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

[Emily Lake]

For at least some of it, the ideas of universal love for all neighbors is a new one

Tell you what - if you can convince enough males across the entire planet to stop sexually assaulting, raping, and abusing women so that the rates of sexual victimization for women and girls is reduced to only 5% higher than that of men and boys... Once you accomplish that, then I will help you throw the doors open.

Until then... nope.

 

[Emily Lake]

So you agree then that a woman would be correct in having an issue with seeing any person with a penis in the women's locker room, and it could only be mitigated by the gym vetting the person via the results of bloodwork and providing facilities to mitigate access for the person?

Why is this thread over 1000 posts long!?

[sardonically]Probably because women object to men deciding what criteria other men should have to meet in order for those men to override women's opinions about whether or not men are allowed in the women's showers and locker rooms[/sardonically]

Even in this case, you are seemingly conceding to Jarhyn that men have the right to set those criteria... and that women should just take it on faith that the criteria set by men is 1) sufficient for us to be safe from harm, including voyeurism and exhibitionism and 2) that other men are dutifully making sure that those criteria are met and held to in all cases and 3) that no man would ever lie about any of it in order to gain access to women's intimate spaces against our will.

I don't think that the gym vetting a man, and doing bloodwork on that man, and deciding that that man is safe is a good policy - I don't think women should be expected to go along with men deciding which men are allowed in women's spaces.

 

[Jarhyn]

Once puberty begins, the magnitude of the differences start to grow, and at that point sex-specific sports makes more sense. Failure to separate by sex at that point begins to have the effect of excluding girls and women from sport.

And my point has and continues to be that this is caused specifically by endogenous testosterone and estrogen levels.

So it is not failure to separate by sex but by steroid exposure, whether endogenous or not.

 

[Jarhyn]

Even in this case, you are seemingly conceding to Jarhyn that men have the right to set those criteria

No, people who argue their case ratio ally on the basis of real observable, testable, measurable reality deserve to set those criteria, because to do otherwise is literally "on the basis of irrational bias".

I don't personally make any declarations of who is and is not capable of that but you, here, now, are not doing that.

 

[Toni]

How are you measuring "stronger" and "more physically developed"? No doubt you can back that claim up if you cherry pick the data, but otherwise?

There's a table of childhood track and field records here, listed by event, sex and age. http://age-records.125mb.com/

Matched by age, before puberty, the boys' records are systematically better than the girls' records in nearly all the events.

Your source is 5 to 19 year olds. It includes boys who have gone through the majority of puberty.

The data they supply about 19 year olds doesn't corrupt the data they supply about 5 year olds. Looking at just the pre-puberty numbers, the boys' records are systematically better than the girls' records in nearly all the events. Post-puberty, it becomes all the events.

I did not make it far enough into the link to find the age-banded stuff, I only looked at the start, where it was all rolled together. My bad.

There is a period of time where girls gain height more quickly than boys, so for about a year it would be true that girls have a slight advantage. But the variance is very small relative to the difference caused by puberty.

At which age are girls taller, 11? And to which event does being taller matter most, high-jump? The record high-jump for 11-year old boys is 5'9.25" and the record high-jump for 11-year old girls is 5'6.5". We see this pattern in event after event, at all ages, before puberty as well as after.

I think it's reasonable to say that prior to puberty, girls and boys have essentially the same physicality with respect to athletics.

People keep saying so, but what's the evidence for it?

Moderate common sense and a reasonable willingness to make concessions for young kids where the competition level is relatively low, at least for me.

I could be wrong, but based on my own experience as a kid, as well as observations of kids, etc. The best records might still be set by boys, but it seems like the magnitude of the differences before puberty begins (lets say under age 9? 10?) are relatively small. Enough so that when you're talking a group sport, like little league, it seems perfectly reasonable to have those be mixed sex activities.

Once puberty begins, the magnitude of the differences start to grow, and at that point sex-specific sports makes more sense. Failure to separate by sex at that point begins to have the effect of excluding girls and women from sport.

It's also impossible to know how much of performance differences by sex/gender are due to socialization vs natural athletic ability. And how much of the differences are because, historically, we have paid attention to athletics as pertains to males, not females. Example: Some areas of gymnastics heavily favor females while some, which focus on upper body strength, favor males.

As far as kids go, the best player on my son's U10 through U12 soccer team was a girl. By quite a lot. The only soccer player from my town, so far as I am aware, to make it to the Olympics is a (different) young woman.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Even in this case, you are seemingly conceding to Jarhyn that men have the right to set those criteria...

I haven't suggested as such, nor suggested I thought Jarhyn's idea was the way to go.

You have proven time and again a wonderful propensity to stuff words or intentions in the mouths of others, much like Jarhyn has in this thread.

 

[Emily Lake]

Once puberty begins, the magnitude of the differences start to grow, and at that point sex-specific sports makes more sense. Failure to separate by sex at that point begins to have the effect of excluding girls and women from sport.

And my point has and continues to be that this is caused specifically by endogenous testosterone and estrogen levels.

So it is not failure to separate by sex but by steroid exposure, whether endogenous or not.

And your point is wrong.

Regardless of the current level of testosterone...
Men are taller
Men have longer legs and arms
Men have larger feet and hands
Men have larger hearts
Men have larger lungs
Men have more fast-twitch muscles
Men have different femur angles
Men have different tendon and musculature attachment points for hips and shoulders
Men's internal organs are more tightly bound into position

All of those things listed are independent of sex hormones.

Some of them are governed by the adrenal gland - length of long bones, size of feet and hands, size of heart and lungs. They're sex-linked, but they're not a result of sex hormones.

Some of those are musculoskeletal - portion of fast twitch fibers, femur angles, attachment points, and elasticity of internal organs. Those are characteristics that are present from fetal development. They're sex-linked, but they're not a result of sex hormones.

This is part of why your entire premise is so wrong. You keep circling back as if the absence or presence of testosterone is the only difference between males and females. But that's not the case at all. There are fundamental differences between our bodies, well outside of just our reproductive anatomy. Those differences are sex-linked characteristics - they are either a result of sexual selection (height is likely to be sex selection) or they are evolutionary adaptations that support one sex having the burden of gestation.

I'll say it again: Women are not just "men without testosterone".

 

[Emily Lake]

Even in this case, you are seemingly conceding to Jarhyn that men have the right to set those criteria

No, people who argue their case ratio ally on the basis of real observable, testable, measurable reality deserve to set those criteria, because to do otherwise is literally "on the basis of irrational bias".

I don't personally make any declarations of who is and is not capable of that but you, here, now, are not doing that.

Your criteria are insufficient, incomplete, and unrelated to the reason we have sex-separated intimate spaces to begin with.

Your criteria serve nobody's needs except your own.

 

[Emily Lake]

Even in this case, you are seemingly conceding to Jarhyn that men have the right to set those criteria...

I haven't suggested as such, nor suggested I thought Jarhyn's idea was the way to go.

You have proven time and again a wonderful propensity to stuff words or intentions in the mouths of others, much like Jarhyn has in this thread.

I didn't put words in your mouth. I'm reacting to what you actually posted. It's entirely possible that's not what you meant, in which case, please feel free to clarify.

Based on what you actually wrote:

So you agree then that a woman would be correct in having an issue with seeing any person with a penis in the women's locker room, and it could only be mitigated by the gym vetting the person via the results of bloodwork and providing facilities to mitigate access for the person?

Why is this thread over 1000 posts long!?

To me this reads as:

• It's natural for women to be concerned about a penis...
• but that the concerns of women can be mitigated by the gym vetting them as "safe to be around women"...
• and that this "agreement" that such concerns can be mitigated by the gym vetting some men as "safe" means that the rest of the thread is unnecessary

If that's not what you meant, by all means, set me straight.

 

[Playball40]

Someone is walking behind me on a crowded sidewalk, and I think nothing of it. I probably don't notice them.

Here's yet another situation where you know nothing at all about women.

A stranger walking behind a woman on a crowded sidewalk is almost always taken note of. If they are female, we generally place them at a lower potential risk than we would a male.

Do you know why we do that? Can you hazard a guess as to why the average woman, in broad daylight, on a crowded sidewalk, would be inclined to consider a male walking closely behind her as a higher risk level than a woman walking closer behind her?

I'm genuinely curious to know what your thoughts are on this, Jarhyn.

As a woman, I can say I do NOT notice people behind me on a crowded sidewalk (with normal distance compared to the rest of the crowd walking). If I'm on a crowded sidewalk and someone has entered my space relative to the normal distance, I'm going to notice and move away regardless of gender.
In a locker room, I don't look at other peoples genitalia so I wouldn't notice either way. However, if I'm alone in a locker room and someone is loitering around (male or female), I'm going to take notice and adjust my actions accordingly.
In a restroom, I really don't care the sex/gender of the person using the restroom as long as it's in their own stall. I mean seriously, why would I care? I probably wouldn't want a urinal in the bathroom with me, but at the end of the day, it's certainly not something that's going to affect me one way or another.

 

[Jarhyn]

and that this "agreement" that such concerns can be mitigated by the gym vetting some men as "safe" means that the rest of the thread is unnecessary

And, here you are yet again making the undefended, unargued, unsupported tacit statement that trans women and eunuchs (self-made eunuchs no less) are "men".

 

[Emily Lake]

Someone is walking behind me on a crowded sidewalk, and I think nothing of it. I probably don't notice them.

Here's yet another situation where you know nothing at all about women.

A stranger walking behind a woman on a crowded sidewalk is almost always taken note of. If they are female, we generally place them at a lower potential risk than we would a male.

Do you know why we do that? Can you hazard a guess as to why the average woman, in broad daylight, on a crowded sidewalk, would be inclined to consider a male walking closely behind her as a higher risk level than a woman walking closer behind her?

I'm genuinely curious to know what your thoughts are on this, Jarhyn.

As a woman, I can say I do NOT notice people behind me on a crowded sidewalk (with normal distance compared to the rest of the crowd walking). If I'm on a crowded sidewalk and someone has entered my space relative to the normal distance, I'm going to notice and move away regardless of gender.
In a locker room, I don't look at other peoples genitalia so I wouldn't notice either way. However, if I'm alone in a locker room and someone is loitering around (male or female), I'm going to take notice and adjust my actions accordingly.
In a restroom, I really don't care the sex/gender of the person using the restroom as long as it's in their own stall. I mean seriously, why would I care? I probably wouldn't want a urinal in the bathroom with me, but at the end of the day, it's certainly not something that's going to affect me one way or another.

That's wonderful, genuinely.

Do you understand why most women are not as sanguine as you are?

 

[Emily Lake]

and that this "agreement" that such concerns can be mitigated by the gym vetting some men as "safe" means that the rest of the thread is unnecessary

And, here you are yet again making the undefended, unargued, unsupported tacit statement that trans women and eunuchs (self-made eunuchs no less) are "men".

Will it make you happier and less aggressive if I resort to using clinical language, and refer to you as well as transwomen as sexually mature male humans instead?

You are male. Removing your own testicles does not transform you into a literal woman. It doesn't even transform you into a literal not-male. It only transforms you into a neutered male.

Transwomen and eunuchs are still male humans.

I object to a group of sexually mature male humans deciding by fiat that some special subgroup of sexually mature male humans are "safe", so that both sexually mature and sexually immature female humans don't get a say in whether or not those sexually mature male humans are allowed in the spaces intended for use by female humans. It is not your decision to make.

 

[Emily Lake]

@Jarhyn I want to circle back to your "women not wanting bepenised people in their intimate spaces is bigotry and prejudice that is totally just like racism" trope...

I want to ask you a question, and I want you to give it some actual thought before you provide a response.

There are a lot of black people in the US who have endured discriminatory treatment at the hands of white people, especially cops. The US has a history that includes slavery of black people, followed by a period of legal discrimination and denial of basic human rights. In the US today, there remains the legacy of that discriminatory history which shows up in many arenas. Perhaps most notable is the bias baked into our judicial system, which continues to demonstrate disparate rates of stops & searches, tickets and charges as opposed to warnings, higher rates of conviction for equivalent offenses, and longer sentences upon conviction for the same crimes. It's also, however, apparent in the workplace where black people get hired at a lower rate, get paid less, and get promoted at slower paces. It's present in the underrepresentation of black people in politics.

Many black people view white people as a whole with a level of mistrust, and consider every white person they meet to represent a level of risk that other minorities do not represent. In particular, a large number of black people view every member of law enforcement as a threat - even if they themselves are 100% law abiding citizens.

Do you believe that black people viewing white people as a potential risk, and altering their behavior to mitigate that risk, are bigoted racists making judgements based on irrational fears with no basis in reality?

 

[Jarhyn]

Do you believe that black people viewing white people as a potential risk, and altering their behavior to mitigate that risk, are bigoted racists making judgements based on irrational fears with no basis in reality?

Every bit as much as white people who do the same.

Aspersions and doubt can wait until treatment turns sour, and everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

As soon as treatment slips into suspicious behavior, that's when the hackles can and probably should go up.

Then, I think the hackles should go up the minute, the second some cop starts treating the a person as if the cop identified them as a "black person" or "an undesirable", or whatever else.

I don't usually get treated by cops like that but I felt the same way, for myself AND my wife, whenever cops harassed my ex-wife. It's not about "cop" specifically but about the things cops do and the way they do them.

For the same reason that I treat people as fairly friendly until they start talking about "doing something about over population" without specifying what that is or some other dog whistle, there are a wide variety of behaviors distinct from "just being there", from glances and looks, to attempts to initiate interaction given a wide variety of tones.

Just being there, just being a cop, is not and should not be enough.

The number of cops makes a statement, the actual pattern of their behavior, but not their mere existence.

I would react very differently to a group of people walking towards and probably past me on the street, than I would to a group of people who as they are walking towards me begin to fan out in my path.

Context and behavior matters, as does situational awareness.

It always matters. Acting on mere paranoid assumptions rather than observations is bigoted, racist judgement.

 

[Jarhyn]

Someone is walking behind me on a crowded sidewalk, and I think nothing of it. I probably don't notice them.

Here's yet another situation where you know nothing at all about women.

A stranger walking behind a woman on a crowded sidewalk is almost always taken note of. If they are female, we generally place them at a lower potential risk than we would a male.

Do you know why we do that? Can you hazard a guess as to why the average woman, in broad daylight, on a crowded sidewalk, would be inclined to consider a male walking closely behind her as a higher risk level than a woman walking closer behind her?

I'm genuinely curious to know what your thoughts are on this, Jarhyn.

As a woman, I can say I do NOT notice people behind me on a crowded sidewalk (with normal distance compared to the rest of the crowd walking). If I'm on a crowded sidewalk and someone has entered my space relative to the normal distance, I'm going to notice and move away regardless of gender.
In a locker room, I don't look at other peoples genitalia so I wouldn't notice either way. However, if I'm alone in a locker room and someone is loitering around (male or female), I'm going to take notice and adjust my actions accordingly.
In a restroom, I really don't care the sex/gender of the person using the restroom as long as it's in their own stall. I mean seriously, why would I care? I probably wouldn't want a urinal in the bathroom with me, but at the end of the day, it's certainly not something that's going to affect me one way or another.

That's wonderful, genuinely.

Do you understand why most women are not as sanguine as you are?

Because they have been raised inappropriately to be bigots by people who just didn't know better, allowed themselves to transfer trauma reactions on to undeserving targets, they wish to view trans women as failed women rather than accept them as women proper, they wish to have a smug sense of superiority over someone in the way people have oppressed them as they want someone to bully too, and/or because they feel they need an enemy for some fascistic end.

Lots of reasons can apply. Mostly, I think it's just that first or second one: raised inappropriately by people who didn't know better, and/or allowed themselves to transfer trauma reactions to undeserving targets.

At least there are effective treatments as concerns the trauma reactions.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're wrong. In so many ways you're wrong. People who have been forcibly penetrated with objects against their will don't fear the objects, they fear the type of person who forcibly penetrated them. And in 99% of cases, that person is a male.

You're tarring all who share a characteristic with an evildoer.

If it's ok to keep men out it's also ok to keep blacks out.

You keep saying that as though it were a logical implication. It isn't. It's perfectly possible for it to be okay to keep men out but not okay to keep blacks out -- all it takes is for your parallel to break down in some way. For example, if ladies' rooms had been instituted by the matriarchy to keep the female rulers and their ingroup from having to rub elbows with the powerless men they oppress, that would make your parallel quite a bit better than it in fact is.

In both cases it's a decision based on a basically immutable characteristic that causes fear.

Nobody has addressed this.

It has been addressed.

1 in 4 women have been the victim of a rape or attempted rape by a man.
One in four.
That has NEVER EVER been true of white people being victims of black crime. Ever.

Moreover, white people claiming they were attacked by black people have never been accused of being the cause of their own attack.


Women have navigated this all our lives. We know who attacks us and we know what happens to us if we DON’T aggressively manage that risk.


The fact that you sit there and say we never addressed it when we HAVE and in this thread, is a demonstration of the problem.

NO, the two are not the same. They never were. Black Americans have been unjustly deemed a threat by people who were never attacked. The same is not true for women managing not only their risk but their typical blame For not managing their risk enough.

This argument applies equally to keeping men out of any location.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You're wrong. In so many ways you're wrong. People who have been forcibly penetrated with objects against their will don't fear the objects, they fear the type of person who forcibly penetrated them. And in 99% of cases, that person is a male.

You're tarring all who share a characteristic with an evildoer.

If it's ok to keep men out it's also ok to keep blacks out.

You keep saying that as though it were a logical implication. It isn't. It's perfectly possible for it to be okay to keep men out but not okay to keep blacks out -- all it takes is for your parallel to break down in some way. For example, if ladies' rooms had been instituted by the matriarchy to keep the female rulers and their ingroup from having to rub elbows with the powerless men they oppress, that would make your parallel quite a bit better than it in fact is.

In both cases it's a decision based on a basically immutable characteristic that causes fear.

Nobody has addressed this.

It has been addressed.

1 in 4 women have been the victim of a rape or attempted rape by a man.
One in four.
That has NEVER EVER been true of white people being victims of black crime. Ever.

Moreover, white people claiming they were attacked by black people have never been accused of being the cause of their own attack.


Women have navigated this all our lives. We know who attacks us and we know what happens to us if we DON’T aggressively manage that risk.


The fact that you sit there and say we never addressed it when we HAVE and in this thread, is a demonstration of the problem.

NO, the two are not the same. They never were. Black Americans have been unjustly deemed a threat by people who were never attacked. The same is not true for women managing not only their risk but their typical blame For not managing their risk enough.

This argument applies equally to keeping men out of any location.

You can say, but it isn't a reasonable statement. You can say that about anything. If we force places to allow blacks in our restrooms, that equally applies to all people's houses.

The discussion is about locations where women are generally in atypical out of home conditions of nudity. So that isn't a condition that is common and apply "equally" to "any location". Can you please stop with the poor analogies and join where the actual conversation is?

Woman: I'm uncomfortable with a pre-surgical transgender woman being in the women's locker room because I wouldn't know whether that person belongs there or not.
LP: So are you saying that transgender women don't belong in health clubs?
Woman: No, I said in the women's locker room.
LP: That applies to blacks as well.
Women: Well, black pre-surgical transgender women, but not because they are black.
LP: And if you restrict it there, that applies to any other place on Earth.
Women: What?
LP: *readies up Godwin*

 

[Jarhyn]

If we force places to allow blacks in our restrooms, that equally applies to all people's houses.

Yes. It means if you don't invite someone into your house "because they are black" you are a racist.

That says nothing about not inviting someone into your house "because you do not know them".

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

If we force places to allow blacks in our restrooms, that equally applies to all people's houses.

Yes. It means if you don't invite someone into your house "because they are black" you are a racist.

That says nothing about not inviting someone into your house "because you do not know them".

The point was ANALOGIES SUCK!