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

[Jarhyn]

at no point is it immediately apparent a pre-surgical transgender woman belongs in that place.

Nobody is discussing admitting entirely pre-surgical trans women anywhere in such a manner.

The discussion of allowance is at a minimum post-surgical. What that surgery is varies, but it is 100% a discussion of post-surgical individuals, isolated 100% to situations where the post-surgical or in the case of secondary educational students post-HRT/Blocker individuals are accessing the "members-/current students-/prisoners-/team members-only space".

This is a statement NOT that you have to accept any random stranger in such situations, but that you DO have to accept your known to be post-surgical (or depending on age post-blocker) trans classmate, team member, cell mate, or fellow gym member.

At no point does your argument at all speak to the context of vetted areas and people.

If we are talking a simple public restroom, any time someone can see an exposed pubic region is already violating decorum and acceptable use, regardless of the genitals attached to said pubic region, and it always indicates a likely threat..

There is no fork that gets you to "but what if a stranger with a penis..." Where the fact that they are "stranger" does not preempt "penis" as the reason for concern, or wherein the due diligence of the site does the same.

Which is to say nobody here is asking anyone to accept "any apparent rando".

All of the locations discussed are pre-filtered on NON-PREJUDICIAL grounds, and the ones that aren't are not suggested to allow anyone but "clear cases", because in all those other locations there is the expectation of a completely private option, particularly in support of the ADA.

That's why your all your arguments continue to fail.

The expectation is that there is a minimum accessibility of showering facilities.

When discussing "simple restrooms", rather than shower facilities, the point is mooted for the same reason as voter ID is mooted: because neither of them are practical concerns, and to advocate for such is to advocate of the right to harass people such is my niece, who is a biological cis-gendered female who happens to have a neckbeard (and maybe eventually a full beard, IDFK).

 

[Toni]

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.

It fucking is not the same thing as a mugging.

Most rapists who rape women do so precisely because she’s a woman. Most men who rape men do so precisely because they’re a man. People who rape children do so precisely because they are children.

And, if course, because they can.

People rape other people for control, for sexual gratification fixation, for revenge, as acts of war, and mostly because of rage.

If I didn’t think in some tiny part of you, you’d get off on it, I’d post images of rape victims after they’ve been raped.

Mugging don’t leave victims with STI’s, with an unwanted pregnancy, with unwanted loss of pregnancy, or complications of pregnancy. Victims of mugging are t expected to sit next to their mugger or share a bed or stay married to their mugger. Mugging victims are not interrogated as to what they were wearing or how much they had to drink or asked if they are sure they didn’t mean to lend their mugger their ID, cash, credit cards, banking information, car.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

It fucking is not the same thing as a mugging.

Most rapists who rape women do so precisely because she’s a woman. Most men who rape men do so precisely because they’re a man. People who rape children do so precisely because they are children.

And, if course, because they can.

People rape other people for control, for sexual gratification fixation, for revenge, as acts of war, and mostly because of rage.

If I didn’t think in some tiny part of you, you’d get off on it, I’d post images of rape victims after they’ve been raped.

Mugging don’t leave victims with STI’s, with an unwanted pregnancy, with unwanted loss of pregnancy, or complications of pregnancy. Victims of mugging are t expected to sit next to their mugger or share a bed or stay married to their mugger. Mugging victims are not interrogated as to what they were wearing or how much they had to drink or asked if they are sure they didn’t mean to lend their mugger their ID, cash, credit cards, banking information, car.

Men more likely to be attacked by strangers than women

In about one in five cases, men were attacked by more than one stranger, with the street the most likely place to be assaulted.

www.smh.com.au

It is not because you are a woman It is because they are taking a chemical which deranged them.

The thing they want is "someone who they can victimize."

Many such evil people have preferred victims, but you are in fact less likely to be such a victim.

 

[Toni]

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.

It fucking is not the same thing as a mugging.

Most rapists who rape women do so precisely because she’s a woman. Most men who rape men do so precisely because they’re a man. People who rape children do so precisely because they are children.

And, if course, because they can.

People rape other people for control, for sexual gratification fixation, for revenge, as acts of war, and mostly because of rage.

If I didn’t think in some tiny part of you, you’d get off on it, I’d post images of rape victims after they’ve been raped.

Mugging don’t leave victims with STI’s, with an unwanted pregnancy, with unwanted loss of pregnancy, or complications of pregnancy. Victims of mugging are t expected to sit next to their mugger or share a bed or stay married to their mugger. Mugging victims are not interrogated as to what they were wearing or how much they had to drink or asked if they are sure they didn’t mean to lend their mugger their ID, cash, credit cards, banking information, car.

Men more likely to be attacked by strangers than women

In about one in five cases, men were attacked by more than one stranger, with the street the most likely place to be assaulted.

www.smh.com.au

It is not because you are a woman It is because they are taking a chemical which deranged them.

The thing they want is "someone who they can victimize."

Many such evil people have preferred victims, but you are in fact less likely to be such a victim.

Get off that bullshit. Most men cope just fine with testosterone in their bodies. I cope just fine with the testosterone in my body. Testosterone does not make men rape anyone. As you’ve pointed out, women are capable of rape and nope, it’s not fueled by testosterone.

I am less likely to be a victim NOW because I am an older woman living with my spouse, in a relatively safe neighborhood. I’m no longer in the most heavily victimized demographic but it certainly is still possible. A friend of mine in high school was staying with her grandmother, who was older than I am now by a decade, abd someone broke into her grandmother’s house at night and raped the grandmother. There are a number of sexual assaults committed against nursing home residents by staff and visitors.

But I’ve been assaulted a number of times and have stopped the assault of a friend. I was much younger then. I learned to be very pro-active abd to avoid anyone who seemed in any way dodgy or unsafe. Which isn’t really any guarantee. I knew everyone who assaulted me, sometimes quite well.

Yes, most women are attacked by someone they know. That’s well known and often cited in threads that in any early refer to rape.

But let’s get this straight: very few women have any concerns about being sexually assaulted by a trans woman—even though such assaults do happen on rare occasions.

This has to do with the absolute right of women to feel safe and secure in women only spaces. Virtually every restroom I’ve encountered in a women’s bathroom have exclusively enclosed stalls. Whether or not a trans woman still has a penis is unlikely to be a big issue for most women.

However, womens’ locker rooms where women are frequently unclothed in shared spaces are a different matter. Women’s shelters are a different matter. In such spaces, the presence of a person with a penis can induce fear, panic, a range of emotions associated with fight/flight and trauma.

 

[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.

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.

I'm calling quarterback because you're assuming the bad guys do not adjust their behavior to the situation.

It's security theater, not actual security.

Any security without an enforcing guard would be theater.

So? Just because there are plenty of other examples of security theater doesn't make this not such.

Where is your actual iota of protection from the attacker in drag?

 

[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.

It fucking is not the same thing as a mugging.

Most rapists who rape women do so precisely because she’s a woman. Most men who rape men do so precisely because they’re a man. People who rape children do so precisely because they are children.

And, if course, because they can.

People rape other people for control, for sexual gratification fixation, for revenge, as acts of war, and mostly because of rage.

If I didn’t think in some tiny part of you, you’d get off on it, I’d post images of rape victims after they’ve been raped.

And muggings are precisely because they have something of value. You aren't rebutting me at all.

Mugging don’t leave victims with STI’s, with an unwanted pregnancy, with unwanted loss of pregnancy, or complications of pregnancy. Victims of mugging are t expected to sit next to their mugger or share a bed or stay married to their mugger. Mugging victims are not interrogated as to what they were wearing or how much they had to drink or asked if they are sure they didn’t mean to lend their mugger their ID, cash, credit cards, banking information, car.

The consequences generally being more severe doesn't change my comparison.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

I'm calling quarterback because you're assuming the bad guys do not adjust their behavior to the situation.

It's security theater, not actual security.

Any security without an enforcing guard would be theater.

So? Just because there are plenty of other examples of security theater doesn't make this not such.

Where is your actual iota of protection from the attacker in drag?

Where is an election's protection from voter fraud?

I'll take "things that don't happen" for 1000, Alex.

 

[Toni]

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.

It fucking is not the same thing as a mugging.

Most rapists who rape women do so precisely because she’s a woman. Most men who rape men do so precisely because they’re a man. People who rape children do so precisely because they are children.

And, if course, because they can.

People rape other people for control, for sexual gratification fixation, for revenge, as acts of war, and mostly because of rage.

If I didn’t think in some tiny part of you, you’d get off on it, I’d post images of rape victims after they’ve been raped.

And muggings are precisely because they have something of value. You aren't rebutting me at all.

Mugging don’t leave victims with STI’s, with an unwanted pregnancy, with unwanted loss of pregnancy, or complications of pregnancy. Victims of mugging are t expected to sit next to their mugger or share a bed or stay married to their mugger. Mugging victims are not interrogated as to what they were wearing or how much they had to drink or asked if they are sure they didn’t mean to lend their mugger their ID, cash, credit cards, banking information, car.

The consequences generally being more severe doesn't change my comparison.

I realize that you have a difficult time putting yourself in the shoes of another person, Loren, but here you are not only extremely tone deaf but stubbornly and categorically wrong.

People mug other people for monetary gain.

People rape other people because of rage and a sense of entitlement, a need to dominate and control and they get sexual satisfaction from the rape.

Since you are so utterly and completely unable or unwilling to understand those facts, I think you should really sit out discussion of rape.

 

[Bomb#20]

[

Men more likely to be attacked by strangers than women

In about one in five cases, men were attacked by more than one stranger, with the street the most likely place to be assaulted.

www.smh.com.au

It is not because you are a woman It is because they are taking a chemical which deranged them.

The thing they want is "someone who they can victimize."

Many such evil people have preferred victims, but you are in fact less likely to be such a victim.

You're talking specifically about attacks by strangers. That usually means attacks in public, on the street, etc. Look around you. In most places out in public on the street there are a lot more men walking around than women, and fewer of the women are alone. If women are less likely to be such victims it's because women have learned to take more precautions; it doesn't mean a woman is statistically safer than a man.

 

[Jarhyn]

You're talking specifically about attacks by strangers.

All the discussions here are about attacks by strangers, specifically trans strangers with penises in locker rooms, an attack format that has not been meaningfully observed.

The tagline has been "a stranger with a penis walks into a locker room, how do we know this won't result in an attack by the stranger?".

As you note most men (here to be considered as "folks with greater than some mutually acceptable measure of testosterone and below some mutually acceptable measure of estrogen") who attack people do so in public. In my experience it is usually adjacent to someone looking for someone to physically attack.

Your handwaves about what "must" be true about the data, however, are the seeds of what will become a confirmation bias of you keep watering them with such piss-takes.

 

[Toni]

[

Men more likely to be attacked by strangers than women

In about one in five cases, men were attacked by more than one stranger, with the street the most likely place to be assaulted.

www.smh.com.au

It is not because you are a woman It is because they are taking a chemical which deranged them.

The thing they want is "someone who they can victimize."

Many such evil people have preferred victims, but you are in fact less likely to be such a victim.

You're talking specifically about attacks by strangers. That usually means attacks in public, on the street, etc. Look around you. In most places out in public on the street there are a lot more men walking around than women, and fewer of the women are alone. If women are less likely to be such victims it's because women have learned to take more precautions; it doesn't mean a woman is statistically safer than a man.

Men are more often victims of murder and (non-sexual) assault. These are somewhat more likely to be committed by a (male) stranger but most people are attacked by people they know in some way.

Women are more often victims of sexual assault and/or rape. Most rapes are not reported to the police, so it's a bit difficult to gage. Most women who are sexually assaulted know their attacker. Also their murder, etc.

Jarhyn seems to be conflating attacks by strangers with rapes. Women are raped by strangers, although most often, it is by someone they know. However, one of the key pieces of evidence that a stranger wants to potentially harm you is that they are in an intimate space (a bedroom, a locker room) unexpectedly, and expose their penis.

Jarhyn wants women to assume and trust that any persons with a penis in the women's locker room have already been vetted by (I don't know whom or on what evidence) someone official and are therefore safe. Jarhyn wants women to set aside their survival instincts and simply trust that if that person with a penis did not belong next to them in the shower, they wouldn't be there. He seems not to recognize or admit that instincts operate differently than rational thought.

 

[Jarhyn]

Women are more often victims of sexual assault and/or rape. Most rapes are not reported to the police, so it's a bit difficult to gage. Most women who are sexually assaulted know their attacker. Also their murder, etc.

So? You're still not thinking this through as to how this connects to your claims of what you claim is "the needful" in showers when you see a STRANGER with a penis or a STRANGER with a beard in the bathroom.

You're making a claim that you are in "stranger danger" because you are a "woman" and "men attack women".

My point has been that this is not true. Men do not attack strange women because they are men and the stranger is a woman. They attack strangers because they are deranged, and they happen to be near a convenient victim.

Context matters, and you are completely and utterly failing to contextualize this to the discussion at hand.

If you see someone you know with a penis in a bathroom, then they will be someone you know is trans and on HRT, or someone you can know isn't, especially if you can demand to see markers on their ID.

Pick a goalpost and plant it.

 

[Toni]

Women are more often victims of sexual assault and/or rape. Most rapes are not reported to the police, so it's a bit difficult to gage. Most women who are sexually assaulted know their attacker. Also their murder, etc.

So? You're still not thinking this through as to how this connects to your claims of what you claim is "the needful" in showers when you see a STRANGER with a penis or a STRANGER with a beard in the bathroom.

Context matters, and you are completely and utterly failing to contextualize this to the discussion at hand.

If you see someone you know with a penis in a bathroom, then they will be someone you know is trans and on HRT, or someone you can know isn't, especially if you can demand to see markers on their ID.

Pick a goalpost and plant it.

You are exactly correct: Context matters. A naked stranger with a penis in the shower next to you is something that is to be expected in a co-ed shower/locker room.

A naked stranger with a penis in the shower next to you is extremely unexpected in a women's only locker room.

If you thought that naked strangers with penises in the locker room/shower were so safe, you'd be happy to shower in the men's shower. But you've indicated that you have had seriously negative experiences in the men/boys showers/locker room (and I am deeply sorry that happened to you), presumably from those you know somewhat but I wasn't there, I don't know the details. Maybe they were strangers. But you obviously see the risk to yourself, to transwomen, to anyone who is deemed to stray from whatever the norm is in male locker rooms.

I understand that you want and need and deserve to feel and to be safe and secure, especially in a space where you are extremely vulnerable, such as a locker room shower. I absolutely affirm your right to feel safe and to be safe. #MeToo

Which is why I have repeatedly suggested that there needs to be universally available private shower stalls with doors. Even then, if someone is very male appearing, it will freak out women who are or who are about to be or who just have been naked. This is not because women fear men (although some do) or because they hate penises (I'm sure some do but not most of us) but because of the context.

A different scenario with an imperfect comparison: You are visiting a zoo where there are tigers on display. You see the tigers on display and admire their beauty, their wildness, their majesty. You feel safe because they are on the other side of a very wide moat and a tall wall. You've finished your admiration of the tigers. snapped your photos, posted to Insta or whatever and turn around to see: a tiger right next to you. The chances are, even if the tiger has not bared its fangs or shown its claws, you will instinctively feel very afraid, panicked, even. And to be honest, I doubt you have actually been attacked by a tiger or witnessed such an attack. Nevertheless, you know that tigers are dangerous animals and you react differently to that one than the one in the context that you deem safe: in an enclosure from which it cannot escape. A tiger standing next to you is seen as a very different threat than tiger in an enclosure where it cannot escape.

 

[Jarhyn]

A naked stranger with a penis in the shower next to you is extremely unexpected in a women's only locker room.

And a naked stranger with a penis in a prison is extremely unexpected to be anything but a trans person.

And a naked stranger with a penis in a locker room at "Aria's Gym for Women" is extremely unexpected to be anything but a trans person.

Really, the set of situations where a penis is to be expected is confined to the list of locations in which there is only ONE shower facility offered, or where the shower is in a "closed" environment such as a highschool, and access is strictly controlled.

We have already discussed that the "naked stranger with a penis at the public pool shower" shall have a third, HIGH privacy option.

So either you will need to describe the locker room being discussed -- because context matters -- or accept that the whole locker room thing is a red herring and is meant, much like Voter ID, to allow bad faith ideology an angle to take an undeserved swipe at something they don't like for unfounded reasons.

It's OK to admit you were had by the persuasive but bad argument.

 

[Toni]

A naked stranger with a penis in the shower next to you is extremely unexpected in a women's only locker room.

And a naked stranger with a penis in a prison is extremely unexpected to be anything but a trans person.

And a naked stranger with a penis in a locker room at "Aria's Gym for Women" is extremely unexpected to be anything but a trans person.

Really, the set of situations where a penis is to be expected is confined to the list of locations in which there is only ONE shower facility offered, or where the shower is in a "closed" environment such as a highschool, and access is strictly controlled.

We have already discussed that the "naked stranger with a penis at the public pool shower" shall have a third, HIGH privacy option.

So either you will need to describe the locker room being discussed -- because context matters -- or accept that the whole locker room thing is a red herring and is meant, much like Voter ID, to allow bad faith ideology an angle to take an undeserved swipe at something they don't like for unfounded reasons.

It's OK to admit you were had by the persuasive but bad argument.

No. First of all, you surely meant that the naked stranger in a women’s prison is likely to be/should be assumed to be a trans woman. She’s usually not there by choice, nor is any other inmate. But her medical history and status is known, as well as any medications she might be taking.

In a women’s gym/locker room, you want women to assume that the naked stranger in the locker room/shower is a transwoman who poses no threat. But this is impossible for women to do: they, or a sizable portion, will instinctively react as though this were an individual who potentially intends them harm.

It’s a different part of their brain telling them THREAT than the one saying, well, Aria knows best. Must be ok. Of course that’s ignoring the fact that a sizeable portion of women using that women’s locker room have been sexually assaulted and likely will have a much stronger instinctive reaction.

As for school locker rooms and trans girls: There will likely be a significant amount of pushback from parents because girls are likely to want to be good little team mates and are less likely to speak up. Think of how many students, male and female, who have been sexually abused by a coach or teacher, usually under the guise of: This is fine. There’s nothing wrong with this. I care so much about you. Presumably the teachers and coaches have all gone through background checks that ensure there is no history of violence or sexual assault or misconduct. But this may or may not be accurate, unfortunately. Students often do not speak up or do not until some brave soul does. It’s not the same thing by many orders of magnitude, but when I was in middle school, there was a particular social studies teacher who had a reputation for looking up girls skits as they sat in class. At that time, girls were not allowed to wear pants or jeans to school. The ethos was: you don’t complain about the teacher to your parents. Eventually some boys found Playboy in this teacher’s desk and I believe he was….reprimanded. In my chijdren’s middle school, there was a teacher all the parents knew was abusive abd no one wanted their daughter to be alone with him. The way they knew? He had been their teacher as well.

Students very often don’t speak up or don’t for years, until some brave person does and fed. opens the flood gates. Kids also usually do not rat out their fellow students who harass or assault them. There are many social pressures to keep quiet.

But even in a school type setting, the school will have vetted the trans individual’s medical records and will have established that this individual is trans. They will likely have put into place whatever accommodations are necessary to ensure the safety and comfort of all students involved.

Way back in my dating days, I learned that the guys to avoid ( or one category of guy) were the ones who assured everyone what a nice guy they were.

 

[Jarhyn]

But this is impossible for women to do: they, or a sizable portion, will instinctively react as though this were an individual who potentially intends them harm

They will react just as "instinctively" as whites responding to blacks.

A sizable contingent who react badly.

That's where this ends up going.

You are trying to justify a prejudice rather than reject it.

As for school locker rooms and trans girls: There will likely be a significant amount of pushback from parents because girls are likely to want to be good little team mates and are less likely to speak up.

It’s a different part of their brain telling them THREAT than the one saying, well, Aria knows best.

The same is true of all the racists who didn't want those they judged as "black" in their spaces.

The same is true for ME.

We each have an obligation to swallow our prejudices and reject them.

It is not an "assault" to have to accept something.

Your rhetoric encodes a clear attempt to dishonestly associate the two ideas.

It does not follow that rape by coaches is at all a discussion topic needing to be brought up here. The public aspect of this, the visibility aspect (as opposed to coaches abusing kids) is that everyone knows a little girl with a penis will be needing to take a shower after running track, and that the comfort of the students ks not guaranteed. Learning generally requires moments where we step outside of comfort and this is something where growth often requires things to be unlearned and observed first hand.

If for some reason out of my control I never saw another black person again, I would be simultaneously mournful and more comfortable. I don't deserve or want that comfort. What I deserve is to be educated by experience and consistent effort at challenging my unwanted and anti-social biases.

Safety I deserve.

Comfort, I must earn in ethical ways. For the person with racially coded anxieties... That comfort must be earned through removal of the response in continued presence of stimulus.

So too for the person with genital-coded anxieties.

 

[Jarhyn]

I might add that assuring everyone that testosterone-related derangement is not something to fear from them* by saying mere words is qualitatively different by saying it through the action of removing their testicles.

Again, context matters.

*"I'm a nice ___"

 

[Toni]

But this is impossible for women to do: they, or a sizable portion, will instinctively react as though this were an individual who potentially intends them harm

They will react just as "instinctively" as whites responding to blacks.

A sizable contingent who react badly.

That's where this ends up going.

You are trying to justify a prejudice rather than reject it.

As for school locker rooms and trans girls: There will likely be a significant amount of pushback from parents because girls are likely to want to be good little team mates and are less likely to speak up.

It’s a different part of their brain telling them THREAT than the one saying, well, Aria knows best.

The same is true of all the racists who didn't want those they judged as "black" in their spaces.

The same is true for ME.

We each have an obligation to swallow our prejudices and reject them.

It is not an "assault" to have to accept something.

Your rhetoric encodes a clear attempt to dishonestly associate the two ideas.

It does not follow that rape by coaches is at all a discussion topic needing to be brought up here. The public aspect of this, the visibility aspect (as opposed to coaches abusing kids) is that everyone knows a little girl with a penis will be needing to take a shower after running track, and that the comfort of the students ks not guaranteed. Learning generally requires moments where we step outside of comfort and this is something where growth often requires things to be unlearned and observed first hand.

If for some reason out of my control I never saw another black person again, I would be simultaneously mournful and more comfortable. I don't deserve or want that comfort. What I deserve is to be educated by experience and consistent effort at challenging my unwanted and anti-social biases.

Safety I deserve.

Comfort, I must earn in ethical ways. For the person with racially coded anxieties... That comfort must be earned through removal of the response in continued presence of stimulus.

So too for the person with genital-coded anxieties.

No, you are trying to couch justifiable, culturally and societally supported and enforced fears of being naked with a naked stranger with a penis with racism. That's a false analogy.

I am not the one being dishonest here. YOU are being dishonest. YOU don't want to shower with naked strangers with penises (for good reason--you've been made to feel uncomfortable, and have been threatened or worse in similar circumstances) but you refuse to accept that most women DO NOT FEEL SAFE while standing naked in a shower, next to a naked stranger with a penis. Women have good reason to have such fears and concerns, just as you have similar fears and concerns.

Your solution is simply to force women to give up their boundaries because to fail to do so is bigoted against persons with penises. Never mind that in any given shower in a women's gym, a fair amount of those women sleep with people with penises or have done so in the past and have wanted to do exactly that.

Like any other man who isn't happy with whatever boundaries a woman sets that prevents him from doing whatever he wants to do (often to her), you are calling women ugly names. Instead of slut, cunt, stuck up bitch you are calling us another ugly term, deeming our legitimate concerns and fears as akin to racism. You are calling us penis haters and whatever the analogous term to racist is for such people.

I have another boundary: I don't continue conversations with people who call me names.

 

[Rhea]

And a naked stranger with a penis in a locker room at "Aria's Gym for Women" is extremely unexpected to be anything but a trans person.

What the actual fuck.
Tell that to all the women who have been attacked in locker rooms.


YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND, Jarhyn.

You. Do. Not.


You have absolutely no idea what the inside of a women’s locker room is like, over time. You have no idea AT ALL what the norms are, nor what risk mitigations women take ALL THEIR LIVES.

You Do. Not. Know.


We don’t need your ongoing fucking mansplaining about what we “should” be worried about and what we “shouldn’t.”
Your arguments are based in ignorance and special, “But I’m not LIKE them!!!!” appeals.
It is insulting and flat fucking wrong. ANd you have done nothing to aknowledge the information being given to you BY ALL OF THE WOMEN. And you take your man experience and try to ‘Splain to us what our locker rooms are like.

You want to be with the women without understanding the women. You want to TAKE OVER our space and make it your space.

And let me be clear that EVERY ONE of the women on this thread and I think also all of the men have said, “YES, there should be a third option of private changing and peeing and sheltering spaces for trans people with penises who would be in danger in a men’s room.”

So what THE FUCK is your ongoing argument?
Yes there should be a third space. What is your argument with that?


Sorry for the swears, but JTFCoaS your insults to women for not being intelligent enough or unbigotted enough to understand and manage our own risks are insufferable.

1 in 4, Jarhyn. 1 in fucking 4.

 

[Rhea]

And I repeat, I would bet that all the trans women are cringing at your aggressive (very male) actions that are harming their ability to fit in as women.