And now the totally expected Trans Bathroom laws result

[Gospel]

Ruiz does not blame the woman for the three men jumping him. That would be men in this thread.

Who exactly are these men you're referring to? This accusation has left me utterly perplexed. Frankly, I've been anticipating someone to attribute the violence to parties other than the actual perpetrators, but such expectation has yet to be met. This thread is riddled with speculative conjectures and discussions that veer into the realm of fantasy. It appears these hypothetical scenarios are being interpreted as personal beliefs rather than the speculative derivatives of previous comments that they truly are.

There are a lot of posters in this thread who blame the startled woman in the bathroom for the violence that happened.

Clearly I overlooked it. I find it deeply unsettling that numerous contributors in this thread are attributing blame to the woman for the violence that ensued. It is essential to remember that the onus of violent actions lies with the perpetrator.

 

[TomC]

It is essential to remember that the onus of violent actions lies with the perpetrator.

Does anyone here on IIDB know who that is?
Tom

 

[Gospel]

It is essential to remember that the onus of violent actions lies with the perpetrator.

Does anyone here on IIDB know who that is?
Tom

Based on how this conversation has progressed, there's no definitive evidence to suggest violence actually occurred, especially considering the possibility of a biased narrative. However, I anticipate this reply will likely be misinterpreted and distorted by someone, rather than being appreciated as an objective observation.

 

[thebeave]

I wouldn't say the woman is responsible for the violence against Ruiz by the beat-up boys, nor would I put any blame on her. The three men are responsible for their own violent actions. But I think it's fair to say that the woman (feeling threatened by Ruiz) is the REASON why the men did what they did. The reality is that the vast majority of men have an inate instinct to respond to and come to the aid of woman in distress. I've done it (risked my own life in fact), and probably have a lot of other men here. Protecting the tribe's women from harm (whether its unwanted men or other hazard) has been key to survival of the species. What should happen in this type of situation is that the men responding to such distress are to start by assessing the situation, giving the guy a verbal warning to stop or pulling him off, if he's already in physical contact with her. If he's combative, then I'd say all bets are off and you have a right to protect/defend yourself and disable him with physical, but not excessive, force as needed. That's sort of the way I've always thought things should go down, right?. Unless, things have changed in more modern times and random men shouldn't get involved in protecting random women from harm from (perceived to be) bad men, which sometimes results in a violent outcome. Yeah, Ruiz took a beating, but apparently recovered OK and everyone has kind of moved on. On the other hand, if the woman in the bathroom was yelling because he was in the act of trying to stab her and the men ignored her cries for help, well, we'd be having a discussion about a dead woman and how men are just a bunch of useless cowards, pussies and misogynists. Who knows. Maybe what happened was about the least harmful outcome of a no-win scenario ( a veritable Kobyashi Maru, for you Trekkies out there).

 

[Gospel]

I've adopted the practice of not discussing the deeds I've performed for others when my own safety was at stake. This is to avoid giving the impression of self-aggrandizement or suggesting any ulterior motives, as my actions are primarily driven by the conviction of doing what's right in that moment. Furthermore, there have been several instances when my actions were subsequently deemed incorrect or inappropriate. Such is the case (seemingly) with this wrong restroom incident. If the situation doesn't present an immediate physical threat, the appropriate course of action would be to contact the authorities.

 

[Bomb#20]

Have you ever considered not having a specific rule at all

That is what we have, for the most part. The problem is that a massive political engine has organized to create rules (that strongly favor their supposed religious views).

"a"?!? The problem is that two massive political engines have organized to create rules that strongly favor their respective religious views.

 

[Gospel]

While this thread may involve the use of pronouns the topic is not about pronouns.

 

[TomC]

While this thread may involve the use of pronouns the topic is not about pronouns.

Sorry.
I'm the one who started piccing this nit.
I find it annoying when people decide that their version of the language trumps everyone else's preferences.
Tom

 

[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.)

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…

Note the "PITted" part?? Traffic accident! And how else would my hitting a building cause damage to a building unless I was actually referring to the car I was driving?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Third person, gender known. The normal thing to do is use the gendered pronoun.

It had nothing to do with her being female, but rather that a low speed tap on her part lead to a far more energetic result--but the blame lies with the tap. The wrongful act that set things in motion. I specifically asked the cop because I know in some states have the third party make their claim directly to the first party and others have the third claim on second and the second claim that in their damages on the first and I did not know which way our state worked.

 

[TomC]

Except you are taking gender as binary.

Could you show me where this happened? Because I don't think it did.

@Bomb#20 distinguishes between sex and gender. Not everyone does.
Lots of IIDB posters flip flop around between sex and gender.
Possibly he did, but I don't remember it. I do remember lots of other members doing so.
Tom

 

[bilby]

And how else would my hitting a building cause damage to a building unless I was actually referring to the car I was driving?

We don't know you. Perhaps you're Superman? There's no way to tell on the Internet. Or maybe it was a very flimsy building.

 

[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.

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

Versus Loren of 2001? I think he's at least started to consider that maybe in some cases, the deck actually is stacked.

 

[Emily Lake]

Wow. I'm not interested in manufactured conversations. I pass.

That's what this whole thread is.
Tom

Not entirely. Some have made valid points (including Emily).

Edit: For example the woman was indeed not responsible for the beat-em-up boys. Why Emily believes I think the woman is is beyond me.

<shrug> It's the phrasing that you used that made it seem so:

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.

I have re-read this several times now. It still reads as...
Woman in restroom is polite to Ruiz, Ruiz is impolite to woman in restroom... and Ruiz being impolite to woman in restroom escalates to violence...

Like I said before - I'm not getting whatever you're trying to say here, so please say it again like I'm five. Because I can't figure out what you're trying to say that doesn't come back to the woman in the restroom being the root cause of violence.

 

[Emily Lake]

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

Of course you are. You keep bringing up that Ruiz was drunk and disorderly. We don’t know that for sure.

To the extent that we know anything... we know that Ruiz was arrested for being drunk & disorderly. Of all the things involved in this that are effectively hearsay, this might be the most concrete-ish thing we've got. Lightweight poor quality brittle concrete that hasn't finished setting maybe... but everything else is still just tissue paper, right?

 

[Emily Lake]

It is essential to remember that the onus of violent actions lies with the perpetrator.

Does anyone here on IIDB know who that is?
Tom

Based on how this conversation has progressed, there's no definitive evidence to suggest violence actually occurred, especially considering the possibility of a biased narrative. However, I anticipate this reply will likely be misinterpreted and distorted by someone, rather than being appreciated as an objective observation.

FWIW, I think it's an objective observation.

 

[Emily Lake]

Except you are taking gender as binary.

Alternatively, Bomb is taking SEX as binary. And gender as a regressive concept.

 

[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…

Note the "PITted" part?? Traffic accident! And how else would my hitting a building cause damage to a building unless I was actually referring to the car I was driving?

I do not live inside your head, Loren. I think we are both grateful

 

[Gospel]

Woman in restroom is polite to Ruiz, Ruiz is impolite to woman in restroom... and Ruiz being impolite to woman in restroom escalates to violence.

Even with that synopsis it doesn't put the onus of the violence on anyone. It is a synopsis of a scenario based on speculation. Are you saying that according to the article, Ruiz didn't have an interaction with a woman in the restroom and then things escalated to violence?

Edit: It makes even less sense when that made up scenario that was intended to make the point that the details don't change the root cause of the issue put Ruiz as the aggressor that started the chain reaction. Not the woman.

 

[Gospel]

Regardless of your point, I'm not your fucking punching bag for things that other men have done.