Incorrect, the term minor refers in this case to the person in the photo who willingly posts the photo, not the viewer. If the subject matter in the photo is not presented as sexual or pornographic then nudity viewed by a minor is not considered a concern under the law and is not regulated. Medical or scientific reference material is clearly defined as not obscene under the law and that is what I'm focusing on - the ability to discuss health related issues. Further, it is expected under the law that parents or guardians of youths monitor and restrict content that they personally feel is inappropriate for the youths under their care including if they should deem legal and context-valid nudity to be inappropriate. This is not the responsibility of the content host. Withholding legal research information from interested trans parties seems more of a denial of service to all of the members, youth included, if it prevents learning or having an informed family discussion. It also teaches youth that the female body is to be ashamed of. I find it hard to believe that many parents open-minded enough to be having an open and supportive gender-identity discussion with their children, which must include issues with want or lack of sex organs likely raised by the child in the first place, would be offended by medically relevant and illustrated discussion of the chest area. That said, I thought some areas of the site were not fully open access to minors anyway so the argument is not valid across the whole site.
Basically by blocking any image of a female chest, regardless of context, the message sent is that it IS illegal and obscene. This is false. It is also virtually impossible to define someone's chest to be male or female under a number of scenarios already noted. I understand the reasoning behind playing it safe with the site rules but the end result seems to be completely counterproductive to the mission of acceptance this site seeks to achieve, particularly as it relates to the equality of women.
