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

[Jarhyn]

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

I'll tell it to anyone believes that they deserve comfort in the form of tolerance of their prejudices.

I do understand it and I don't think you, or those women, really do, mostly because it's been tolerated for so long.

I expect arguments like this were had when black people sought out relief as well.

I recall a part from parks and rec where there was an anti gay bigot... The first episode? The one about gay penguins getting married.

I recall them saying something similar.

If it is something I don't understand either use words that will help me understand. Maybe there's something there more than "emotional prejudice must be tolerated".

I've been dealing with emotionally based prejudices all my life, both as receiver and holder and occasionally perpetrator regardless of my efforts.

I can understand those because I have gotten really good at spotting and questioning them when it flexes, but you haven't yet convinced me in any respect that accepting trans people without testicles in college classes, sports, and restricted-access private gym locker rooms, and post-blocker trans folks in high school locker rooms is resisted for any reason beyond that prejudice.

The crimes perpetrated against women do not change that, and they fail to impact that for the reasons I have been giving.

 

[Rhea]

I do understand it and I don't think you, or those women, really do, mostly because it's been tolerated for so long.

And by “it”, the thing you, a man, understand but all the women don’t, we are talking about women’s violence risk management.

I have been reacting to your posts for the sake of others reading because I no longer believe you have any empathy for women, but others might be interested in the rebuttals.

But after this doozy, I don’t have anything left to say. I will assume that all other readers understand how untenable this position is, and that it is not actually discussing reality. I’ll go back to discussing reality - with others.

 

[Jarhyn]

I do understand it and I don't think you, or those women, really do, mostly because it's been tolerated for so long.

And by “it”, the thing you, a man, understand but all the women don’t, we are talking about women’s violence risk management.

I have been reacting to your posts for the sake of others reading because I no longer believe you have any empathy for women, but others might be interested in the rebuttals.

But after this doozy, I don’t have anything left to say. I will assume that all other readers understand how untenable this position is, and that it is not actually discussing reality. I’ll go back to discussing reality - with others.

Not a man. I had a man sharing my head for a while and abusing my life but I sorted that.

We've discussed that.

I understand, reflect on, and ultimately reject the impulse you want me to understand, reflect on, and accept. That is still empathy, even if it is not the empathy you want.

I do the same for racists: I reflect on, understand, and ultimately reject the impulse they want me to accept.

I observe the tragic disconnect between what I feel and what I see as right.

I put myself into their shoes.

And then I observe that their shoes are letting in water.

 

[Jarhyn]

I hate men in a way most people will not and cannot ever really understand.

I don't really understand how anyone can have that in their head and not hate it, not care to do something about it!

It was for me an enduring, decades long hell. Existing that way, in that state, with that noise constantly eating away and making me fight it was more traumatic than anything else I experienced.

It made me want to die.

I had a man inside my head, and I never asked for him to be there. I would be raped in that dingy apartment by that disgusting person a hundred times before I would have asked for that, if I had just known.

I don't trust men. I have to live with them sure, be seen as one much of the time, but I don't trust them. After I've seen what really goes on, who they listen to, what words they accept being spoken into their minds it is impossible to convince me that I should, at least not in the way I would trust a eunuch or a woman.

I've seen evidence that women have similar, but different noise.

The difference is, I have the perspective to know that this has nothing to do with penises.

 

[Rhea]

You have ONE data point.

 

[Toni]

No one wants anyone to live in the self described hell Jahryn shared. Except that Jahryn wants and expects women to tolerate the risk that he refuses to tolerate. Because he says it's ok.

 

[Jarhyn]

No one wants anyone to live in the self described hell Jahryn shared. Except that Jahryn wants and expects women to tolerate the risk that he refuses to tolerate. Because he says it's ok.

No. I don't.

Never once have I said that any person should be forced to tolerate that, or risk it.

I neither want nor expect any person who, like me, does not want to have to deal with it.

The one thing that makes me utterly stricken of anything that would drive me to act on behalf of some individual is if they would judge me as that for the fact that I have, and will continue to have, a penis.

I would just say if someone wishes to prove they don't want to and deserve be able to not be around "men" that they don't drag one along to the party inside their head.

My confidence in it's absence scales proportionately to their measure of commitment to that.

I'll accept in a social setting a woman who has an in her head, or a eunuch that has a man in their head, because to say more is to enforce a fascist state against men.

I'll accept in a bathroom a woman or eunuch that has a man in their head that has been chemically silenced, and who does not have the ability to ejaculate sperms.

I'll accept in a controlled shower room a woman or eunuch who has entirely removed the need to chemically silence said man in their head, does not produce sperms, and become themselves a eunuch or woman without testicles.

I'll accept in uncontrolled showering the expectation that those for whom visual inspection does not promptly indicate at least some anatomical common comorbidity of being hormonal modification, that such folks both have and use a space which is maintained for single user occupancy.

As I have said, I hate men, for all there are some men I also love even if I can't understand why they want to be men, even if I do not feel such with relation to women.

I expect that they will be more responsible for it, for all they understand how and why and where and what those thoughts are, and they know the borders of the "man" part of them, as it has a differentness to their previous experience and they have the context of observing it on both sides.

I have this understanding not because I have said so, but because unlike you, I'm a defector. As a defector, I have the unenviable job of figuring out what I must do to defect, how I may defect, and what my rights as a defector can possibly be. I have, and must have, an understanding of what I am defecting from, exactly.

I have to figure out what I can justify keeping, and what I cannot justify keeping, and what the things I wish to keep imply about where I can justify being, in terms of understanding what rights I have.
I have philosophical reason to make some demands, and state facts, especially as an authority on the place I came from.

What I'm asking is empathy to figure out what you can sacrifice for the person born in that hell as their dues for being allowed to cross the border without being shot.

Obviously just saying it isn't enough, but something must be. Asking for someone to cut off their erogenous parts is too much for the simple right to go to school, or be afforded a space in prison, or to play on a sports team.

It is as ridiculous and evil as people in the middle east doing that to people.

 

[Bomb#20]

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

Toni did not use dishonest rhetoric; you did. Every time you say the word "black" you are making a dishonest argument. We can tell, because you have repeatedly stipulated that it's okay to keep intact chemically unmodified cis-males out of women-only spaces. If excluding men from female spaces were actually analogous to excluding black people from white spaces then men would no more need to prove their unmanly bona fides with certifications of their anatomical and hormonal modifications than a black person needs to prove he's "one of the good ones" before being allowed to use the white drinking fountain.

We've been through all this before. In 1923 the US government revoked Bhagat Thind's citizenship based on one of the Asian exclusion acts of the era. He argued in the Supreme Court, not that the law's racism was unconstitutional or wrong, but that as an upper-caste Indian he was descended from the Aryan invaders and not from those dark-skinned lower-caste Indians whom upper-caste Indians like himself would never dream of marrying, so he should qualify as white. He was in effect asking to be issued an ID card certifying that he'd been checked and verified as being white enough for a white's-only space.

You are not making Martin Luther King arguments. You are making Bhagat Thind arguments. Every time you say "black" you are trying to pass your Bhagat Thind arguments off as Martin Luther King arguments. That's dishonest. So bloody well stop saying "black".

 

[Jarhyn]

Toni did not use dishonest rhetoric; you did. Every time you say the word "black" you are making a dishonest argument.

We can tell, because you have repeatedly stipulated that it's okay to keep intact chemically unmodified cis-males out of women-only spaces

One is a judgement based on shape, gross identifying traits that are not directly linked to behavir and the other is based on an identifying trait which is identifiably a causal contributor to differences in behavior.

One is based on prejudice, and the other is based on a certainty of effect. It is the difference between driving as a beer drinker and driving after drinking beers.

 

[Toni]

No one wants anyone to live in the self described hell Jahryn shared. Except that Jahryn wants and expects women to tolerate the risk that he refuses to tolerate. Because he says it's ok.

No. I don't.

Never once have I said that any person should be forced to tolerate that, or risk it.

I neither want nor expect any person who, like me, does not want to have to deal with it.

The one thing that makes me utterly stricken of anything that would drive me to act on behalf of some individual is if they would judge me as that for the fact that I have, and will continue to have, a penis.

I would just say if someone wishes to prove they don't want to and deserve be able to not be around "men" that they don't drag one along to the party inside their head.

My confidence in it's absence scales proportionately to their measure of commitment to that.

I'll accept in a social setting a woman who has an in her head, or a eunuch that has a man in their head, because to say more is to enforce a fascist state against men.

I'll accept in a bathroom a woman or eunuch that has a man in their head that has been chemically silenced, and who does not have the ability to ejaculate sperms.

I'll accept in a controlled shower room a woman or eunuch who has entirely removed the need to chemically silence said man in their head, does not produce sperms, and become themselves a eunuch or woman without testicles.

I'll accept in uncontrolled showering the expectation that those for whom visual inspection does not promptly indicate at least some anatomical common comorbidity of being hormonal modification, that such folks both have and use a space which is maintained for single user occupancy.

As I have said, I hate men, for all there are some men I also love even if I can't understand why they want to be men, even if I do not feel such with relation to women.

I expect that they will be more responsible for it, for all they understand how and why and where and what those thoughts are, and they know the borders of the "man" part of them, as it has a differentness to their previous experience and they have the context of observing it on both sides.

I have this understanding not because I have said so, but because unlike you, I'm a defector. As a defector, I have the unenviable job of figuring out what I must do to defect, how I may defect, and what my rights as a defector can possibly be. I have, and must have, an understanding of what I am defecting from, exactly.

I have to figure out what I can justify keeping, and what I cannot justify keeping, and what the things I wish to keep imply about where I can justify being, in terms of understanding what rights I have.
I have philosophical reason to make some demands, and state facts, especially as an authority on the place I came from.

What I'm asking is empathy to figure out what you can sacrifice for the person born in that hell as their dues for being allowed to cross the border without being shot.

Obviously just saying it isn't enough, but something must be. Asking for someone to cut off their erogenous parts is too much for the simple right to go to school, or be afforded a space in prison, or to play on a sports team.

It is as ridiculous and evil as people in the middle east doing that to people.

Again, one does not need to have a penis in order to rape someone. Foreign objects are commonly used to inflict damage. Because the damage is the point.

One does not need to have significant testosterone in order to rape. Women commit rape as well as men.

No one in this thread is asking or expecting anyone to have any kind of surgical procedure.

Women just want to be left alone in women’s only spaces, without having to deal with being traumatized, retraumatized or merely frightened by a person who appears male in a shower or in a space for women and children who have experienced domestic abuse or rape.

 

[Bomb#20]

Toni did not use dishonest rhetoric; you did. Every time you say the word "black" you are making a dishonest argument. We can tell, because you have repeatedly stipulated that it's okay to keep intact chemically unmodified cis-males out of women-only spaces

One is a judgement based on shape, gross identifying traits that are not directly linked to behavir and the other is based on an identifying trait which is identifiably a causal contributor to differences in behavior.

One is based on prejudice, and the other is based on a certainty of effect. It is the difference between driving as a beer drinker and driving after drinking beers.

Hey, if you want to argue for moving the line we use to separate the sex categories, to some other position that seems fairer to you, knock yourself out. Just argue the case of sex based on its own merits. Don't argue based on a bogus analogy to race, where the right answer is to have no categories and no line separating them, when you already know that that's not the right answer for sex. How hard is that?

 

[Bomb#20]

You're talking specifically about attacks by strangers.

All the discussions here are about attacks by strangers

Oh for the love of god! I wasn't criticizing your decision to talk specifically about attacks by strangers; I was drawing your attention to its implications for your link's arithmetic! Their statistics show twice as many men as women being attacked by strangers. From this they deduce "Men more likely to be attacked by strangers than women". But attackers prefer prey that don't have strength in numbers, so they primarily attack people who are alone in the street. If there are four times as many men as women alone in the street but only twice as many men are attacked, that means each woman alone in the street is twice as likely to be attacked by strangers as a man is.

, 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?".

Which just calls into question the relevance of you bringing up statistics about stranger attacks in the first place -- most of those statistics aren't about locker room attacks.

 

[Jarhyn]

No one wants anyone to live in the self described hell Jahryn shared. Except that Jahryn wants and expects women to tolerate the risk that he refuses to tolerate. Because he says it's ok.

No. I don't.

Never once have I said that any person should be forced to tolerate that, or risk it.

I neither want nor expect any person who, like me, does not want to have to deal with it.

The one thing that makes me utterly stricken of anything that would drive me to act on behalf of some individual is if they would judge me as that for the fact that I have, and will continue to have, a penis.

I would just say if someone wishes to prove they don't want to and deserve be able to not be around "men" that they don't drag one along to the party inside their head.

My confidence in it's absence scales proportionately to their measure of commitment to that.

I'll accept in a social setting a woman who has an in her head, or a eunuch that has a man in their head, because to say more is to enforce a fascist state against men.

I'll accept in a bathroom a woman or eunuch that has a man in their head that has been chemically silenced, and who does not have the ability to ejaculate sperms.

I'll accept in a controlled shower room a woman or eunuch who has entirely removed the need to chemically silence said man in their head, does not produce sperms, and become themselves a eunuch or woman without testicles.

I'll accept in uncontrolled showering the expectation that those for whom visual inspection does not promptly indicate at least some anatomical common comorbidity of being hormonal modification, that such folks both have and use a space which is maintained for single user occupancy.

As I have said, I hate men, for all there are some men I also love even if I can't understand why they want to be men, even if I do not feel such with relation to women.

I expect that they will be more responsible for it, for all they understand how and why and where and what those thoughts are, and they know the borders of the "man" part of them, as it has a differentness to their previous experience and they have the context of observing it on both sides.

I have this understanding not because I have said so, but because unlike you, I'm a defector. As a defector, I have the unenviable job of figuring out what I must do to defect, how I may defect, and what my rights as a defector can possibly be. I have, and must have, an understanding of what I am defecting from, exactly.

I have to figure out what I can justify keeping, and what I cannot justify keeping, and what the things I wish to keep imply about where I can justify being, in terms of understanding what rights I have.
I have philosophical reason to make some demands, and state facts, especially as an authority on the place I came from.

What I'm asking is empathy to figure out what you can sacrifice for the person born in that hell as their dues for being allowed to cross the border without being shot.

Obviously just saying it isn't enough, but something must be. Asking for someone to cut off their erogenous parts is too much for the simple right to go to school, or be afforded a space in prison, or to play on a sports team.

It is as ridiculous and evil as people in the middle east doing that to people.

Again, one does not need to have a penis in order to rape someone. Foreign objects are commonly used to inflict damage. Because the damage is the point.

So the penis is not relevant to the context of the controlled space. The thing that drives people to attack people

One does not need to have significant testosterone in order to rape. Women commit rape as well as men.

True, however some drunk people make it home without hitting people and some sober people hit people in cars. We restrict alcohol limits during driving anyway.

No one in this thread is asking or expecting anyone to have any kind of surgical procedure.

I am. I am asking those who wish to go to a "women's prison" to either give up on such aspirations or give up on their testicles.

I don't expect them to make either decision in particular, but I do expect them to make a decision.

Emily expects them to also cut off their penises. This is unreasonable.

Women just want to be left alone in women’s only spaces, without having to deal with being traumatized, retraumatized or merely frightened by a person who appears male in a shower or in a space for women and children who have experienced domestic abuse or rape.

And white racists want to be left alone in their white towns without having to be traumatized, retraumatized, or merely being frightened by black people in a space they feel is for white people who have experienced media abuse.

You can either acknowledge that there is an arbitrary line drawn to exclude trans people and eunuchs from certain for reasons that cannot and have not been justified, or you can continue to defend a bigoted red herring designed the same way as Voter ID laws, to attack a population obliquely.

 

[Toni]

No one wants anyone to live in the self described hell Jahryn shared. Except that Jahryn wants and expects women to tolerate the risk that he refuses to tolerate. Because he says it's ok.

No. I don't.

Never once have I said that any person should be forced to tolerate that, or risk it.

I neither want nor expect any person who, like me, does not want to have to deal with it.

The one thing that makes me utterly stricken of anything that would drive me to act on behalf of some individual is if they would judge me as that for the fact that I have, and will continue to have, a penis.

I would just say if someone wishes to prove they don't want to and deserve be able to not be around "men" that they don't drag one along to the party inside their head.

My confidence in it's absence scales proportionately to their measure of commitment to that.

I'll accept in a social setting a woman who has an in her head, or a eunuch that has a man in their head, because to say more is to enforce a fascist state against men.

I'll accept in a bathroom a woman or eunuch that has a man in their head that has been chemically silenced, and who does not have the ability to ejaculate sperms.

I'll accept in a controlled shower room a woman or eunuch who has entirely removed the need to chemically silence said man in their head, does not produce sperms, and become themselves a eunuch or woman without testicles.

I'll accept in uncontrolled showering the expectation that those for whom visual inspection does not promptly indicate at least some anatomical common comorbidity of being hormonal modification, that such folks both have and use a space which is maintained for single user occupancy.

As I have said, I hate men, for all there are some men I also love even if I can't understand why they want to be men, even if I do not feel such with relation to women.

I expect that they will be more responsible for it, for all they understand how and why and where and what those thoughts are, and they know the borders of the "man" part of them, as it has a differentness to their previous experience and they have the context of observing it on both sides.

I have this understanding not because I have said so, but because unlike you, I'm a defector. As a defector, I have the unenviable job of figuring out what I must do to defect, how I may defect, and what my rights as a defector can possibly be. I have, and must have, an understanding of what I am defecting from, exactly.

I have to figure out what I can justify keeping, and what I cannot justify keeping, and what the things I wish to keep imply about where I can justify being, in terms of understanding what rights I have.
I have philosophical reason to make some demands, and state facts, especially as an authority on the place I came from.

What I'm asking is empathy to figure out what you can sacrifice for the person born in that hell as their dues for being allowed to cross the border without being shot.

Obviously just saying it isn't enough, but something must be. Asking for someone to cut off their erogenous parts is too much for the simple right to go to school, or be afforded a space in prison, or to play on a sports team.

It is as ridiculous and evil as people in the middle east doing that to people.

Again, one does not need to have a penis in order to rape someone. Foreign objects are commonly used to inflict damage. Because the damage is the point.

So the penis is not relevant to the context of the controlled space. The thing that drives people to attack people

One does not need to have significant testosterone in order to rape. Women commit rape as well as men.

True, however some drunk people make it home without hitting people and some sober people hit people in cars. We restrict alcohol limits during driving anyway.

No one in this thread is asking or expecting anyone to have any kind of surgical procedure.

I am. I am asking those who wish to go to a "women's prison" to either give up on such aspirations or give up on their testicles.

I don't expect them to make either decision in particular, but I do expect them to make a decision.

Emily expects them to also cut off their penises. This is unreasonable.

Women just want to be left alone in women’s only spaces, without having to deal with being traumatized, retraumatized or merely frightened by a person who appears male in a shower or in a space for women and children who have experienced domestic abuse or rape.

And white racists want to be left alone in their white towns without having to be traumatized, retraumatized, or merely being frightened by black people in a space they feel is for white people who have experienced media abuse.

You can either acknowledge that there is an arbitrary line drawn to exclude trans people and eunuchs from certain for reasons that cannot and have not been justified, or you can continue to defend a bigoted red herring designed the same way as Voter ID laws, to attack a population obliquely.

Your attempts to conflate women's needs and desires for security and safety within women's only spaces with racism is nothing but gaslighting. It is disgusting and unacceptable.

 

[Jarhyn]

No one wants anyone to live in the self described hell Jahryn shared. Except that Jahryn wants and expects women to tolerate the risk that he refuses to tolerate. Because he says it's ok.

No. I don't.

Never once have I said that any person should be forced to tolerate that, or risk it.

I neither want nor expect any person who, like me, does not want to have to deal with it.

The one thing that makes me utterly stricken of anything that would drive me to act on behalf of some individual is if they would judge me as that for the fact that I have, and will continue to have, a penis.

I would just say if someone wishes to prove they don't want to and deserve be able to not be around "men" that they don't drag one along to the party inside their head.

My confidence in it's absence scales proportionately to their measure of commitment to that.

I'll accept in a social setting a woman who has an in her head, or a eunuch that has a man in their head, because to say more is to enforce a fascist state against men.

I'll accept in a bathroom a woman or eunuch that has a man in their head that has been chemically silenced, and who does not have the ability to ejaculate sperms.

I'll accept in a controlled shower room a woman or eunuch who has entirely removed the need to chemically silence said man in their head, does not produce sperms, and become themselves a eunuch or woman without testicles.

I'll accept in uncontrolled showering the expectation that those for whom visual inspection does not promptly indicate at least some anatomical common comorbidity of being hormonal modification, that such folks both have and use a space which is maintained for single user occupancy.

As I have said, I hate men, for all there are some men I also love even if I can't understand why they want to be men, even if I do not feel such with relation to women.

I expect that they will be more responsible for it, for all they understand how and why and where and what those thoughts are, and they know the borders of the "man" part of them, as it has a differentness to their previous experience and they have the context of observing it on both sides.

I have this understanding not because I have said so, but because unlike you, I'm a defector. As a defector, I have the unenviable job of figuring out what I must do to defect, how I may defect, and what my rights as a defector can possibly be. I have, and must have, an understanding of what I am defecting from, exactly.

I have to figure out what I can justify keeping, and what I cannot justify keeping, and what the things I wish to keep imply about where I can justify being, in terms of understanding what rights I have.
I have philosophical reason to make some demands, and state facts, especially as an authority on the place I came from.

What I'm asking is empathy to figure out what you can sacrifice for the person born in that hell as their dues for being allowed to cross the border without being shot.

Obviously just saying it isn't enough, but something must be. Asking for someone to cut off their erogenous parts is too much for the simple right to go to school, or be afforded a space in prison, or to play on a sports team.

It is as ridiculous and evil as people in the middle east doing that to people.

Again, one does not need to have a penis in order to rape someone. Foreign objects are commonly used to inflict damage. Because the damage is the point.

So the penis is not relevant to the context of the controlled space. The thing that drives people to attack people

One does not need to have significant testosterone in order to rape. Women commit rape as well as men.

True, however some drunk people make it home without hitting people and some sober people hit people in cars. We restrict alcohol limits during driving anyway.

No one in this thread is asking or expecting anyone to have any kind of surgical procedure.

I am. I am asking those who wish to go to a "women's prison" to either give up on such aspirations or give up on their testicles.

I don't expect them to make either decision in particular, but I do expect them to make a decision.

Emily expects them to also cut off their penises. This is unreasonable.

Women just want to be left alone in women’s only spaces, without having to deal with being traumatized, retraumatized or merely frightened by a person who appears male in a shower or in a space for women and children who have experienced domestic abuse or rape.

And white racists want to be left alone in their white towns without having to be traumatized, retraumatized, or merely being frightened by black people in a space they feel is for white people who have experienced media abuse.

You can either acknowledge that there is an arbitrary line drawn to exclude trans people and eunuchs from certain for reasons that cannot and have not been justified, or you can continue to defend a bigoted red herring designed the same way as Voter ID laws, to attack a population obliquely.

Your attempts to conflate women's needs and desires for security and safety within women's only spaces with racism is nothing but gaslighting. It is disgusting and unacceptable.

It is the desire to trade a valid metric of decisionmaking with an invalid metric of prejudice, even when the valid metric of decisionmaking may be known.

Prejudice is the principle which makes racism wrong.

Prejudice is disgusting and unacceptable.

The valid mechanism of separation is specifically the decision to have the effect of testosterone upon one's active and ongoing thoughts.

 

[Toni]

No one wants anyone to live in the self described hell Jahryn shared. Except that Jahryn wants and expects women to tolerate the risk that he refuses to tolerate. Because he says it's ok.

No. I don't.

Never once have I said that any person should be forced to tolerate that, or risk it.

I neither want nor expect any person who, like me, does not want to have to deal with it.

The one thing that makes me utterly stricken of anything that would drive me to act on behalf of some individual is if they would judge me as that for the fact that I have, and will continue to have, a penis.

I would just say if someone wishes to prove they don't want to and deserve be able to not be around "men" that they don't drag one along to the party inside their head.

My confidence in it's absence scales proportionately to their measure of commitment to that.

I'll accept in a social setting a woman who has an in her head, or a eunuch that has a man in their head, because to say more is to enforce a fascist state against men.

I'll accept in a bathroom a woman or eunuch that has a man in their head that has been chemically silenced, and who does not have the ability to ejaculate sperms.

I'll accept in a controlled shower room a woman or eunuch who has entirely removed the need to chemically silence said man in their head, does not produce sperms, and become themselves a eunuch or woman without testicles.

I'll accept in uncontrolled showering the expectation that those for whom visual inspection does not promptly indicate at least some anatomical common comorbidity of being hormonal modification, that such folks both have and use a space which is maintained for single user occupancy.

As I have said, I hate men, for all there are some men I also love even if I can't understand why they want to be men, even if I do not feel such with relation to women.

I expect that they will be more responsible for it, for all they understand how and why and where and what those thoughts are, and they know the borders of the "man" part of them, as it has a differentness to their previous experience and they have the context of observing it on both sides.

I have this understanding not because I have said so, but because unlike you, I'm a defector. As a defector, I have the unenviable job of figuring out what I must do to defect, how I may defect, and what my rights as a defector can possibly be. I have, and must have, an understanding of what I am defecting from, exactly.

I have to figure out what I can justify keeping, and what I cannot justify keeping, and what the things I wish to keep imply about where I can justify being, in terms of understanding what rights I have.
I have philosophical reason to make some demands, and state facts, especially as an authority on the place I came from.

What I'm asking is empathy to figure out what you can sacrifice for the person born in that hell as their dues for being allowed to cross the border without being shot.

Obviously just saying it isn't enough, but something must be. Asking for someone to cut off their erogenous parts is too much for the simple right to go to school, or be afforded a space in prison, or to play on a sports team.

It is as ridiculous and evil as people in the middle east doing that to people.

Again, one does not need to have a penis in order to rape someone. Foreign objects are commonly used to inflict damage. Because the damage is the point.

So the penis is not relevant to the context of the controlled space. The thing that drives people to attack people

One does not need to have significant testosterone in order to rape. Women commit rape as well as men.

True, however some drunk people make it home without hitting people and some sober people hit people in cars. We restrict alcohol limits during driving anyway.

No one in this thread is asking or expecting anyone to have any kind of surgical procedure.

I am. I am asking those who wish to go to a "women's prison" to either give up on such aspirations or give up on their testicles.

I don't expect them to make either decision in particular, but I do expect them to make a decision.

Emily expects them to also cut off their penises. This is unreasonable.

Women just want to be left alone in women’s only spaces, without having to deal with being traumatized, retraumatized or merely frightened by a person who appears male in a shower or in a space for women and children who have experienced domestic abuse or rape.

And white racists want to be left alone in their white towns without having to be traumatized, retraumatized, or merely being frightened by black people in a space they feel is for white people who have experienced media abuse.

You can either acknowledge that there is an arbitrary line drawn to exclude trans people and eunuchs from certain for reasons that cannot and have not been justified, or you can continue to defend a bigoted red herring designed the same way as Voter ID laws, to attack a population obliquely.

Your attempts to conflate women's needs and desires for security and safety within women's only spaces with racism is nothing but gaslighting. It is disgusting and unacceptable.

It is the desire to trade a valid metric of decisionmaking with an invalid metric of prejudice, even when the valid metric of decisionmaking may be known.

Prejudice is the principle which makes racism wrong.

Prejudice is disgusting and unacceptable.

The valid mechanism of separation is specifically the decision to have the effect of testosterone upon one's active and ongoing thoughts.

For everyone except you, this ain't about you.

You're still gaslighting.

 

[Bomb#20]

An individual person didn't evolve

Every individual person is a single iteration in the process of evolution. Every individual person is the evolution from their parents in terms of genetics, the evolution of their educators in terms of communicable memetics, and in each moment is the evolution of connectivities and networks even in their own brain.

You're conflating different meanings of "evolution". The meaning relevant to Emily's claims is the change in populations' gene pools and shared characteristics over many generations.

The point is, most animals have sperm-oriented anatomy or egg-oriented anatomy but not both because that's adaptive. The rare animals that have both do not have both because having both is adaptive but because they're chimeras, two zygotes fused into one fetus. Animals that are chimeras are not chimeras because having a few chimeras in the population is adaptive but because like all machinery, the embryological machinery that typically prevents chimeras from forming is not 100% reliable. That is what it means to say animals evolved to have one or the other anatomy type but not both. No goal is involved, just cause and effect.

Darwinistic Evolution did not, does not, will not, and never has "created" ethics.

Ethics is complicated and adaptive. Everything complicated and adaptive was created by Darwinistic evolution.

Wallace and Darwin co-invented the theory of natural selection; but they disagreed about one significant point: whether the human body only evolved from animals, or also the mind. Wallace wasn't able to go that far. He still believed God implanted intelligence by special creation. You're playing Wallace with ethics. That's a species of creationism.

Ethics is a product of the function of survival, whether or not things reproduce and is not created but rather emerges anywhere where it makes sense for the survival of things, regardless of how or why they reproduce.

Then show us bacteria with ethics, or show us why ethics would not help bacteria survive.

It provided, at best, one viable platform for it to be exposed, but it did not create it.

So from my perspective you are either wrong or not-even-wrong. ... you are not-even-wrong.

"Not-even-wrong" is a phrase that here means "not accepting Jarhyn's metaphysical claims on faith".

I was just trying to give you the benefit of "just wrong".

No you weren't.

Social darwinism is not ethics, not for anything more capable of communication than inflected grunts.
... you are fairly well lost.
If you are about violating people's consent, you belong in jail.
You are at this point wholesale endorsing the very core of what people call "evil".
It's nice that you took the mask off so we can all see it...

That is not what "give you the benefit" looks like. You were ad homineming the bejesus out of me. People don't character assassinate to benefit the other person. They do it to hurt him.

Literally the very basis of our perception that evil exists in the universe is that things happen to us which we object to, which we do not consent to.

That's the very most primative concept that evil originates as a consideration of.

That is a fanciful origin myth on a level with "Social Contract" theory. The notion that consent is fundamental to ethics is a recent development, dating to the last few hundred years; ethics is ancient. Not Sumerian ancient, Paleocene ancient. The most primitive concept of evil is "That monkey isn't doing his duty. Hiss!!!" Nobody asks whether breaking some monkey rule was something the monkey did to us or imposing the monkey rule was something we did to him; and nobody asks the monkey whether he consents to the rule before beating him up for breaking it. Consent is an early modern era post hoc rationalization.

You are like DBT asking me to justify my definition of "will" or "freedom". I'm pointing at a real phenomena and seeing what may be built from that real thing as corrolary. That you do not like where it may take you is your own issue.

Oh for the love of god. That is a completely backward way to find out about reality. Now you're playing Thor Heyerdahl -- taking a real balsa raft, seeing what may be built from that real thing as a corollary, and concluding that Polynesia was settled from the Americas because a balsa raft could do that, while ignoring the mountain of archeological evidence that it was in fact settled from Asia. Ethics is a real phenomenon of real monkeys and if you want to understand its most primitive concepts you need to set aside your metaphysics and learn some primatology.

But what I can say is that if you wholesale disregard that there is a concept of evil that derives from some failure to operate within the consent of others, then that absolutely makes you someone who ought sit outside the fire.

Ah, more proof-by-blasphemy-accusation. What is it with people who think moral senses are better equipped to judge philosophical abstractions than concrete situations? Tell me again how evil I am after you've been wrongfully accused of murder and you've chosen to go to prison for life because you wouldn't subpoena a witness because he wouldn't consent to testify, who happened to be the only person who saw you ten miles away when the crime was being committed.

 

[Jarhyn]

No one wants anyone to live in the self described hell Jahryn shared. Except that Jahryn wants and expects women to tolerate the risk that he refuses to tolerate. Because he says it's ok.

No. I don't.

Never once have I said that any person should be forced to tolerate that, or risk it.

I neither want nor expect any person who, like me, does not want to have to deal with it.

The one thing that makes me utterly stricken of anything that would drive me to act on behalf of some individual is if they would judge me as that for the fact that I have, and will continue to have, a penis.

I would just say if someone wishes to prove they don't want to and deserve be able to not be around "men" that they don't drag one along to the party inside their head.

My confidence in it's absence scales proportionately to their measure of commitment to that.

I'll accept in a social setting a woman who has an in her head, or a eunuch that has a man in their head, because to say more is to enforce a fascist state against men.

I'll accept in a bathroom a woman or eunuch that has a man in their head that has been chemically silenced, and who does not have the ability to ejaculate sperms.

I'll accept in a controlled shower room a woman or eunuch who has entirely removed the need to chemically silence said man in their head, does not produce sperms, and become themselves a eunuch or woman without testicles.

I'll accept in uncontrolled showering the expectation that those for whom visual inspection does not promptly indicate at least some anatomical common comorbidity of being hormonal modification, that such folks both have and use a space which is maintained for single user occupancy.

As I have said, I hate men, for all there are some men I also love even if I can't understand why they want to be men, even if I do not feel such with relation to women.

I expect that they will be more responsible for it, for all they understand how and why and where and what those thoughts are, and they know the borders of the "man" part of them, as it has a differentness to their previous experience and they have the context of observing it on both sides.

I have this understanding not because I have said so, but because unlike you, I'm a defector. As a defector, I have the unenviable job of figuring out what I must do to defect, how I may defect, and what my rights as a defector can possibly be. I have, and must have, an understanding of what I am defecting from, exactly.

I have to figure out what I can justify keeping, and what I cannot justify keeping, and what the things I wish to keep imply about where I can justify being, in terms of understanding what rights I have.
I have philosophical reason to make some demands, and state facts, especially as an authority on the place I came from.

What I'm asking is empathy to figure out what you can sacrifice for the person born in that hell as their dues for being allowed to cross the border without being shot.

Obviously just saying it isn't enough, but something must be. Asking for someone to cut off their erogenous parts is too much for the simple right to go to school, or be afforded a space in prison, or to play on a sports team.

It is as ridiculous and evil as people in the middle east doing that to people.

Again, one does not need to have a penis in order to rape someone. Foreign objects are commonly used to inflict damage. Because the damage is the point.

So the penis is not relevant to the context of the controlled space. The thing that drives people to attack people

One does not need to have significant testosterone in order to rape. Women commit rape as well as men.

True, however some drunk people make it home without hitting people and some sober people hit people in cars. We restrict alcohol limits during driving anyway.

No one in this thread is asking or expecting anyone to have any kind of surgical procedure.

I am. I am asking those who wish to go to a "women's prison" to either give up on such aspirations or give up on their testicles.

I don't expect them to make either decision in particular, but I do expect them to make a decision.

Emily expects them to also cut off their penises. This is unreasonable.

Women just want to be left alone in women’s only spaces, without having to deal with being traumatized, retraumatized or merely frightened by a person who appears male in a shower or in a space for women and children who have experienced domestic abuse or rape.

And white racists want to be left alone in their white towns without having to be traumatized, retraumatized, or merely being frightened by black people in a space they feel is for white people who have experienced media abuse.

You can either acknowledge that there is an arbitrary line drawn to exclude trans people and eunuchs from certain for reasons that cannot and have not been justified, or you can continue to defend a bigoted red herring designed the same way as Voter ID laws, to attack a population obliquely.

Your attempts to conflate women's needs and desires for security and safety within women's only spaces with racism is nothing but gaslighting. It is disgusting and unacceptable.

It is the desire to trade a valid metric of decisionmaking with an invalid metric of prejudice, even when the valid metric of decisionmaking may be known.

Prejudice is the principle which makes racism wrong.

Prejudice is disgusting and unacceptable.

The valid mechanism of separation is specifically the decision to have the effect of testosterone upon one's active and ongoing thoughts.

For everyone except you, this ain't about you.

You're still gaslighting.

When it's about me, and people stepping on my rights when I offer that they have judged me for asking refuge for people like me, not even for me.

I have offered a specific model, and you have refused in any substantive way to evaluate it.

(P1) It is wrong to judge people on some broad aspect of their appearance, no matter that appearance, when that the appearance is not specific to an action.

(P2) If the appearance obscures some normal appearance of action, then validation MUST be available and satisfied before asking for trust beyond the threshold of validation.

Specifically, the dimension of penis is like the dimension of blackness: It scares people because something evil was done to them, whether a bias of reporting, or a bias from experiences in a world that has always been rather fucked up, but is itself in no way causal to behavior in any way.

The dimension of balls is specifically alike to the dimension of drunkenness, or perhaps having an alcohol pump hanging from their hip. The effects are different, but significant to the context discussed in the same way people distrust drunk drivers, even ones "who can handle their liquor".

The difference, as Emily has noted and I acknowledge, is that the penis obscures the balls (or, just being really fat also obscures the balls). The solution offered was not trust, but verify: everywhere there is a place where access is controlled, let people do the testing necessary to prove this contract has been signed in flesh and blood where available, and by chemical means alone where there is no other option, or occasionally both.

Everywhere else, specifically where there is no validation available through access control, a third option must be extended. This option would specifically be an actual private option, and is something needed by all manners of folks anyway: people with disabilities; people who have a responsibility to validate their actions and cannot prior to shared nakedness; people with differences requiring it; people who are simply paranoid.

 

[Bomb#20]

Again, one does not need to have a penis in order to rape someone. Foreign objects are commonly used to inflict damage. Because the damage is the point.

So the penis is not relevant to the context of the controlled space. The thing that drives people to attack people

Ah, that would be being a scumbag plus having been under the influence of high levels of testosterone at critical formative periods in utero and childhood. As repeatedly noted upthread, men cut off from their testosterone supply retain male patterns of criminality. Testosterone inhibitors, puberty blockers and castration are closing the barn door after the horse bolted.

No one in this thread is asking or expecting anyone to have any kind of surgical procedure.

I am. I am asking those who wish to go to a "women's prison" to either give up on such aspirations or give up on their testicles.

I don't expect them to make either decision in particular, but I do expect them to make a decision.

Emily expects them to also cut off their penises. This is unreasonable.

Emily expects nothing of the sort. Emily, like you, leaves that decision to them. But she does expect reasonable authorities to respond to their decision not to cut off their penises with "The men's room is right there."

You can either acknowledge that there is an arbitrary line drawn to exclude trans people and eunuchs from certain for reasons that cannot and have not been justified, or you can continue to defend a bigoted red herring designed the same way as Voter ID laws, to attack a population obliquely.

Or, third option, Toni can call you on your False Dilemma fallacy. The notion that the conventional common-usage distinction between "men" and "women" was designed to attack trans people obliquely is a ludicrous paranoid persecution fantasy. It wasn't "designed" at all; and when it was evolving, thousands of years ago, trans people were the last thing on the minds of most of the folks whose subconscious linguistic explorations formed the substrate for that evolution.

 

[Toni]

No one wants anyone to live in the self described hell Jahryn shared. Except that Jahryn wants and expects women to tolerate the risk that he refuses to tolerate. Because he says it's ok.

No. I don't.

Never once have I said that any person should be forced to tolerate that, or risk it.

I neither want nor expect any person who, like me, does not want to have to deal with it.

The one thing that makes me utterly stricken of anything that would drive me to act on behalf of some individual is if they would judge me as that for the fact that I have, and will continue to have, a penis.

I would just say if someone wishes to prove they don't want to and deserve be able to not be around "men" that they don't drag one along to the party inside their head.

My confidence in it's absence scales proportionately to their measure of commitment to that.

I'll accept in a social setting a woman who has an in her head, or a eunuch that has a man in their head, because to say more is to enforce a fascist state against men.

I'll accept in a bathroom a woman or eunuch that has a man in their head that has been chemically silenced, and who does not have the ability to ejaculate sperms.

I'll accept in a controlled shower room a woman or eunuch who has entirely removed the need to chemically silence said man in their head, does not produce sperms, and become themselves a eunuch or woman without testicles.

I'll accept in uncontrolled showering the expectation that those for whom visual inspection does not promptly indicate at least some anatomical common comorbidity of being hormonal modification, that such folks both have and use a space which is maintained for single user occupancy.

As I have said, I hate men, for all there are some men I also love even if I can't understand why they want to be men, even if I do not feel such with relation to women.

I expect that they will be more responsible for it, for all they understand how and why and where and what those thoughts are, and they know the borders of the "man" part of them, as it has a differentness to their previous experience and they have the context of observing it on both sides.

I have this understanding not because I have said so, but because unlike you, I'm a defector. As a defector, I have the unenviable job of figuring out what I must do to defect, how I may defect, and what my rights as a defector can possibly be. I have, and must have, an understanding of what I am defecting from, exactly.

I have to figure out what I can justify keeping, and what I cannot justify keeping, and what the things I wish to keep imply about where I can justify being, in terms of understanding what rights I have.
I have philosophical reason to make some demands, and state facts, especially as an authority on the place I came from.

What I'm asking is empathy to figure out what you can sacrifice for the person born in that hell as their dues for being allowed to cross the border without being shot.

Obviously just saying it isn't enough, but something must be. Asking for someone to cut off their erogenous parts is too much for the simple right to go to school, or be afforded a space in prison, or to play on a sports team.

It is as ridiculous and evil as people in the middle east doing that to people.

Again, one does not need to have a penis in order to rape someone. Foreign objects are commonly used to inflict damage. Because the damage is the point.

So the penis is not relevant to the context of the controlled space. The thing that drives people to attack people

One does not need to have significant testosterone in order to rape. Women commit rape as well as men.

True, however some drunk people make it home without hitting people and some sober people hit people in cars. We restrict alcohol limits during driving anyway.

No one in this thread is asking or expecting anyone to have any kind of surgical procedure.

I am. I am asking those who wish to go to a "women's prison" to either give up on such aspirations or give up on their testicles.

I don't expect them to make either decision in particular, but I do expect them to make a decision.

Emily expects them to also cut off their penises. This is unreasonable.

Women just want to be left alone in women’s only spaces, without having to deal with being traumatized, retraumatized or merely frightened by a person who appears male in a shower or in a space for women and children who have experienced domestic abuse or rape.

And white racists want to be left alone in their white towns without having to be traumatized, retraumatized, or merely being frightened by black people in a space they feel is for white people who have experienced media abuse.

You can either acknowledge that there is an arbitrary line drawn to exclude trans people and eunuchs from certain for reasons that cannot and have not been justified, or you can continue to defend a bigoted red herring designed the same way as Voter ID laws, to attack a population obliquely.

Your attempts to conflate women's needs and desires for security and safety within women's only spaces with racism is nothing but gaslighting. It is disgusting and unacceptable.

It is the desire to trade a valid metric of decisionmaking with an invalid metric of prejudice, even when the valid metric of decisionmaking may be known.

Prejudice is the principle which makes racism wrong.

Prejudice is disgusting and unacceptable.

The valid mechanism of separation is specifically the decision to have the effect of testosterone upon one's active and ongoing thoughts.

For everyone except you, this ain't about you.

You're still gaslighting.

When it's about me, and people stepping on my rights when I offer that they have judged me for asking refuge for people like me, not even for me.

I have offered a specific model, and you have refused in any substantive way to evaluate it.

(P1) It is wrong to judge people on some broad aspect of their appearance, no matter that appearance, when that the appearance is not specific to an action.

(P2) If the appearance obscures some normal appearance of action, then validation MUST be available and satisfied before asking for trust beyond the threshold of validation.

Specifically, the dimension of penis is like the dimension of blackness: It scares people because something evil was done to them, whether a bias of reporting, or a bias from experiences in a world that has always been rather fucked up, but is itself in no way causal to behavior in any way.

The dimension of balls is specifically alike to the dimension of drunkenness, or perhaps having an alcohol pump hanging from their hip. The effects are different, but significant to the context discussed in the same way people distrust drunk drivers, even ones "who can handle their liquor".

The difference, as Emily has noted and I acknowledge, is that the penis obscures the balls (or, just being really fat also obscures the balls). The solution offered was not trust, but verify: everywhere there is a place where access is controlled, let people do the testing necessary to prove this contract has been signed in flesh and blood where available, and by chemical means alone where there is no other option, or occasionally both.

Everywhere else, specifically where there is no validation available through access control, a third option must be extended. This option would specifically be an actual private option, and is something needed by all manners of folks anyway: people with disabilities; people who have a responsibility to validate their actions and cannot prior to shared nakedness; people with differences requiring it; people who are simply paranoid.

I pointed out that the penis usually obscures the balls. More than that, people acting on instinctual fight/flight don’t closely examine someone else’s genitals. To do so in any circumstances would get you in trouble in a woman’s locker room unless you were a medical person rendering aid and the genitals were pertinent.

You want women to set aside many thousands of years of social conditioning and instinct and reflexes that accompany significant PTSD from trauma they have suffered and just ignore all of that—on someone else’s say so. Just assume they’re ok. Harmless.

No.