going topless in public. She went on to claim the indecent exposure law is outdated given society’s “shifting understanding of gender.”

“That to me just seems really wrong,” Sencer-Mura said. “Particularly now, as we as a society are thinking differently about gender and gender identity, I think this law feels very antiquated.”


“If law enforcement believes that someone identifies as a female, then they’re going to treat them differently if they have their shirt off than they would someone that they perceive to be a male, she continued. “As we have a shifting understanding of gender, that law just doesn’t make sense anymore.”

Indecent exposure in Minnesota is defined as when someone “willfully and lewdly exposes the person’s body or the private parts thereof.” There is an exception for mothers breastfeeding.

But as the Star-Tribune notes, the statute defining indecent exposure does not specify what counts as private parts.

The Star Tribune previously reported that a woman named Eloisa Plancarte was sentenced to 90 days in jail after she was arrested by Rochester police in 2021. Police said Plancarte allegedly walked around a convenience store parking lot with her breasts fully exposed.

Plancarte appealed the conviction, saying it violated her constitutional right to equal protection under the law. She further claimed that men would not be charged if their chests were publicly exposed.

The Minnesota Court of Appeals denied her appeal in a 2-1 decision. Writing for the majority, Judge Kevin G. Ross mentioned a nearly 40-year-old decision that upheld a conviction for a woman sunbathing topless in Minneapolis Park.


Judge Diane B. Bratvold cast the dissenting vote. She claimed the decision “raises more questions about criminal conduct than it clarifies.”

She also queried whether it would be illegal for a “transgender” man who did not have breast removal surgery to be exposed in public. Judge Jon Schmidt, who upheld the conviction, also said he was concerned the current state law could be used to attack trans people for behavior that was “not lewd.”
They did this in Canada years ago. Some collage feminist pushed for it. The law did change. Turned out to be a tempest in a B cup.
 

AddisonRose

On loan from Heaven
Sexualization of women continues which only increases the probability of sex trafficking. Dallas is one of the largest sex trafficking known cities in the country.
 

Sammy55

Veteran Member
These Twin Cities dem lawmakers continue to astound me with how much they want to debase and embarrass our state. :smkd: :o :kk2:

I know a whole lot of dems in the northland, and none of them are going to think very highly at all of a stupid law like this. I just wish their eyes would open and they'd quit voting for these dem a**holes! But I'm sure that the MN dems are pulling some "voting irregularities" of their own down in the Twin Cities, so the dem votes probably wouldn't change much.
 

summerthyme

Administrator
_______________
Any females you see going topless you can immediately determine they have zero self-respect.

If they do not respect themselves, then they should not be surprised at the lack of respect others show them.

There is no excuse for rape, but I'm afraid that could well be the result.
Well, either that or their narcissistic personality disorder tells them they are far too perfect to cover up!

Summerthyme
 

CaryC

Has No Life - Lives on TB
I am sure the Muslims will see that as a request to be raped. It will end quickly.
And could just as easily come up with legislation for everyone to keep their shirts on.

So was there an ulterior motive here?

Tupelo came up with an ordinance forbidding pants to be below the waist. If you'll remember at one time it was trendy to keep your pants around mid thigh. Which you had to hold to.

If Tupelo can do that.......
 

Melodi

Disaster Cat
I don't have a problem with the law itself; I've been saying it should be this way for a couple of generations now. It should be legal, but that doesn't mean it is a polite or attractive thing to do. I also think the reasoning for the law is a bit silly. It is simply that the law for both sexes should be the same. So, a woman caught sunbathing topless or taking off her shirt on a hot day isn't arrested for a CRIME. On the other hand, after once getting the most awkward sunburn of my life, I introduced the idea of wafting Kaftcans at the "clothing optional" festival I used to attend. I noticed a lot of ladies (and gents) following that idea the following year (the first year I started wearing scarves around my waist with jewelry because being nude is boring, and by the end of the day, the Batick Stand was selling out of giant scarves, humans like wearing some clothing).
 

KFhunter

Veteran Member
making it even more difficult to find decent husband, why would men bother?

She’s showing everyone her goods, all you need is a great instagram photo, a few beverages and a fancy car to get all the girls you could want.

Not that hard to achieve imo
 
Top