Mississippi Passes "More Dead Kids Please" bill. Texas responds w/ "hold my beer"

[Jarhyn]

On average, Emily is correct: most men can physically overpower most women.

You and her both have a long way to go to make that claim for people who have: not been on testosterone for 2+ years; not ever been on testosterone.

The claim is for men on average, not any small subset.
Talking about rape and sexual violence, it’s a fair assumption that most rapists are able to physically overpower their victims.
Looking for solutions, it makes little sense to spend disproportionate time and effort examining exceptions where the victim/rapist physical advantage is somehow reversed, or where rape is perpetrated by women upon men.

IMHO of course. I don’t know what it’s like, outside of early memories, to be a male without testosterone. But I know people who have been raped - all women, all physically overpowered by men. I’d like to see that shit stopped, period.

I would also like to see rapes stopped.

I just don't see that happening by forcing folks wearing dresses and even less physically capable than Emily being forced into a room full of people who are, as you describe, physically capable of overpowering them.

The issue here is that this isn't a discussion ABOUT "men, on average."

This is a discussion specifically about trans women, and the rights of trans women, and discussing what "men" are capable of physically is not a discussion about

not been on testosterone for 2+ years; not ever been on testosterone.

It is in fact a massive red herring designed to equivocate "not been on testosterone for 2+ years; not ever been on testosterone" with folks who are full to the brim with testosterone every day of their adult lives.

My point is that "men" and "not been on testosterone for 2+ years; not ever been on testosterone" are not the same, and are in fact being wantonly equivocated for the sake of bullshit anti-trans rhetoric.

If Emily wants to claim trans women don't belong, she has to find a reason to actual exclude them. Not "they look mannish" or "they have a penis", but something actually substantive and material, something that actually would show that the majority of the between-group variations on people with identical "nurture" (which is still less than the within-group differences of the genders) is not traversable by an individual who transitions their hormones.

 

[Toni]

The substantive reason to raise serious concerns about pre-or non-surgical trans women is the justifiable and substantial fear for their own safety that naked strangers who appear male/have a penis invoke in many if not most women and girls.

One of the major ways that people recognize danger is when something important is in the wrong place or out of place. Like a naked person with a penis in a women’s only space. Unfortunately there is a non-zero number of individuals who are willing to claim to be transgender in order to get better access to their preferred victim. I get that is very rare. But men raping women, unfortunately is far from rare.

Many pages ago I stated that private shower and dressing rooms might be adequate.

 

[Jarhyn]

You dismiss the concerns of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers?!?

Absolutely. They are psychotic zealots who never got past the temperance movement.

I am against drink drivers but MADD can go to hell along with DARE.

#NotAllMen again

Nope, it's saying "prove trans-women are not closer to women than men".

Women have a very valid reason to be self-protective against men.

Sure, but trans women are not "men". Trans women are women and Emily wants to attack trans women just because they have penises.

but still worse than people who have never had testosterone

Bullshit.

a person with a penis who lacks testosterone has to deal with the fact, like every other person with a penis, that they belong to a group that women have always needed to protect themselves against

Bullshit.

You define male that way. Not everyone does.

If the scientific definition is based onsperm, that's the scientific definition of "male". Emily wanted to use scientific definitions, so there we are, because if we want to use science to discuss reality, the only thing "locked" as necessary and sufficient to be a phenotype around sperm is sperm. Emily tossed them under the bus with her FEMALE = LARGE GAMETES bullshit.

The substantive reason to raise serious concerns about pre-or non-surgical trans women

Where have I been defending people who produce steroids and sperm producers entering spaces?

Hint: I haven't.

I HAVE defended those on HRT and their right to participate in low-T leagues after sufficient intervention.

Unfortunately there is a non-zero number of individuals who are willing to claim to be transgender in order to get better access to their preferred victim

And there is a (zero) number of times I have argued for inclusion of people who are not willing to remove their testicles, except when these people are medically documented as being on blockers or HRT prior to the age where they can get surgical intervention.

My point is that if you want to complain about predators faking being trans women, it's easy enough to actually draw that line in the sand. Of course then you also have to accept that healthcare must cover such an intervention.

 

[Jarhyn]

The fact here is that there are folks squawking very loudly about "pre-op trans people" in a way that glances entirely PAST the post-op folks.

I'm talking about post-op (post-orchiectomy) trans individuals, specifically, and for those too young to be considered for it, those who are document as being on blockers or full HRT.

The fact is that people are using pre-op adults and pre-blocker/pre-hrt for teens as a red herring to then pull a bait-and-switch to also capture and regulate against post-op adults and post-intervention teens.

It is inappropriate to say the least to "ya, but what about..." with regards to pre-ops rather than to start with "I accept post-op".

It's a pretty clear case that people who seek to castrate themselves to live as either eunuchs or women are not "faking it for access".

So either we can start by talking specifically people who ARE post-op and hammer out what we can agree on there, or you can all continue arguing on a foundation of bad faith, whether it's yours or someone else's, it's still bad fucking faith.

 

[Toni]

No one is going to ask anyone’s medical history when they encounter them in a locker room. No one is going to want to or be legally or morally compelled to provide documentation that they are trans, do not have any testosterone, etc. especially when they are panicked by a potential assailant.

Nor should trans people have to. I will absolutely defend their right not to provide such documentation unless they are ti be confined in a woman’s prison or similar institution.

 

[Toni]

You dismiss the concerns of Mothers Against Drunk Drivers?!?

Absolutely. They are psychotic zealots who never got past the temperance movement.

I am against drink drivers but MADD can go to hell along with DARE.

#NotAllMen again

Nope, it's saying "prove trans-women are not closer to women than men".

Women have a very valid reason to be self-protective against men.

Sure, but trans women are not "men". Trans women are women and Emily wants to attack trans women just because they have penises.

but still worse than people who have never had testosterone

Bullshit.

a person with a penis who lacks testosterone has to deal with the fact, like every other person with a penis, that they belong to a group that women have always needed to protect themselves against

Bullshit.

You define male that way. Not everyone does.

If the scientific definition is based onsperm, that's the scientific definition of "male". Emily wanted to use scientific definitions, so there we are, because if we want to use science to discuss reality, the only thing "locked" as necessary and sufficient to be a phenotype around sperm is sperm. Emily tossed them under the bus with her FEMALE = LARGE GAMETES bullshit.

The substantive reason to raise serious concerns about pre-or non-surgical trans women

Where have I been defending people who produce steroids and sperm producers entering spaces?

Hint: I haven't.

I HAVE defended those on HRT and their right to participate in low-T leagues after sufficient intervention.

Unfortunately there is a non-zero number of individuals who are willing to claim to be transgender in order to get better access to their preferred victim

And there is a (zero) number of times I have argued for inclusion of people who are not willing to remove their testicles, except when these people are medically documented as being on blockers or HRT prior to the age where they can get surgical intervention.

My point is that if you want to complain about predators faking being trans women, it's easy enough to actually draw that line in the sand. Of course then you also have to accept that healthcare must cover such an intervention.

You also have not provided any way at all fir women in a locker room to distinguish between those who are women but still have a penis and those who are potentially a threat.

Look, very few gay men are of threat to women in a locker room. That still does not mean that all women will be comfortable with gay men sharing a locker room with them, particularly if they do not know them. Because you really can’t tell just by looking.

 

[Jarhyn]

You also have not provided any way at all fir women in a locker room to distinguish between those who are women but still have a penis and those who are potentially a threat

Pretty sure a flat ballsack is a pretty big indication for adults, and medical documentation for the school of hormone blockers or HRT treatments for teens is much more than 'none at all'.

As I said, once we're done talking about how we CAN accept those folks, THEN we can discuss what to do or expect of the rest.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You have a burden of proof for establishing any particular claim of fundamental difference.

You're insisting that the burden of proof that the earth is not flat falls on the person who has observed that it is round based on centuries of research and observations of material reality.

Seriously, how the fuck am I supposed to "prove" that your baseless belief is wrong? How do you prove that god does not exist?

Yes, the burden of proof that the earth is not flat DOES fall on the people making the claim. However this was a very easy burden to satisfy by all manner of circumnavigation, geometry, and other means. Just as there is a burden of those claiming the earth IS flat, a burden of proof which they inevitably fail.

The only ones there without a burden are the ones who don't make either claim

You are the one who poses a baseless belief that people born with a penis, and with NO mechanism whatsoever, not even significant brain differences, are somehow magically more likely to commit some form of fucked up behavior.

The much more reasonable perspective is to say "if there is a mechanism, it is observable, so let's figure out what and if there is such a mechanism".

We did that.

It is the mechanism of a brain tensor which is not "sex locked" even if sex-correlated , and a hormone which is additionally interdictable.

You haven't bothered to post any support for your extremely unusual beliefs. Therefore, I feel comfortable rejecting them as nothing more than the wishes that they appear to be.

"Extremely unusual beliefs" such as that when people looked for gendered brain differences, they found them, they were minor, and that the only other mechanism that has been observed is hormonal signaling?

You seem to be handwaving away research simply because it's been a while since the last time you ignored it.

If you wish to claim some third mechanism which impacts the behavioral center, THEN you have a burden of proof to show it is real.

If you wish to propose some chemical differentiation that explains why the little girl on the track team with zero hormones underperforms even compared to the rest of her team beyond the relative lack of testosterone (and also estrogen), likewise you have a burden.

All the research based regulations on hormones in sports indicate that after a sufficient period, all physical benefits of testosterone aside from particular bone structures (ones which in fact also grow that way as a result of puberty, mostly) indicates that it is exactly huge doses of testosterone which cause the differences we see through puberty, and that most of these disappear promptly with cessation of steroid exposure.

There are zero living human beings on this planet functioning with zero hormones. Even estrogen and testosterone. Zero.

President Biden? Oh wait you said living.

 

[Toni]

You also have not provided any way at all fir women in a locker room to distinguish between those who are women but still have a penis and those who are potentially a threat

Pretty sure a flat ballsack is a pretty big indication for adults, and medical documentation for the school of hormone blockers or HRT treatments for teens is much more than 'none at all'.

As I said, once we're done talking about how we CAN accept those folks, THEN we can discuss what to do or expect of the rest.

You really don't understand: The FIRST thing that is noticed is a penis. It will cause an immediate panic (or strong concern) reaction in many/most women. Also, for some men, the testicles are not as prominent/dangly/noticeable. Especially if you are being freaked out by a penis.

It is NOT reasonable to expect women to spend time examining a stranger's genitals in order to conduct a risk assessment.

 

[Toni]

I keep wondering what could happen to a trans woman with male parts wearing a dress in a men's room

There is some risk of running into a rabidly zealous religious nutball who beats them up. But so far as I can tell, the overwhelming vast majority of men do not care if a transwoman shows up in the men's room. It's a guy in a dress, nobody actually cares. Other males are relatively low risk to men in terms of physical strength. Even small effeminate males have a physical advantage over the majority of women.

In blue areas it's no problem. In red areas it could prove quite dangerous.

Based on...?

You really have to fucking ask?

And Loren is wrong. It's still an issue in blue areas, too. Less of an issue, but still an issue.

This is an example of you not really understanding what Emily was saying. She was saying exactly what you are saying: It will also be a problem in blue states.

 

[Jarhyn]

You also have not provided any way at all fir women in a locker room to distinguish between those who are women but still have a penis and those who are potentially a threat

Pretty sure a flat ballsack is a pretty big indication for adults, and medical documentation for the school of hormone blockers or HRT treatments for teens is much more than 'none at all'.

As I said, once we're done talking about how we CAN accept those folks, THEN we can discuss what to do or expect of the rest.

You really don't understand: The FIRST thing that is noticed is a penis. It will cause an immediate panic (or strong concern) reaction in many/most women. Also, for some men, the testicles are not as prominent/dangly/noticeable. Especially if you are being freaked out by a penis.

It is NOT reasonable to expect women to spend time examining a stranger's genitals in order to conduct a risk assessment.

And my point is that panic reactions on seeing a penis are simply prejudice.

You would force eunuchs and a large population of people who are otherwise indistinguishable from women to shower, expose themselves, and be vulnerable around 'roided up males.

It makes me expect some disappointment in your inevitable negativity in the next question: what if they have obvious breasts?

People have been transitioning for a very long time and it's only the US that seems to have this major "Eek! A Penis!" reaction, and only very recently.

As it is, this discussion only even enters at "public shower facilities".

It does not speak to prisons, where the people involved are known to have no testicles or no testosterone.

It does not speak to bathrooms where people should not be exposing themselves in common spaces regardless of their genitals.

It does not speak to sports where again all people present are aware of the people they are around and their hormonal situation.

Maybe water parks and beaches? But this can be addressed by requiring individual shower facilities at such locations to be available.

What you are really saying is "if they look like they might have a penis", and it's absolutely apparent.

At that point the solution is to offer an ID card in lieu of "inspections" that would be demanded by Karens otherwise, or to say "if they aren't pulling their genitals out just step the fuck off".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You also have not provided any way at all fir women in a locker room to distinguish between those who are women but still have a penis and those who are potentially a threat

Pretty sure a flat ballsack is a pretty big indication for adults, and medical documentation for the school of hormone blockers or HRT treatments for teens is much more than 'none at all'.

As I said, once we're done talking about how we CAN accept those folks, THEN we can discuss what to do or expect of the rest.

You really don't understand: The FIRST thing that is noticed is a penis. It will cause an immediate panic (or strong concern) reaction in many/most women. Also, for some men, the testicles are not as prominent/dangly/noticeable. Especially if you are being freaked out by a penis.

It is NOT reasonable to expect women to spend time examining a stranger's genitals in order to conduct a risk assessment.

And my point is that panic reactions on seeing a penis are simply prejudice.

Not in a women's locker room shower. I'm sorry you can't appreciate that, but while it is reaction based on an impulse and no other data, it isn't irrational. For guys, seeing an unexpected naked woman in a shower is a fantasy. For women, seeing an unexpected naked man in the shower is frightening.

You would force eunuchs and a large population of people who are otherwise indistinguishable from women to shower, expose themselves, and be vulnerable around 'roided up males.

And again, this is the moral failing of your position, you are moving Earth to see to the concerns of one group of people and hand palming the concerns of another.

 

[TomC]

Not in a women's locker room shower. I'm sorry you can't appreciate that, but while it is reaction based on an impulse and no other data, it isn't irrational. For guys, seeing an unexpected naked woman in a shower is a fantasy. For women, seeing an unexpected naked man in the shower is frightening.

Exactly.
It's not an irrational reaction to someone who is openly and deliberately flaunting the simple and clear social norms, like no guys in the women's room. It's a very rational reaction to a threat from someone who obviously doesn't care about your feelings as much as his own entitlement.

One thing you immediately know about a strange man in the women's room, whether his junk is on display or not, is that he doesn't much value women or their feelings and opinions.
Tom

 

[TomC]

It is NOT reasonable to expect women to spend time examining a stranger's genitals in order to conduct a risk assessment.

No, it certainly isn't. What's unreasonable is for self absorbed people with an agenda demanding your acquiescence.

You women don't have to put up with that bullshit from men. You just don't. There's a nearly identical facility in the next room. Everyone has a place to pee or whatever. Expecting women to do a background check or whatever is ridiculous.

Also, nobody ever needs to show anybody else their genitalia in public outside a hospital. Gyms and public pools are completely optional. It's different when the issue is needing a pee or feminine hygiene issues or something. There's always a restroom stall with a door for such.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Not in a women's locker room shower. I'm sorry you can't appreciate that, but while it is reaction based on an impulse and no other data, it isn't irrational. For guys, seeing an unexpected naked woman in a shower is a fantasy. For women, seeing an unexpected naked man in the shower is frightening.

Exactly.
It's not an irrational reaction to someone who is openly and deliberately flaunting the simple and clear social norms, like no guys in the women's room. It's a very rational reaction to a threat from someone who obviously doesn't care about your feelings as much as his own entitlement.

One thing you immediately know about a strange man in the women's room, whether his junk is on display or not, is that he doesn't much value women or their feelings and opinions.
Tom

Firstlyl, that'd be perceived threat. A naked male/presurgical transgender woman in a women's locker room is perceived as a threat, which is the problem as it is very hard to overcome this reaction when it is impossible to determine from a glance why this person is there.

Secondly, a rapist isn't feared and hated because they don't "value women or their feelings and opinions", so that juxtaposition is just completely bogus.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It is NOT reasonable to expect women to spend time examining a stranger's genitals in order to conduct a risk assessment.

No, it certainly isn't. What's unreasonable is for self absorbed people with an agenda demanding your acquiescence.

Jebus man... you seem less interested in dialogue and more interested in just getting your judgement hammer out and start whacking it around. (That was a metaphor.)

You women don't have to put up with that bullshit from men. You just don't.

Oddly, Toni isn't agreeing with what you are saying, she just doesn't know how to accommodate it as it is complicated.

 

[Toni]

You also have not provided any way at all fir women in a locker room to distinguish between those who are women but still have a penis and those who are potentially a threat

Pretty sure a flat ballsack is a pretty big indication for adults, and medical documentation for the school of hormone blockers or HRT treatments for teens is much more than 'none at all'.

As I said, once we're done talking about how we CAN accept those folks, THEN we can discuss what to do or expect of the rest.

You really don't understand: The FIRST thing that is noticed is a penis. It will cause an immediate panic (or strong concern) reaction in many/most women. Also, for some men, the testicles are not as prominent/dangly/noticeable. Especially if you are being freaked out by a penis.

It is NOT reasonable to expect women to spend time examining a stranger's genitals in order to conduct a risk assessment.

And my point is that panic reactions on seeing a penis are simply prejudice.

You would force eunuchs and a large population of people who are otherwise indistinguishable from women to shower, expose themselves, and be vulnerable around 'roided up males.

It makes me expect some disappointment in your inevitable negativity in the next question: what if they have obvious breasts?

People have been transitioning for a very long time and it's only the US that seems to have this major "Eek! A Penis!" reaction, and only very recently.

As it is, this discussion only even enters at "public shower facilities".

It does not speak to prisons, where the people involved are known to have no testicles or no testosterone.

It does not speak to bathrooms where people should not be exposing themselves in common spaces regardless of their genitals.

It does not speak to sports where again all people present are aware of the people they are around and their hormonal situation.

Maybe water parks and beaches? But this can be addressed by requiring individual shower facilities at such locations to be available.

What you are really saying is "if they look like they might have a penis", and it's absolutely apparent.

At that point the solution is to offer an ID card in lieu of "inspections" that would be demanded by Karens otherwise, or to say "if they aren't pulling their genitals out just step the fuck off".

It's not prejudice. Quite a few women love penises. Relatively few are afraid of penises. But context is everything.

Women are taught to be afraid of rape. It's an important part of cultural conditioning, to ensure that women always know who's in charge, and what violating whatever cultural rules are in place will get them. It isn't enough that women and girls must know that being alone with a strange male person or male appearing person or even a familiar male person is at least somewhat dangerous and it's their own damn fault if he 'tries something.' Or succeeds. It doesn't even have to be 'alone.' My mother had a huge shit fit when she thought she saw me getting out of a car filled with boys. She did not see that I was not the only girl in that car--there were two other girls. She was afraid for my 'reputation' which, once lost, meant that you were just fair game. She was unaware that by that time, I had spent several years fending off the rape attempts of someone in the extended family--someone she never would have thought was a threat. Nor would I have. And didn't, because for an embarrasingly long amount of time, I thought I was misunderstanding something and he was so nice after....

Women and girls who are attacked are questioned closely about the circumstances: How well did you know him/them? How long had you been dating? Are you sure you weren't dating? Did you go to dinner or a movie with him? Accept a ride? Flirt? Were you a virgin? What were you wearing? Why didn't you fight back? Why didn't you fight harder? Why didn't you scream? How much did you have to drink? How much do you usually drink? And more. Much, much more and worse.

The thing is, some people (male and female) deliberately groom other people, people they see as vulnerable. I know I know I know: Sounds like a right wing nut job here talking about The Gays. Nope. I'm talking about how some individuals very slightly violate the norms with someone they decide is vulnerable. And increase the violations as they are tolerated. You know the saying about a frog jumping out of a pot of hot water but staying in and boiling to death if it's brought to a slow boil? That's not just true of frogs (and may not be true. I have never performed the experiment). It is true of people, though.

 

[Rhea]

Secondly, a rapist isn't feared and hated because they don't "value women or their feelings and opinions", so that juxtaposition is just completely bogus.

I would argue that the above is indeed a reason to fear. If someone is a sociaopath - the extreme of not caring what you feel - one should fear their likelihood of immoral actions.

Men who do not value women or their feelings or opinions are EXACTLY the kind of men who are most likely to harm women physically. Because we have already been dehumanized to them.

 

[Rhea]

Women are taught to be afraid of rape.

And women are also taught that it is their repsonsibility to avoid it.
And so, we do.

By judging risk and doing everything we can to make sure we have not done something that will be used to gaslight us into taking the blame for the assault.


So again Jarhyn, you can STFU about telling us how to navigate this world in the service of making sure that a very tiny portion of people with penises don’t ever have to witness our lived experience.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Secondly, a rapist isn't feared and hated because they don't "value women or their feelings and opinions", so that juxtaposition is just completely bogus.

I would argue that the above is indeed a reason to fear. If someone is a sociaopath - the extreme of not caring what you feel - one should fear their likelihood of immoral actions.

That gets well into the weeds and off-topic. The primary issue with a presumed person who is intent to commit sexual assault... is the sexual assault. Their motives are secondary.