Quote Originally Posted by Montmorency View Post
Assuming there is a legal requirement for women to cover their breasts in general, the argument on behalf of nursing mothers is that they are performing a necessary and routine bodily function and that the harm caused by refusing them accommodation is greater than the harm caused by allowing them accommodation. Meanwhile, what's the argument against - invocation of "public decency?" I don't think this is colorable in terms of "affective vs. logical."

What if they consider it to be acceptable? I mean, you are aware you've lost the legal and social debate by now, right? So unless you feel really strongly about the issue and want to relitigate it to the point of having the inverse of French-style burqa police, it's probably not worth your energy (nb. if the latter is your real aim it would be reprehensible).

The motivation is not the naturalness of breastfeeding but the legal principle of not imposing undue burdens.

What's wrong with opposing "patriarchal repression?"

I've frequently seen the two arguments paired, idk what you mean. And haven't you heard of all the topless parades and protests in America and throughout Europe (no links)?

Here's a short comment on the state of American law on breastfeeding (though it only discusses state, not federal, law).

I hope we can get to the point where no one feels the need to complain about it, or that complaints are ignored.

You've never actually seen it in public, but it's such a big deal for you?

I'll reply to the rest of the post later, I just want to post some stuff about breastfeeding.

First, since you're a stuffy old chap and not a breastfeeding woman let's go direct to the source and see what nursing mothers are saying. To that end I turn to Mumsnet, the UK's pre-eminent forum for... mums.

And some photos:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 














For the piece de resistance:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
I've lost the legal and social debate, hmm?

It's the same debate as the one that has Republicans deciding it's OK to gerrymander their districts to prevent Democrats ever getting elected. The same debate that says someone can force other people to agree to their minority view of gender. It's also the same debate that has people electing Trump and not caring about his personal behaviour. The same debate that has the members of the Labour Party ignoring the Antisemitism of their leader because he's a good Socialist.

This isn't about practicalities, it's about individuals being seen to exercise their personal autonomy, even at the expense of others. Ultimate individual expression, disregarding the collective. So, it's essential for the nursing mother to be able to be SEEN to be nursing, even if she offends parents with older children. Her individual right to display her literaly "naked truth" trumps any concerns anyone else might have about her behaviour.

As opposed to her wearing a shall, or even a towel (not a practical hindrance) so that she isn't visibly topless.

This is just one element of a social outlook which gives paramount concern to the autonomy of each individual, rather than considering the welfare of society in general. Another is electing Thump, or gerrymandering Districts.