And now the totally expected Trans Bathroom laws result

[Emily Lake]

I think you are reading way too deep into this. Statements regarding how the woman should have reacted to seeing Noah being misplaced aside, the reaction the woman had has been brought up for a couple reasons, including legitimate ones. Had the three guys heard a scream or alarm, that presents a presumption for them and they enter into the situation with an initial bias that there is trouble. This isn't the woman's fault, it is just an observational fact. The immediate decisions they choose to make will be influenced by this initial bias.

The reason the three men act as they do is unclear and we'll never know. The violence itself would be unwarranted in any case, shy of Noah assaulting the woman, but seeing there are no charges as such, that almost definitely did not happen. Jarhyn's reflection on her reaction was about it being the cause of violence, but instead regarding respect to Noah. That doesn't make it fair or correct, but I didn't seeing Jarhyn blaming the woman's reaction for the violence. Of course, there have been lots of posts, so it is possible I missed it.

Of course it's entirely possible I'm reading too much into it.

Alternatively... it could also be that 200-some posts into this thread and almost the entire discussion is focused around the woman in the bathroom who (at least initially) objected to a male-appearing person being in there with her.

That's where I'm coming from. The focus is completely on the woman in the bathroom, even to the extent of calling her a sex-based slur.

I really do appreciate your participation in this. And I know I'm prickly. But this is what I'm talking about:

Statements regarding how the woman should have reacted to seeing Noah being misplaced aside, the reaction the woman had has been brought up for a couple reasons, including legitimate ones. Had the three guys heard a scream or alarm, that presents a presumption for them and they enter into the situation with an initial bias that there is trouble.

I get what you're saying, I do. But this is still framing the actions of the men as being the responsibility of the woman. It's all framed so that she is the cause of those three men attacking Ruiz - even if you don't place blame on her, you're still framing the discussion around the assumption that it is her reaction inside the bathroom that caused them to attack Ruiz.

It's still being presented as her responsibility.

 

[Emily Lake]

It is certainly conceivable that the woman initially addressed Ruiz politely, and Ruiz's response might have been less than courteous, leading to the unfortunate escalation into violence.

The women did not engage in any violence, nor is there any indication that she approved of the violence that was committed by three men who were NOT in the bathroom in the first place!

Don't blame women for the violence perpetrated by men.

Please read my post again as well as consider the context that it is written under. No where in that comment or on this thread have I blamed the woman for the beat- em-up boys.

Maybe you could explain it like I'm foreign, you know, using a whole lot of little words so I can follow. Because even after rereading it... I don't see how Ruiz being "less than courteous" to the woman in the restroom causes an escalation of three other men into violence.

Maybe you're very subtly insinuating that Ruiz physically attacked the woman, and that the three men outside the restroom could actually see Ruiz attacking her? That's about the only situation in which I can see Ruiz's interaction with a woman inside the women's restroom "escalating" to violence perpetrated by three men outside the women's restroom.

 

[Toni]

I think you are reading way too deep into this. Statements regarding how the woman should have reacted to seeing Noah being misplaced aside, the reaction the woman had has been brought up for a couple reasons, including legitimate ones. Had the three guys heard a scream or alarm, that presents a presumption for them and they enter into the situation with an initial bias that there is trouble. This isn't the woman's fault, it is just an observational fact. The immediate decisions they choose to make will be influenced by this initial bias.

The reason the three men act as they do is unclear and we'll never know. The violence itself would be unwarranted in any case, shy of Noah assaulting the woman, but seeing there are no charges as such, that almost definitely did not happen. Jarhyn's reflection on her reaction was about it being the cause of violence, but instead regarding respect to Noah. That doesn't make it fair or correct, but I didn't seeing Jarhyn blaming the woman's reaction for the violence. Of course, there have been lots of posts, so it is possible I missed it.

Of course it's entirely possible I'm reading too much into it.

Alternatively... it could also be that 200-some posts into this thread and almost the entire discussion is focused around the woman in the bathroom who (at least initially) objected to a male-appearing person being in there with her.

That's where I'm coming from. The focus is completely on the woman in the bathroom, even to the extent of calling her a sex-based slur.

I really do appreciate your participation in this. And I know I'm prickly. But this is what I'm talking about:

Statements regarding how the woman should have reacted to seeing Noah being misplaced aside, the reaction the woman had has been brought up for a couple reasons, including legitimate ones. Had the three guys heard a scream or alarm, that presents a presumption for them and they enter into the situation with an initial bias that there is trouble.

I get what you're saying, I do. But this is still framing the actions of the men as being the responsibility of the woman. It's all framed so that she is the cause of those three men attacking Ruiz - even if you don't place blame on her, you're still framing the discussion around the assumption that it is her reaction inside the bathroom that caused them to attack Ruiz.

It's still being presented as her responsibility.

^^This^^exactly.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Obviously Ruiz was not a threat and was doing his best under the circumstances. I don’t doubt that the woman in question was also doing her best. You just don’t like it. You don’t like it when women do not instantly and without question confirm to whatever a man says they should accept and do. In this case, you are willing to call a woman a nasty name that indicates nothing but contempt… for being alarmed at a man in a woman’s bathroom.

You are the one being unreasonable here.

I am truly sorry that Ruiz was attacked. That should not have happened. And it was not the woman’s fault that it did happen. That blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the three men who attacked Ruiz. They probably thought they were doing a good thing but obviously, this was a horrible choice they made.

I blame her because she must have kicked up enough of a fuss for the three guys to come to her defense.

This is akin to the case a few years back where the cop shot a woman who startled him--and it was ruled manslaughter.

 

[Gun Nut]

This was the inevitable result of use-your-own-gender bathroom laws. And just because she had been conditioned to react that way doesn't make it the right reaction.

It was inevitable because there are enough jackasses in the world who think they can use violence against others when no violence is necessary.

The men who jumped the trans man should not have resorted to violence but how were they to know that this was not a would be rapist? They would have been hailed as heroes of the trans man had turned out to be a pedophile looking fir kiddie victims.

I agree that there being three of them, they could have likely avoided violence. There were a lot of high emotions involved, fir all individuals: The woman who thought her privacy was being invaded, the trans man caught in a humiliating no sun situation and men who thought they were being heroes, coming to the rescue of a woman in distress.

Because face it: for the most part if a man is caught inside a woman’s bathroom, he’s assumed to be up to no good.

Mr Ruiz was not committing any violent act when they attacked him, so peaceful intervention would have been the non- jackass response.

Oh, I agree. But they were reacting to a woman screaming in fear. They *thought* they were being heroes.

Thankfully, "intent" plays only in sentencing, not in the determination of guilt and liability.... otherwise "maybe" I just "thought" all the money in that bank I rob was actually mine.... "honest mistake" - no foul. Its not robbery unless I admit that my intent was explicitly to break the law, right?

 

[Emily Lake]

The woman who was concerned about an apparent man in the women's restroom didn't attack Ruiz. MEN did that. They did that all on their own.

Nobody really even knows that.
It's what Ruiz claims happened.

He wouldn't be the first drunk guy to cause a problem, get accosted, throw a punch, then get whooped.

Then claim to be the victim.

Maybe I'm letting too much of my checkered past show here, but yeah. I've seen that scenario many times. And since there's no evidence to go on except his version, I'm uninclined to draw any firm conclusions.
Tom

You're right - nobody knows what really actually happened.

That said, even if we take Ruiz's statements as being 100% true... it remains the case that the woman in the restroom didn't attack Ruiz. So even if we take Ruiz's account as gospel truth here, 98% of this thread is entirely misplaced.

 

[Emily Lake]

Maybe but Emily isn’t the only person who has felt that the men in this thread see the root cause of this as (cis)women.

To be fair, Jimmy is doing that a fair bit less than some of the others. But I'm pretty damned pissed off that we've got over 200 posts focused on the behavior of the woman in the bathroom, almost all of which end up putting the responsibility for Ruiz's battery on her.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am 100% sincere when I say that I think everyone deserves to be able to go to the bathroom wherever they are most comfortable and to use whichever dressing room or locker room or shower they feel most comfortable using.

Except you have said otherwise--you don't want penises to appear in such spaces. You can't have it both ways. (And while modified stalls is a possible solution down the road it's not an immediate solution. The problem exists now.)

The FACT is that many women will feel uncomfortable with male appearing individuals in women’s only spaces.

True. People used to be uncomfortable with blacks in white spaces.

The FACT is that no one seems at all interested in examining why, much less criticizing men for being so hostile towards trans and gay men in their bathrooms, locker rooms and showers. THAT is completely ignored. Apparently men cannot be criticized or expected to change their behavior, attitudes and prejudices.

Nobody's saying that that's not an issue. It's just you're saying women's issues completely trump everything else.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A posse of men savagely beating someone is not a form of "reacting in alarm" that is acceptable in a public space, no.

This is a bullshit response. You know full fucking well that Toni doesn't in any way at all support that reaction, she doesn't even turn a blind eye to it. Nobody here is turning a blind eye to it or hand-waving it away.

Your response is a misdirection, as if the only possible choices are to throw open the doors and put all female women at a serious disadvantage... or to somehow be supportive of roving gangs of beat-em-ups. It's a false choice, and it's fallacious in the extreme.

Disagree--she objects to what happened but favors rules that will ensure it happens again. Thus I don't consider the objection sincere.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And all of our countries are now having problems. We're having problems because of self-id. Because a group of (mostly male) activists decided that requiring a medical diagnosis and psychological treatment prior to be allowed to invade female spaces was just too much, and they felt that they should be able to invade females spaces because they felt like it and without the permission or even input of the females they were invading. Then we ended up with obviously male people, who were obviously not even trying to pass, showing up in our spaces - and in our daughter's spaces. We ended up with grown ass men with penises dangling walking around in front of young teen girls naked, and if those young girls were uncomfortable or concerned that a grown man was parading his penis around in the locker room... the girls are the ones who were treated as the bad guys and the entire fucking swim team was told that if they didn't like seeing dick in the FEMALE locker room, they could find a different place to shower after swim practice. We ended up with obvious dudes with obvious dicks showing their dicks off to women and children in the female side of the Korean spa... and once again, the women who complained were the ones painted as the bad guys. We ended up with the not-even-remotely passing dude with his junk out causing concern among girls at the Y, and the girls being told to suck it up, it's "her" right to show her johnson off to young girls, and the girls are the bigots if they are uncomfortable about it.

Do you have evidence that it's self-id causing the problem or is it the right wing using this as a wedge issue?

 

[Emily Lake]

Meanwhile Emily Lake's, Toni's, and AthenaAwakened's computers all just exploded and they aren't certain why.

Give me more credit I know exactly why my head exploded all over my keyboard.

Yeah—my head certainly did not explode, although apparently some men are having a nervous breakdown because women aren’t accepting blame/assigning a woman blame for shit men do.

It's a reality of perimenopause for me. My patience has been used up by 50 years of "being nice". I don't feel any obligation to tiptoe around the feelings of men anymore. I'll be considerate of the feelings of my husband and my dad, and my close friends - to the same extent I do for any woman. But I've become more and more aware of how entirely men-centered most of us are. I don't blame us, it's a survival mechanism. Women are nice and a bit obsequious because the reality is that if we're not careful of the feelings of men, one of them might take it personally and physically attack us. It's conditioned, and it's in there deep.

Men bitch about women "in general", and we're just supposed to know that they don't mean us personally, so we shouldn't take it personally or we're being unreasonable. And of course, in those cases where they're actually including us in that "generally", we're just supposed to accept it and 'fess up to how we women done them wrong. We're supposed to see it from their point of view and acknowledge our role in their trials and tribulations.

If, on the other hand, women bitch about men in general, we are obligated to specify "not all men" so that the few who haven't been problems don't get their feelings hurt. And if we do include them in our complaint - no matter how well explained and gracious we might be - we have to justify every single word of it repeatedly, because... here's the kicker... we're not seeing it from their point of view.

 

[Emily Lake]

But gender is not sex, and humans cannot change sex.

Is that a Metaphor?

ISWYDT

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Rules of Misogyny #1.

1. Women are responsible for what men do.​

The males (not all of them) in this thread, regardless of whether they consider themselves to be "men", take the position that the woman who was alarmed is entirely at fault for three MEN beating the shit out of a female who is a transman. They have hardly a word to say about the fact that three MEN did the violence, they're focused solely on the female-women who aren't comfortable with visible penises in our female-only spaces.

It's always women's fault when men engage in violence. This is just one more case.

No. It's her fault because she had to have done something to trigger the attack--there wouldn't have been three men in the women's room to intervene in the first place. (That's not to say there isn't plenty of blame for the men, also.)

 

[Emily Lake]

Obviously Ruiz was not a threat and was doing his best under the circumstances. I don’t doubt that the woman in question was also doing her best. You just don’t like it. You don’t like it when women do not instantly and without question confirm to whatever a man says they should accept and do. In this case, you are willing to call a woman a nasty name that indicates nothing but contempt… for being alarmed at a man in a woman’s bathroom.

You are the one being unreasonable here.

I am truly sorry that Ruiz was attacked. That should not have happened. And it was not the woman’s fault that it did happen. That blame falls squarely on the shoulders of the three men who attacked Ruiz. They probably thought they were doing a good thing but obviously, this was a horrible choice they made.

I blame her because she must have kicked up enough of a fuss for the three guys to come to her defense.

This is akin to the case a few years back where the cop shot a woman who startled him--and it was ruled manslaughter.

Like I said... Rule #1.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think you are reading way too deep into this. Statements regarding how the woman should have reacted to seeing Noah being misplaced aside, the reaction the woman had has been brought up for a couple reasons, including legitimate ones. Had the three guys heard a scream or alarm, that presents a presumption for them and they enter into the situation with an initial bias that there is trouble. This isn't the woman's fault, it is just an observational fact. The immediate decisions they choose to make will be influenced by this initial bias.

Assuming that to be the case, by the time they arrived she should have understood the situation. Simply a scream doesn't indicate what the threat is, she would have had to have said something.

 

[Emily Lake]

Nobody's saying that that's not an issue. It's just you're saying women's issues completely trump everything else.

50% of the population ought to count for something. FFS, the rights and dignity of half the goddamned population of the planet should at LEAST get consideration in this discussion.

But nope. We've got men to tell us what women ought to think, what risks and dangers women ought to accept, and what boundaries women are allowed to have.

 

[Emily Lake]

And all of our countries are now having problems. We're having problems because of self-id. Because a group of (mostly male) activists decided that requiring a medical diagnosis and psychological treatment prior to be allowed to invade female spaces was just too much, and they felt that they should be able to invade females spaces because they felt like it and without the permission or even input of the females they were invading. Then we ended up with obviously male people, who were obviously not even trying to pass, showing up in our spaces - and in our daughter's spaces. We ended up with grown ass men with penises dangling walking around in front of young teen girls naked, and if those young girls were uncomfortable or concerned that a grown man was parading his penis around in the locker room... the girls are the ones who were treated as the bad guys and the entire fucking swim team was told that if they didn't like seeing dick in the FEMALE locker room, they could find a different place to shower after swim practice. We ended up with obvious dudes with obvious dicks showing their dicks off to women and children in the female side of the Korean spa... and once again, the women who complained were the ones painted as the bad guys. We ended up with the not-even-remotely passing dude with his junk out causing concern among girls at the Y, and the girls being told to suck it up, it's "her" right to show her johnson off to young girls, and the girls are the bigots if they are uncomfortable about it.

Do you have evidence that it's self-id causing the problem or is it the right wing using this as a wedge issue?

The liberal women who have been trying to raise the issue for fucking 15 years and who have been directly confronted by the reality of self id are the ones saying it's the problem.

The fact that you, as a man-centered man, don't bother to listen to women, and only become aware of it when right wing MEN attach themselves to the topic doesn't make it exclusively a wedge issue. It just makes you one more man who can't be assed to listen to and consider the perspective and experiences of women.

I shouldn't be surprised. You've been consistent about this since I first joined in the way way before times... what... 2001? the first time it was IIDB. You were just as deaf to women then. I have to give you some credit though - you've become less deaf to the issues that black men face in that time. Still give no shits about women though.

 

[Emily Lake]

Rules of Misogyny #1.

1. Women are responsible for what men do.​

The males (not all of them) in this thread, regardless of whether they consider themselves to be "men", take the position that the woman who was alarmed is entirely at fault for three MEN beating the shit out of a female who is a transman. They have hardly a word to say about the fact that three MEN did the violence, they're focused solely on the female-women who aren't comfortable with visible penises in our female-only spaces.

It's always women's fault when men engage in violence. This is just one more case.

No. It's her fault because she had to have done something to trigger the attack--there wouldn't have been three men in the women's room to intervene in the first place. (That's not to say there isn't plenty of blame for the men, also.)

She's not a mushroom you know. It's not like she spread her spores into their brains then took control of their central nervous system and made them attack Ruiz... who they attacked OUTSIDE OF THE WOMEN'S RESTROOM

It's not her fault at all.

Stop blaming women for the violence of men.

 

[Emily Lake]

I think you are reading way too deep into this. Statements regarding how the woman should have reacted to seeing Noah being misplaced aside, the reaction the woman had has been brought up for a couple reasons, including legitimate ones. Had the three guys heard a scream or alarm, that presents a presumption for them and they enter into the situation with an initial bias that there is trouble. This isn't the woman's fault, it is just an observational fact. The immediate decisions they choose to make will be influenced by this initial bias.

Assuming that to be the case, by the time they arrived she should have understood the situation. Simply a scream doesn't indicate what the threat is, she would have had to have said something.

It's the woman's fault that men did the thing that men are prone to do even when women aren't involved.

It's her fault they showed up, and it's also her fault for not stopping them... somehow... because we all know how fantastic women are at stopping men who are in the midst of being violent.

 

[laughing dog]

Rules of Misogyny #1.

1. Women are responsible for what men do.​

The males (not all of them) in this thread, regardless of whether they consider themselves to be "men", take the position that the woman who was alarmed is entirely at fault for three MEN beating the shit out of a female who is a transman. They have hardly a word to say about the fact that three MEN did the violence, they're focused solely on the female-women who aren't comfortable with visible penises in our female-only spaces.

It's always women's fault when men engage in violence. This is just one more case.

No. It's her fault because she had to have done something to trigger the attack--there wouldn't have been three men in the women's room to intervene in the first place. (That's not to say there isn't plenty of blame for the men, also.)

Total nonsense. It wasn’t the presence of the 3 men that caused an issue - it was their thinking with their fists that created the ruckus and the violence. Not all men think with their fists or with their dicks.