And now the totally expected Trans Bathroom laws result

[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.

Like I said... Rule #1.

It has nothing to do with her being a woman.

Her inappropriate reaction is the first domino. By itself, nothing, but there just happened to be bigger dominoes to be knocked over.

It's like 5 years ago a woman hit me, I hit a building. The cop specifically said she was liable for the damage to the building even though her impact with me was far more gentle than my impact with the building. (She pretty much PITted me.)

 

[laughing dog]

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.

It has nothing to do with her being a woman.

Her inappropriate reaction is the first domino. By itself, nothing, but there just happened to be bigger dominoes to be knocked over.

It's like 5 years ago a woman hit me, I hit a building. The cop specifically said she was liable for the damage to the building even though her impact with me was far more gentle than my impact with the building. (She pretty much PITted me.)

I suppose if you think the ironclad laws of physics apply to human behaviour and choices, the two are just alike. Otherwise, no.

 

[TomC]

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

This is exactly the point I keep trying to make.

Nobody knows what actually happened.

Leaving out all the trans and women's security stuff,
What we've got is a bunch of unsupported claims being made by someone claiming victim status. That's it.

People keep filling in details and facts and ascribing motivations. Based almost entirely on their ideological biases.
For all anyone on IIDB knows, Ruiz could have thrown the first punch outside the bathroom. There's simply no way to tell. He got arrested for drunk and disorderly. His mom agreed that he was drunk and disorderly. I see those as more substantial information than his claim to be a victim.
Tom

 

[laughing dog]

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

This is exactly the point I keep trying to make.

Nobody knows what actually happened.

Leaving out all the trans and women's security stuff,
What we've got is a bunch of unsupported claims being made by someone claiming victim status. That's it.

People keep filling in details and facts and ascribing motivations. Based almost entirely on their ideological biases.
For all anyone on IIDB knows, Ruiz could have thrown the first punch outside the bathroom. There's simply no way to tell. He got arrested for drunk and disorderly. His mom agreed that he was drunk and disorderly. I see those as more substantial information than his claim to be a victim.
Tom

Your supposition does not justify his beating nor the implication that the beating took place because of the woman’s reaction.

 

[TomC]

Your supposition does not justify his beating nor the implication that the beating took place because of the woman’s reaction.

What supposition have you invented and ascribed to me?
Tom

 

[Toni]

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.

No, you blame her because she is female.

Women have a right to ‘kick up a fuss’ at a man in the women’s bathroom.

We do not have to order all of our waking hours, all of our actions and all of our utterances to ensure that men and boys always always always feel loved and supported and secure at the expense of our own safety and our own existence. We do not have to be careful not to express a strong emotion or cry out in pain or fear or do something that might make you have to beat up someone. Nope. You get your own emotions. You get to own your own actions. You get to own the consequences for your own behavior.

 

[Toni]

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.

In that case, I’ve been in perimenopause since about age 6 and it has not abated since.

 

[Toni]

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.

The problem exists now because people like you are unwilling to consider a very modest modification.

Because YOU personally are not concerned about women’s safety. I believe you might be concerned about potentially paying an additional dollar in taxes, though.

What you and every other man has been saying over and over is that women’s issues—including for personal safety for fuck’s sake! must take a back seat to men’s comfort and ability to be complacent about nearly everything because some woman will just smooth it all over for you and always has.

What you are really saying is that the only people who have the right to safety are cis straight white men. And fuck women for objecting to a little rape now and then.

 

[laughing dog]

Your supposition does not justify his beating nor the implication that the beating took place because of the woman’s reaction.

What supposition have you invented and ascribed to me?
Tom

I invented nothing- you posted the possibility (i.e supposition) of Ruiz throwing the first punch.

 

[Toni]

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.

It has nothing to do with her being a woman.

Her inappropriate reaction is the first domino. By itself, nothing, but there just happened to be bigger dominoes to be knocked over.

It's like 5 years ago a woman hit me, I hit a building. The cop specifically said she was liable for the damage to the building even though her impact with me was far more gentle than my impact with the building. (She pretty much PITted me.)

How was her reaction inappropriate?

Do you believe that girls and women are supposed to just accept whatever a man tells them? A man’s presence even if it seems wildly inappropriate?

Because that’s some real Larry Nasar kind of thinking there.

 

[TomC]

Your supposition does not justify his beating nor the implication that the beating took place because of the woman’s reaction.

What supposition have you invented and ascribed to me?
Tom

I invented nothing- you posted the possibility (i.e supposition) of Ruiz throwing the first punch.

Possibility and supposition aren't the same thing.

My point is, and has been, that none of us know what really happened during those few minutes. All we have to go on is the unevidenced assertions of Ruiz, who was admittedly drunk and disorderly when this happened.
Tom

 

[Toni]

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.

Fucking bullshit.

You refuse to consider an accommodation that would ease everyone’s comfort without making any counter proposal except the implied women should just shut up and take it. It being whatever a man dishes out.

 

[Toni]

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.

Really? I totally missed Loren’s tolerance of black men…

 

[Toni]

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.

It has nothing to do with her being a woman.

Her inappropriate reaction is the first domino. By itself, nothing, but there just happened to be bigger dominoes to be knocked over.

It's like 5 years ago a woman hit me, I hit a building. The cop specifically said she was liable for the damage to the building even though her impact with me was far more gentle than my impact with the building. (She pretty much PITted me.)

That’s fucking great. Now you have the police blaming a woman for what a man does.

If she assaulted you, she should have been cited.

If you caused property damage, that’s on YOU.

I admit to being more than a little curious as to why a woman hit you…

 

[ZiprHead]

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.

It has nothing to do with her being a woman.

Her inappropriate reaction is the first domino. By itself, nothing, but there just happened to be bigger dominoes to be knocked over.

It's like 5 years ago a woman hit me, I hit a building. The cop specifically said she was liable for the damage to the building even though her impact with me was far more gentle than my impact with the building. (She pretty much PITted me.)

That’s fucking great. Now you have the police blaming a woman for what a man does.

If she assaulted you, she should have been cited.

If you caused property damage, that’s on YOU.

I admit to being more than a little curious as to why a woman hit you…

I think he's refering to a car mishap.

 

[Toni]

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.

It has nothing to do with her being a woman.

Her inappropriate reaction is the first domino. By itself, nothing, but there just happened to be bigger dominoes to be knocked over.

It's like 5 years ago a woman hit me, I hit a building. The cop specifically said she was liable for the damage to the building even though her impact with me was far more gentle than my impact with the building. (She pretty much PITted me.)

That’s fucking great. Now you have the police blaming a woman for what a man does.

If she assaulted you, she should have been cited.

If you caused property damage, that’s on YOU.

I admit to being more than a little curious as to why a woman hit you…

I think he's refering to a car mishap.

Well that would make sense.

I’m not at all certain why gender needed to be part of that story. Oh, except women are bad drivers. I keep forgetting that.

 

[laughing dog]

Your supposition does not justify his beating nor the implication that the beating took place because of the woman’s reaction.

What supposition have you invented and ascribed to me?
Tom

I invented nothing- you posted the possibility (i.e supposition) of Ruiz throwing the first punch.

Possibility and supposition aren't the same thing.

My point is, and has been, that none of us know what really happened during those few minutes. All we have to go on is the unevidenced assertions of Ruiz, who was admittedly drunk and disorderly when this happened.
Tom

When you use a possibility as a rationale, it functions as the a supposition.

Your point was irrelevant to Emily’s point. It has nothing to with whether it is the woman’s blame and it does not justify Ruiz’s beating. People are basing their discussion on the report. Of course you can bring up all the possibilities you think will throw blame on them victim.

 

[TomC]

When you use a possibility as a rationale, it functions as the a supposition.

You're still making up stuff.

I keep pointing out that nobody knows what happened. People keep making up stuff to fill in the unavailable information that suits their agenda.
I'm trying not to do that.
Tom

 

[TomC]

People are basing their discussion on the report.

People are basing their opinions on what they assume must be true. Not actually factual information.

It's not that different from religious folks. They do the same thing.
Tom

 

[lostone]

It was entirely predicable that laws compelling people to use their birth sex in public bathrooms would lead to beatings such as this by vigilantes. OTOH, If people dressed like their preferred identified sexes, when travel etcetera made it prudent to do so, and used stalls, and did all they could do to be unobtrusive, this problem could have been avoided.