Lindens Statements from Governance Meeting

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Rolig Loon said:

How many angel AIs did you say are dancing on the head of that pin?

Just two! Maybe three!

One scanning for child-presenting avatars

One scanning for sexytimes in chat, even if only 1 user is in chat

One to correlate the above 2.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

4 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

How about this: if someone WANTS to present more ambiguously, wouldn't that also include (for some people) dressing as ambiguously as possible?

Well, yes. If you are nonbinary or gender nonconforming, part of what you are doing is critiquing the binary.

And if you tell someone you "decide" looks "feminine" that they should be wearing a top, even if they don't have breasts, you are doing the opposite: you are enforcing it. No breasts -- but STILL "sexual," because it's been decided you are a "woman," and our culture has determined that mammary glands, the purpose of which is nursing infants, are really more importantly understood as secondary sexual organs -- even if you don't actually have breasts. Because, of course, women "should" have breasts -- it's one of the ways biological essentialism "defines" women.

Edited May 11 by Scylla Rhiadra
Clarity and supplement

[Persephone Emerald]

2 hours ago, Arwyn Quandry said:

Oh, come on. There's plenty of media that features child characters being injured, using weapons, dying. Children bring a unique emotional impact to storytelling and there's plenty of reasons to use a child character in a dangerous or violent scenario.

2 hours ago, Rowan Amore said:

That's my point.  SL has the rule about violence being on Adult and no children on Adult.  Why can't some violent combat be on Moderate so child avatars can participate?  They're adults in RL.

This was my point in posting that clip from "The Last of Us". Ellie is a teenager (gender non-conforming too, btw). The scene is powerful in part because she's smart enough to recognize that she's in danger and to react to harm her captor physically and perhaps socially. A scene like this acted out in SL RP might be alot of fun to do. There is very little blood (just an ear on the floor). No child or teen is physically hurt, though she is threatened. The only visible violence is when she breaks her captor's finger.

Edited May 11 by Persephone Emerald

[Madi Melodious]

17 minutes ago, Coffee Pancake said:

So if you're in one location as a child, having sexy time in IM with someone somewhere else, and no avatars are involved or can even see each other .. are ya banned ?

Yes, they do this now.  A friend of mine was inworld working on her little avatar talking naughty to her adult husband in IM.  They were both banned the next day.  I was in present with her when she was working on her avatar the entire time so no hanky pranky was happening in world.  

This is one of the reasons I keep my adult activates on a separate account and this avatar, until recently, doesn't have an adult form.   An there is no way you can affirm any kind of  adult activity with it unless you are really,  really weird.   Time to suit up and go scare the noobs at noob island.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

So thought experiment.

Is a 6 year old girl's chest "sexy"? Can it be read that way?

If so, why? What is it about a young girl's chest, which is physically at this stage undifferentiated from that of a boy, that makes it "sexual"?

And if it is not, why are we covering it up?

[Love Zhaoying]

8 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

13 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

I think it's "fair" to say "when in doubt cover girl-parts". Especially if not flat-chested! 

For practical purposes -- that is, avoiding ARs and disciplinary measures -- yes.

But that's also rather disturbing, isn't it? And the point that Qie and a few others have made before is spot on: putting a top on to a girl baby, toddler, or prepubescent does actually have the effect of sexualizing them, and their chest. "Nothing to see here . . . yet. But it's still sexual!" Clothing that is intended to mask sexuality almost always has the effect of, if not drawing attention to it, at least underlining that one particular meaning of the body.

Replace a few of your usages of "sexual" with "gendered" and it makes more sense. Society just doesn't want certain parts showing based on gender. Whether it's seen as "sexual" or not is separate.

I'm not trying to be pedantic, just showing another vantage point.

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

So thought experiment.

Is a 6 year old girl's chest "sexy"? Can it be read that way?

If so, why? What is it about a young girl's chest, which is physically at this stage undifferentiated from that of a boy, that makes it "sexual"?

And if it is not, why are we covering it up?

See my last post, where this is what I was addressing.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

Replace a few of your usages of "sexual" with "gendered" and it makes more sense. Society just doesn't want certain parts showing based on gender. Whether it's seen as "sexual" or not is separate.

I'm not trying to be pedantic, just showing another vantage point.

But that's precisely my point, Love. "Gendered female" and "sexual" have come to mean the same thing. The result is that a young girl's chest is viewed as "sexual" because it's been gendered "female."

To make this clearer -- if I showed you the picture of a topless 6 year old with no other visual clues -- hair length, genitals, whatever -- and asked you if it should be covered up, you would be unable to make that determination unless I informed you of that person's gender. If a boy, then no. If a girl, then yes. Despite the fact that there is no visual or effective difference between the two.

Edited May 11 by Scylla Rhiadra

[Rolig Loon]

3 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

But that's also rather disturbing, isn't it? And the point that Qie and a few others have made before is spot on: putting a top on to a girl baby, toddler, or prepubescent does actually have the effect of sexualizing them, and their chest. "Nothing to see here . . . yet. But it's still sexual!" Clothing that is intended to mask sexuality almost always has the effect of, if not drawing attention to it, at least underlining that one particular meaning of the body.

That's a very good point. It has bothered me in RL for years -- that is, the way that some parents focus overly on their toddlers' maleness or (more often) femaleness instead of just letting them look like toddlers. Until a child is about kindergarten age, I think sex-typing them is at least silly.  More to your point, adding a top on a toddler age girl makes people think of her as a girl when she's at an age when the distinction is irrelevant.  I think that's true in either RL or SL, but that's just me.

[Arielle Popstar]

2 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said:

Yes, they do this now.  A friend of mine was inworld working on her little avatar talking naughty to her adult husband in IM.  They were both banned the next day.  I was in present with her when she was working on her avatar the entire time so no hanky pranky was happening in world.  

This is one of the reasons I keep my adult activates on a separate account and this avatar, until recently, doesn't have an adult form.   An there is no way you can affirm any kind of  adult activity with it unless you are really,  really weird.   Time to suit up and go scare the noobs at noob island.

So lesson is not to use the IM or local for sexy chat or really any chat as it could go to sexy in a sentence from one or the other. Too freaking dangerous if they going to be banning with no warning.

[Love Zhaoying]

6 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Well, yes. If you are nonbinary or gender nonconforming, part of what you are doing is critiquing the binary.

 

Not what I intended, and I doubt non-binary people ever look at it that way. Perhaps society does.

7 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

And if you tell someone you "decide" looks "feminine" that they should be wearing a top, even if they don't have breasts, you are doing the opposite: you are enforcing it. No breasts -- but STILL "sexual," because it's been decided you are a "woman," and our culture has determined that mammary glands, the purpose of which is nursing infants, are really more importantly understood as secondary sexual organs -- even if you don't actually have breasts. Because, of course, women "should" have breasts -- it's one of the ways biological essentialism "defines" women.

Not what I meant; I was projecting from a non-binary person's point of view, should they take that point of view. Not society or anyone else's viewpoint.

 

[Codex Alpha]

24 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

We're a few short steps here from arguing that undies for boys should be blue, and those for girls should be pink.

In reality, I would only argue that blue undies were (and still are ) traditional colors that boys wore, and pink was for girls.

And it still remains so for the vast majority of humankind, not from some social influence, but by their preference.

Just like when I see how SL women purchase and dress themselves and their preference for pastel colors vs solid colors.. Pastel colors of flowers, pink, roses and gentle colors.

You and others just don't like to deal with reality, and want to hand wave away common knowledge and to continue to argue the exception as 'normal'.

Edited May 11 by Codex Alpha

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

I doubt non-binary people ever look at it that way.

I beg to differ on that one.

 

Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

Not what I meant; I was projecting from a non-binary person's point of view, should they take that point of view. Not society or anyone else's viewpoint.

My use of "you" was generic, and not "you = Love."

And the point is that a non-binary person's point of view is always a function of a culture that continues to insist that "non-binary" isn't really a thing.

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

But that's precisely my point, Love. "Gendered female" and "sexual" have come to mean the same thing. The result is that a young girl's chest is viewed as "sexual" because it's been gendered "female."

To make this clearer -- if I showed you the picture of a topless 6 year old with no other visual clues -- hair length, genitals, whatever -- and asked you if it should be covered up, you would be unable to make that determination unless I informed you of that person's gender. If a boy, then no. If a girl, then yes. Despite the fact that there is no visual or effective difference between the two.

Since they don't mean the same thing; and trans / non-binary and allies have to defend this point every day, as I've done in these threads when some ignorant person (not you) goes off on "sex" when they should be using "gender"...

..I have difficulty seeing how your choice of words can't be just as confusing to others.

No offense. 🙂

 

[Arielle Popstar]

7 minutes ago, Madi Melodious said:

Yes, they do this now.  A friend of mine was inworld working on her little avatar talking naughty to her adult husband in IM.  They were both banned the next day.  I was in present with her when she was working on her avatar the entire time so no hanky pranky was happening in world.  

Wait, if she was in IM to her husband and in different locations, who and how did she get AR'ed? Are you saying LL monitored her private conversation?

 

[Scylla Rhiadra]

25 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

We're a few short steps here from arguing that undies for boys should be blue, and those for girls should be pink.

 

2 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

In reality, I would only argue that blue undies were (and still are ) traditional colors that boys wore, and pink was for girls.

And it still remains so for the vast majority of humankind, not from some social influence, but by their preference.

Just like when I see how SL women purchase and dress themselves and their preference for pastel colors vs solid colors.. Pastel colors of flowers, pink, roses and gentle colors.

You and others just don't like to deal with reality, and want to hand wave away common knowledge and to continue to argue the exception as 'normal'.

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

[Love Zhaoying]

4 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I beg to differ on that one.

 

My use of "you" was generic, and not "you = Love."

And the point is that a non-binary person's point of view is always a function of a culture that continues to insist that "non-binary" isn't really a thing.

It's fine, I totally understand that you miss my points. It's ok!

Just know - my responses are to clarify where you apparently are saying the opposite. Fair?

 

Edited May 11 by Love Zhaoying
It's

[Love Zhaoying]

2 minutes ago, Arielle Popstar said:

Wait, if she was in IM to her husband and in different locations, who and how did she get AR'ed? Are you saying LL monitored her private conversation?

 

We've been theorizing that possibility in these threads for awhile..

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

Since they don't mean the same thing; and trans / non-binary and allies have to defend this point every day, as I've done in these threads when some ignorant person (not you) goes off on "sex" when they should be using "gender"...

..I have difficulty seeing how your choice of words can't be just as confusing to others.

No offense. 🙂

 

Love, you're just underlining my point.

Gender and sexual biology are not the same thing.

But if you insist that a young girl who biologically does not have breasts must cover her chest anyway, then you are conflating gender and biology, and insisting they are the same thing: that her biology must be made to conform to a narrow view of what her gender is, and vice versa. The physical reality of her body is being made to conform to a view that female = sexualized chest / breasts.

[Arielle Popstar]

2 minutes ago, Love Zhaoying said:

We've been theorizing that possibility in these threads for awhile..

Which you have been poo poohing if I remember correctly as you didn't believe there was sufficient proof?

Edited May 11 by Arielle Popstar

[Love Zhaoying]

3 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

 

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Using the example of an uninformed, non-ally, who effectively is trolling, isn't a fantastic argument, but potentially fair.

[Persephone Emerald]

45 minutes ago, brodiac90 said:

LL haven't directly addressed that, but they did address a similiar situation where what would happen if a child avatar was reported for being a child avatar whilst wearing an adult avi. I would hope they would base it on what the child avatar is currently presenting as. 

[14:51] Keira Linden: Jenni, if you are reported and you are in an adult avatar that is how we will evaluate the report.

What gender are you presenting as if your profile does not stipulate that your avatar is specifically male or female and your clothing - shorts - is gender neutral? What gender is a gender-fluid teen in booty shorts and an open yakuta kimono top?

I don't think it's right for other people to force users into a gender identity and the clothing they think should go with it, unless they are obviously presenting as that gender.

[Scylla Rhiadra]

Just now, Love Zhaoying said:

Using the example of an uninformed, non-ally, who effectively is trolling, isn't a fantastic argument, but potentially fair.

It makes my initial point, that the tendency of this conversation is to open us up to this kind of argument.

When we start defining what people wear on the basis of a gendered binary perspective, we are in essence imposing cultural conformity on a group of people who don't fit into that, and are actively working outside of it.

[Love Zhaoying]

1 minute ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

But if you insist that a young girl who biologically does not have breasts must cover her chest anyway, then you are conflating gender and biology, and insisting they are the same thing: that her biology must be made to conform to a narrow view of what her gender is, and vice versa. The physical reality of her body is being made to conform to a view that female = sexualized chest / breasts.

Who is "you"? 

I only said if they WANT: (sorry, can't multi-quote across pages on phone)

"How about this: if someone WANTS to present more ambiguously, wouldn't that also include (for some people) dressing as ambiguously as possible?"

I guess that's the confusing part for some!

Please just stop. 🙂

 

[Arielle Popstar]

9 minutes ago, Codex Alpha said:

In reality, I would only argue that blue undies were (and still are ) traditional colors that boys wore, and pink was for girls

I think the reality is that the vast majority couldn't give a hoot what colour they are as half the population is too impoverished to have much choice.