The Park Board will be voting to repeal its nudity ordinance on Wednesday. The restrictions on indecent exposure in the city charter [edit: meant to say city ordinance, not charter] and state statute will still apply to people, but after the repeal receives its third reading there will no longer be any park-specific ordinance on the subject.
The only real impact of this change will be to eliminate the discriminatory language that targets female breasts. Elsewhere in Minneapo...lis people of all genders can be topless in public, but in parks and parkways women and transgender people are cited for it.
I firmly believe the law should treat people equally regardless of gender. In spaces where men are allowed to go shirtless, women and transgender people should be able to as well. Inversely, in spaces where it would be inappropriate for women to expose their chests, it should be inappropriate for men as well. People should not be discriminated against just because heterosexual men have oversexualized them. Any argument that can be made against the exposure of a woman's chest should apply just as strongly against the exposure of a man's chest.
The remainder of the ordinance is redundant, covered by both Minnesota statute 617.23, and Minneapolis city ordinance 385.160, neither of which have any discriminatory restrictions on women or transgender people.
The full language of the ordinance that we will vote to repeal is as follows:
"PB2-21. – Proper attire required. No person ten (10) years of age or older shall intentionally expose his or her own genitals, pubic area, buttocks or female breast below the top of the areola, with less than a fully opaque covering in or upon any park or parkway, as defined in PB1-1. This provision does not apply to theatrical, musical, or other artistic performances upon any park or parkway where no alcoholic beverages are sold."
Thank you to everyone who brought this discriminatory ordinance to our attention.