This week online, the controversy is Ethel Cain and her choice to post her nude trans body (artfully done) in an Instagram post (you’ll need to be logged into an adult profile to see it, otherwise it says the post isn’t available). Notably, Ethel Cain is trans. James Factora, writing for Them, wrote a story about how this is resistance, one of the key purposes of art, so I won’t go into detail about that. Go read about it there.
But I want to talk about something else: what is and isn’t age appropriate.
You see, I posted the image of David (Michelangelo’s statue) on Bluesky in response to the manufactured outrage over Ethel Cain’s nude picture (which I’ll note was also hid behind an age gate, but also marked, presumably by Instagram, as sensitive content. Nobody is seeing Ms. Cain’s penis that doesn’t want to on Instagram, at least not via Ethel Cain’s Instagram.
Nude bodies, particularly those of trans women, are highly sexualized by society. I’ve written about this in another post, but the short of it is that for many cis people, the only exposure they’ve had to to the trans body is porn. I don’t personally see Ethel Cain’s picture as porn just as I don’t see Michelangelo’s David as porn. There’s an artistic character to it beyond nudity for nudity’s sake. One could also argue, unlike David, there is even an educational value, since I suspect not many people know what trans bodies actually look like. It turns out that often a trans woman’s body is noticably distinct from that of a cis man’s (she looks nothing like the statue!). (I’ll note there is a wide variety of trans bodies, and trans women can look like nearly any stereotype, as well as plenty of variations that look like no stereotypes).
But that’s not why I want to write about this. After all, what angered me most was that a classic western artistic masterpiece, David, was also censored, because Bluesky noted that it is, “Sexually Suggestive, Does not include nudity.” A weird choice considering that David is most definitely nude, I mean I can see that the statue depicts this Jewish religious figure in a uncircumcised state, which is…odd. Whatever, though. I guess the statue is just the Christian version of David, much as the Christian version of Jesus often portrays him with blond hair and blue eyes.
The idea that offends me is not even that children need to be protected from seeing nude humans. I think humans generally should have some understanding about their own bodies from a young age, and also the bodies of others, hopefully before they are sexually active. But that’s not what this is about. It’s what isn’t considered something that children need to be shielded from.
On social media, grown adults can bully trans youth with impunity. There are no “sensitive content” labels or age gating on their bullying. A trans girl gets to read adults talk about people like her as perverts, preditors, “not real women”, and whatever else. It’s not just trans youth though. It’s also Black youth. Jewish youth. Hispanic youth. All girls. White supremacy doesn’t need hiding, nor does misogyny, nor does antisemitism, nor does racism, nor does ableism, etc.
And, to me, that is a problem.
Perhaps that’s even more damaging to children than Ethel Cain’s age-gated penis.
Gendered Thoughts 
3 responses to “Ethel Cain? Apparently no. Transphobia, yes.”
Stunning and brave. It’s nudity. It’s inappropriate. It’s sexually suggestive. Her outfit alone implies a sexual nature and her suggestive pose. Stop bullshitting. The he statue of David is a nude study of an athletic young man. Nothing sexual or provocative about it. To call that transphobia is just another way to make any criticism of trans persons “hate speech”. It’s ridiculous. Your version of what should be socially normal does not encompass all of society. The small minority of people who are OK with this do not represent or get to dictate society as a whole. Just as you can’t go nude in public, although some people, a small majority would say otherwise. Majority rules and we don’t have to, and WILL NOT bow down to radical trans ideology and activism that just seems to get more perverted. I am a gay male by the way, and the entire trans movement has been a problem for some years now. I was very accepting and open minded before all these radical ideas came into play. I can no longer support the mainstream trans movement. I have no problem with trans adults identifying however they may, this doesn’t mean they get to do whatever they please, and any criticism of their actions is deemed transphobia.
LikeLike
You seem to be having an argument with things I didn’t say while not engaging with what I did say! I was complaining about how social media censored David for sexual suggestiveness.
Let me help you. My headline for this story, “Ethel Cain? Apparently no. Transphobia, yes.” wasn’t talking about whether or not it’s transphobic if you don’t want to see Ethel Cain nude (just as plenty of people won’t want to see David nude either)–I presume many people didn’t! Of course, those people probably didn’t log into Instagram with an 18+ profile and then click past a nudity warning to see what was hidden by that nudity warning. But not wanting to see nudity wasn’t what my post was about.
It was about how social media hides nudity (the example I used was that social media hid the statue of David, as sexually suggestive without nudity, which is, as I noted, a weird, inaccurate description of David). It was about how social media does not hide hate. It was about what that says about what people, particularly children need to be protected from. They need to be protected from, according to social media, David, but not racist, ableist, transphobic, homophobic, antisemetic, or other forms of hate. And I disagree with that. If we’re going to protect kids from nudity automatically on social media, perhaps we should also protect them from hate directed towards them or people like them. I don’t think seeing David is going to harm someone’s mental health, but marinating on hateful social media might.
Yet you didn’t engage with this argument. You made an assumption that missed my argument.
You then decided to display transphobia, both overtly (“radical trans ideology and activism that just seems to get more perverted,” stereotyping the entire trans community completely ignoring differences within the community (“the entire trans movement has been a problem for some years now”), and through dog whistles such as “male” (“gay male”) rather than man–which in the context of the rest of your statement, I’m assuming is because you don’t accept the idea of gender, just the idea of sex (I do recognize some may use the words interchangeably while also treating trans women as they treat cis women, it just doesn’t look like that is likely true here, although I am fine if you want to correct that!).
I let your comments through this time. I won’t let overt transphobia or thinly veiled dog whistles through in the future.
LikeLike
Forgot to add that the statue of David is a STATUE! Not a nude human in the flesh. How you even compare a statue to a live person is beyond me, and laughable. Nudity of a person is inappropriate in the public space. There are nude statues everywhere in public areas. they are depictions not the real thing. Most people are not erotically attracted to inanimate object objects. this is why people are prancing around noon in a public square yet there will be nude statues in the fountain.
LikeLike