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

[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".

The point was ANALOGIES SUCK!

Except it isn't an analogy, which is why you are failing to understand what is going on.

Both things are wrong for exactly the same reason, and one is simply a more obvious and acknowledged instance of the behavior.

There are plenty of things to base a responsible heuristic on, but mere appearance absent immediate behavior is not one of them. Mere appearance is never one of them. In fact NO irrelevant factor is ever one of them, especially if someone has done the due diligence to validate in the context the absence of relevant and acceptable standards.

It is unfair to hate someone "because they are a cop".

It might not be unfair to hate someone "because they have stated or demonstrated belligerence towards you", which many, perhaps most cops have in spades.

Likewise while it is incorrect to ban from entry to some place "those who have ever drunk alcohol", it is perfectly acceptable to ban people "who are currently under the influence of alcohol" from a wide variety of places.

Fortunately, we are talking about another chemical, which like alcohol, has negative impacts on behavior under its influence.

 

[Rhea]

New advice for women! When you are walking alone in a parking garage and you see a man, be nice to him and let him get as close as he wants, because you can always ask to see his balls when he’s within arms reach of your neck.

Thanks For the Good Advice!!!!

 

[Rhea]

New advice for girls who have been raped by more than one related man! Make sure you keep letting men get close to you, because you’re a bigot if you get scared of men after that!

Thanks for the great advice!

 

[Rhea]

New advice for E. Jean Carroll! Until he actually grabs you by the ** and you’re gripped harder than you can get away from, you’re a bigot if you treat him as a risk!

Thanks for the great advice!

 

[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!

Except it isn't an analogy,

If it isn't the same thing, it IS an analogy.

which is why you are failing to understand what is going on.

Not agreeing with you doesn't mean I don't "understand". I get your opinion, I get Toni's opinion, I get Emily Lake's opinion. I get how some people don't even think transgender is a thing. I get how some want to protect the brand of female. I get how some want security and privacy. I get how some see not providing access is intolerable. I get some some want differing amounts of some of those.

You admitted yourself that there is an issue (that gyms need to follow a protocol (protocol doesn't exist) and there requires remediation in order for pre-surgical transgender women, but lack that extra bit of pragmatism to get to then finish line. The fact you see a need to address chemicals means you understand that women are right to be alarmed. Of course, unless they brand the results of the test on the transgender woman (presuming this is unacceptable), your solution doesn't address the concern (of which you do admit exists). You conclude that a woman should also conclude that if a person with a penis walks into a women's locker room, that they belong. Which is ridiculous, as just because there can be a couple compromises for pre-surgical trans-women, that doesn't negate someone else. And therefore, we are back to square one.

 

[Rhea]

Reminder - we are talking about spaces where women are in a vulnerable position, like women’s shelters and locker rooms.

You’re a bigot if you even need those spaces!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

New advice for E. Jean Carroll! Until he actually grabs you by the ** and you’re gripped harder than you can get away from, you’re a bigot if you treat him as a risk!

Thanks for the great advice!

Today on bad defenses against rape accusations...

Dude, if I was going to rape someone...

 

[Rhea]

Every single example of why eunochs should not be treated with fear if they haven’t exhibited aggressive behavior is true for the #NotAllMen who think that they, too, should be assumed safe until they prove otherwise.


Billions of women have been attacked, raped and murder by letting down that guard. 1 in 4 women.
We manage our known risk.
You do not understand that risk, Jarhyn, as you keep saying it’s exactly the same as people who face a 1:1,000,000 risk.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But have you ever actually been attacked by a black person, for absolutely no reason other than that you are white?

My parents were arrested for being white.

And women aren't raped for being female, they're raped because they have what some men want. The equivalent is mugging.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Reminder - we are talking about spaces where women are in a vulnerable position, like women’s shelters and locker rooms.

You’re a bigot if you even need those spaces!

I think for males, the issue with women's shelters is the concept of the fear require for seeking one out is so outside of their experience, it is easy to get lost in being able to remotely relate to the trauma involved.

To truly mansplain it, in some situations, even the best of us are clueless. Which is why it is important to portray these situations well enough to get it through our unfortunately thick skulls. Some here do it a lot better than others.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But have you ever actually been attacked by a black person, for absolutely no reason other than that you are white?

My parents were arrested for being white.

And women aren't raped for being female, they're raped because they have what some men want. The equivalent is mugging.

Loren, please stop. You aren't helping.

 

[Rhea]

But have you ever actually been attacked by a black person, for absolutely no reason other than that you are white?

My parents were arrested for being white.

And women aren't raped for being female, they're raped because they have what some men want. The equivalent is mugging.

No. That is not always true. Very often it is about subjugation. Take Trump’s current defense against E. Jean Carroll. That wasn’t because he wanted to get laid. It’s because he wanted to subjugate a woman and display his power over her. Many many rapists operate under this motivation. They rape women because they are women.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I'd have to say Trump would do whatever because he wanted to, entitled to it. He hasn't shown much capability for giving any more than a damn what any other person around him thought... that he wasn't trying to get applause from.

 

[TomC]

My parents were arrested for being white.

I don't believe that.

Arrested for behavior they felt entitled to, in a place where being white isn't as privileged as here in the USA? I'd totally believe that. But it's not the same thing.
Tom

 

[Loren Pechtel]

As an FYI, that isn't conclusive, we need more data and research. That is how science works. The real trouble we'll run into for this subject is the lack of actually having a statistically significant sample to work with.

It is completely and utterly ridiculous to handwave concerns regarding competitive advantage for a transgender woman, when a simple comparison of what place does a man come in if in the woman field... without any treatment. Clearly, it'd be unequal. So it HAS TO BE DEMONSTRATED that how puberty is dealt with and how treatment is dealt with, negatively impact a trans woman's "born with-ish" ability to equalize the stakes on the competition field with women.

You want to scoff at the concern. If I simply put my name in the women's category for races I did, I would have won a lot more overall trophies. It becomes a bit nebulous to determine fairness in a trans woman's competitiveness with women. This isn't easy to demonstrate. The article indicates that other factors have been shown weigh more heavily, but it does not say that transgender factors don't weigh in enough to be an issue.

I think it's pretty clear that those who never experienced male puberty are competitively female. Beyond that I get the feeling the research is more ideologically driven than scientifically driven.

However, that has nothing to do with the rest of society.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As an FYI, that isn't conclusive, we need more data and research. That is how science works. The real trouble we'll run into for this subject is the lack of actually having a statistically significant sample to work with.

It is completely and utterly ridiculous to handwave concerns regarding competitive advantage for a transgender woman, when a simple comparison of what place does a man come in if in the woman field... without any treatment. Clearly, it'd be unequal. So it HAS TO BE DEMONSTRATED that how puberty is dealt with and how treatment is dealt with, negatively impact a trans woman's "born with-ish" ability to equalize the stakes on the competition field with women.

You want to scoff at the concern. If I simply put my name in the women's category for races I did, I would have won a lot more overall trophies. It becomes a bit nebulous to determine fairness in a trans woman's competitiveness with women. This isn't easy to demonstrate. The article indicates that other factors have been shown weigh more heavily, but it does not say that transgender factors don't weigh in enough to be an issue.

I think it's pretty clear that those who never experienced male puberty are competitively female.

Clear to who? On what basis? Certain aspects maybe, other aspects (body size) maybe not. Hence the need for data.

Beyond that I get the feeling the research is more ideologically driven than scientifically driven.

What ideology? That women compete with fewer resources?

However, that has nothing to do with the rest of society.

It is off-topic on locker rooms, but at least tangential.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Let's play thought experiment:

• A completely casual guy, to whom nudity means nothing, walks into the women's locker room intent on taking a shower, getting dressed, and going home.
  • Toni, in same locker room sees the guy, she has an immediate reaction of fight or flight.
• A psychopathic male who is intent on violently assaulting a woman in the women's locker room, walks into the women's locker room intent on walking into a shower stall and committing a heinous crime.
  • Toni, in same locker room sees the guy, she has an immediate reaction of fight or flight.
• A presurgical transgender woman, walks into the women's locker room intent on taking a shower, getting dressed, and going home.
  • Toni, in same locker room sees the guy, she has an immediate reaction of fight or flight.
• A woman walks into the women's locker room.
  • Toni, in same locker room sees the woman, goes back to whatever she was doing.

The odd part is that Toni is as guilty of "judging" the to be rapist, because she can't possibly know he intends to commit an act of sexual violence. You are indicating that until they are under attack, a random woman in the locker room has no basis to form any opinion, other than "that person belongs in here because they are here". I can't imagine a woman getting sexually assaulted thinking "well thank goodness I didn't offend a transgender woman"

Your experiment has a problem: You're playing Monday morning quarterback.

Case E: A psychopathic male dressed in drag walks in.

C, D and E will all appear female until they undress.

It's security theater, not actual security.

 

[Toni]

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.

No it doesn’t.
How dare you call the hard wired instinct that women have to protect themselves from sexual assault, an instinct that is reinforced throughout all societies all over the world…comparable to racism????

This is ducking no different than what all of us women have been hearing since we were born: wherever we draw any kind of boundary, no matter how reasonable, no matter how rational abd necessary for our own security, for our own safety, for our own survival—there’s some asshole man t calling us a name fir daring to have a boundary. Usually it’s something like uptight bitch but now I guess that’s not enough. Now we are almost racists for wanting to not shower with strangers with penises—-that someone else have deemed ‘safe.’ And of course, that someone else will be male.

And hey, if we don’t like it we can just crawl back into our little hidey holes and continue to clean up whatever shit some man leaves lying about. Let men have all the jobs, all the power, all the control. We need to know it’s fir our own good. So asshole men will approve of us. Of course with a smile, always with a smile. We mustn’t forget to always smile.

I think there’s a movie about that, isn’t there? Called Smile? Haven’t seen it but sounds right.

 

[Toni]

Every single example of why eunochs should not be treated with fear if they haven’t exhibited aggressive behavior is true for the #NotAllMen who think that they, too, should be assumed safe until they prove otherwise.


Billions of women have been attacked, raped and murder by letting down that guard. 1 in 4 women.
We manage our known risk.
You do not understand that risk, Jarhyn, as you keep saying it’s exactly the same as people who face a 1:1,000,000 risk.

It’s actually more than 1 in four.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Let's play thought experiment:

• A completely casual guy, to whom nudity means nothing, walks into the women's locker room intent on taking a shower, getting dressed, and going home.
  • Toni, in same locker room sees the guy, she has an immediate reaction of fight or flight.
• A psychopathic male who is intent on violently assaulting a woman in the women's locker room, walks into the women's locker room intent on walking into a shower stall and committing a heinous crime.
  • Toni, in same locker room sees the guy, she has an immediate reaction of fight or flight.
• A presurgical transgender woman, walks into the women's locker room intent on taking a shower, getting dressed, and going home.
  • Toni, in same locker room sees the guy, she has an immediate reaction of fight or flight.
• A woman walks into the women's locker room.
  • Toni, in same locker room sees the woman, goes back to whatever she was doing.

The odd part is that Toni is as guilty of "judging" the to be rapist, because she can't possibly know he intends to commit an act of sexual violence. You are indicating that until they are under attack, a random woman in the locker room has no basis to form any opinion, other than "that person belongs in here because they are here". I can't imagine a woman getting sexually assaulted thinking "well thank goodness I didn't offend a transgender woman"

Your experiment has a problem: You're playing Monday morning quarterback.

How in the heck did you get there? My point only exists in real time, which is the whole point. And unlike blacks, where women can tell black women are still in fact women and quite quickly, at no point is it immediately apparent a pre-surgical transgender woman belongs in that place.

It's security theater, not actual security.

Any security without an enforcing guard would be theater.