Breakdown In Civil Order

[TSwizzle]

That champion of democracy, the insufferable prick Gavin Newsom wants to keep an initiative off the November ballot that will gut California's 2014 Prop 47. Prop 47 has much to blame for California's surge in crime;

An email chain obtained by CBS News California Investigates reveals that the Governor's Chief of Staff would not negotiate to strengthen a Democratic package of crime bills unless a coalition of crime victims, retailers, and law enforcement leaders would agree to postpone their ballot measure until 2026. At issue is the proposed Homelessness, Drug Addiction, and Theft Reduction Act. It's intended to reform Prop. 47, which is the 2014 voter-approved law that reduced punishments for drug possession and thefts under $950.

the Governor's Office would prefer Californians not vote on reforming Prop. 47 this year. In one email, the Governor's Chief of Staff Dana Williamson tells the coalition's lead negotiator, Greg Totten, that leadership is willing to negotiate on its package of crime bills, which would take effect immediately, clarifying "As far as an initiative, we are open to something in 2026." Totten replies, "As I noted previously, our focus is on amending Proposition 47 on the 2024 ballot." adding, "If the administration is prepared to consider an amendment of Proposition 47 on the 2024 ballot, then we are happy to meet." Williamson responds, "If that's your position then I agree, there's nothing to talk about. She adds, "It's really amazing how you are incapable of taking a win. And the consultants you're working with haven't won anything in a decade. Good luck."

CBS News

 

[Emily Lake]

This is my point. Systemic stuff is far more impactful in the big picture than playing whackamole with shoplifters and druggies. Yes, crime is crime and property crime and violence on the low level should not be ignored. But it should also be lower on the priority list than systemic issues that have huge consequences for the broader public.

I think this is a very wealthy perspective.

Systemic stuff is more impactful to me now, but only because I have the income and wealth to distance myself from the risks associated with shoplifters and druggies. I live far enough from the city center that I don't deal with the addicts that frequent the area. I only have to deal with them when I drive past them on my way to and from work, and I'm never in a position where I have to walk in that area. My company has security on premises, and IDs badges are required to enter the building. I can afford a home security system, and I can afford to live in a low-crime neighborhood.

That's not the case for my sister. She has a much lower income, lives in a high-crime area, and shares a car with her SO so she ends up walking or taking the bus on a regular basis. She has been robbed on her way home from work, one of her kids was mugged and beaten up, she's had her home broken into a couple of times, and she's had her property stolen and vandalized.

Guess what she doesn't give a flying fuck about?

If you were to go lecture her on how the actual real crime happening around her on a daily basis should be lower on her priority list than who is on the supreme court, and the evils of capitalism... you'd have a bad day. And I'd be cheering her on when she gave you a thorough tongue-lashing.

 

[Emily Lake]

It's not irrelevant. I'm essentially asking you, given your strong feelings and compelling evidence, to present a case where something like this has occurred. Then, demonstrate how it's a widespread issue that warrants significant concern and the allocation of resources to address it.

How "widespread" do you need it to be? What's the number of women subjected to this that you think is an acceptable number? How many sacrificial women does it take before men decide that it's something that women have a right to be concerned about?

 

[Emily Lake]

I do find it fairly hilarious that someone would rather put on a rubber suit and respirator and wade in a literal vault of shit rather than doing the much easier thing of just joining a scat fetish group and buying a glass table... Or just googling glass table porn.

I find it disturbing and quite funny that men are, in fact, more likely to do that (sit in a vat of shit) than to do as Derec suggests and dress up as women, but the reality is that cross dressing doesn't afford such access and requires actually being expected to understand and listen to women talking about their feelings... It's got all of the emotional costs and none of the sexual benefits that are presumed by people.

I think you're assuming that the attraction is the scat, rather than the voyeurism of an non-consenting victim.

 

[Emily Lake]

The statistics that say literally nobody is going to go through HRT and years of therapy to do that shit.

Therapy and HRT are not required. All that is required is that someone say that they're trans. They're not even required to present as feminine.

Currently, the idea that a transgender person should have therapy at all is considered transphobic conversion therapy.

 

[Emily Lake]

Why is it that these exceptions in cases with Transgenders (or alleged transgenders) are often used to support negation of larger policies, but if guns are used in a mass murder, that is clearly an exception and we don't need to mess with gun policy to restrict access to guns?

It's not a problem of transgender people; it's a problem of policies that create loopholes for exploitation that result in harms that would not otherwise have happened.

Take the case you responded to. Prior to that bill, transgender prisoners were evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and some were placed in female prisons when it was deemed appropriate and that they did not present a risk to the female inmates. That worked just fine, there were no incidents. Think of this as being akin to background checks and waiting periods on guns - something that most people don't oppose and that are generally considered to be reasonable safeguards against looneys.

SB132 changed that, and deemed it a *right* for *any* prisoner that *self-declares* themselves to be transgender to be placed in the prison of the opposite sex, with *no requirement* for any actual transition or surgical removal of their genitals. Anyone with a brain should have been able to see the gigantic loophole that SB132 created. A whole lot of women, and women's organizations pointed it out, quite loudly, and were ignored. They were called transphobic bigots, they were told they were hysterical, and overreacting, and it would never ever happen because no man anywhere would ever pretend to be transgender just to get moved to a female prison. But it *did* happen, and there have been multiple cases of this thing that could never happen happening.

SB132 was, in effect, a bill that eliminated all background checks and waiting periods for guns, and went a step further and insisted that it's a person's absolutely right to buy a gun immediately and without question as long as they just say that they're 18 or older without being expected to provide ID at all.

The entire discussion surrounding transgender policies has pretty much never been about transgender people. It's about policies - policies that override women's rights to safety, dignity, and equal participation in society, policies that supersede consent and force people (predominantly women) to be subjected to exhibitionism and voyeurism against their will, policies that undermine the ability of women and girls to participate equally in fair athletic competitions. It's never been about transgender people, it has always been about policies and the enormous fucking loopholes that they create and the negative effects that such policies have on a huge amount of other people.

 

[Emily Lake]

The whole idea that prisoners need to leverage rules about gender identity in order to commit rapes in prison is beyond absurd.

Male prisoners need to leverage rules about gender identity in order to commit rapes of female inmates.

 

[Emily Lake]

A simple fix that would probably be a big help with the issue: Change the law so toilet video isn't considered obscene. We keep seeing it again and again--consenting adult porn takes a big bite out of sex crime.

WTF? Please translate this.

Right now, I'm having trouble making this make sense. There's already plenty of porn out there that involves watching people pee or poop and related activities. So I don't know what law you think ought to be changed. It ends up sounding like you think the law should be changed to allow people to place hidden cameras so they can watch people use the toilet without having to bother with consent in the first place.

And I'm assuming that's NOT what you mean.

 

[Emily Lake]

Note that female attire as a disguise is not the same as being transgender.

How do you tell the difference? If you see a random person out in the world who is observably male based on the plethora of visual indicators of sex, and they are wearing a dress... what clues you in to whether they are transgender, or whether they're a man who likes a healthy breeze around his nethers, or whether they're in disguise?

 

[Emily Lake]

I do find it fairly hilarious that someone would rather put on a rubber suit and respirator and wade in a literal vault of shit rather than doing the much easier thing of just joining a scat fetish group and buying a glass table... Or just googling glass table porn.

Probably because they didn't know, plus probably not being very social.

I had no idea there were such groups, nor was I aware of the label "glass table porn". I've only been aware of it as a genre with Japanese stuff. Squat toilets are far more peepable than western toilets.

I find it disturbing and quite funny that men are, in fact, more likely to do that (sit in a vat of shit) than to do as Derec suggests and dress up as women, but the reality is that cross dressing doesn't afford such access and requires actually being expected to understand and listen to women talking about their feelings... It's got all of the emotional costs and none of the sexual benefits that are presumed by people.

If you're going to be hiding a camera you don't want to be observed--no emotional cost because you don't interact. But also no benefit from pretending to be trans, drag would do it. Or dress up as a plumber and carry appropriate tools. Dressing like a worker who belongs in a location gets people into an awful lot of places.

Do you have any idea how creepy it is to be a woman listening to men brainstorm ways to violate women's consent?

 

[Gospel]

Do you have any idea how creepy it is to be a woman listening to men brainstorm ways to violate women's consent?

Did they mention pretending to be a transgender woman in order to violate women's consent?

 

[Gospel]

It's not irrelevant. I'm essentially asking you, given your strong feelings and compelling evidence, to present a case where something like this has occurred. Then, demonstrate how it's a widespread issue that warrants significant concern and the allocation of resources to address it.

How "widespread" do you need it to be? What's the number of women subjected to this that you think is an acceptable number? How many sacrificial women does it take before men decide that it's something that women have a right to be concerned about?

Before using the law to infringe on the rights of transgender women, there should be at least one documented case to justify such legislation. So I'll ask you too; find a case. I don't consider TheBeave's example valid either. By the way, I find it amusing that your question implies I don't care about women simply because I reject a fabricated narrative. For an appeal to emotion to be effective, it must be based on factual evidence. Right now, it appears you are exploiting women's issues to support unfounded claims.

 

[TSwizzle]

It's not irrelevant. I'm essentially asking you, given your strong feelings and compelling evidence, to present a case where something like this has occurred. Then, demonstrate how it's a widespread issue that warrants significant concern and the allocation of resources to address it.

How "widespread" do you need it to be? What's the number of women subjected to this that you think is an acceptable number? How many sacrificial women does it take before men decide that it's something that women have a right to be concerned about?

Before using the law to infringe on the rights of transgender women, there should be at least one documented case to justify such legislation.

ffs, transgender “women” (or ex men) never had a “right” to be housed in women’s prisons. There no such “right”.

So I'll ask you too; find a case. I don't consider TheBeave's example valid either. By the way, I find it amusing that your question implies I don't care about women simply because I reject a fabricated narrative. For an appeal to emotion to be effective, it must be based on factual evidence. Right now, it appears you are exploiting women's issues to support unfounded claims.

There is another case in California (where else?) where a male serial male sex offender went the transgender route to get housed in the women’s prison. There are at least two cases in the Scottish prison system.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Determining value is easy. What was the value of the stock at the close of business on the day it was issued? That's the value when it was issued.

The problem is why should an asset like stock (which is generally easy to value) be treated differently than an asset that's harder to value (say, a house)?

Valuation is the same, what people are willing to pay for it.

But for something that doesn't trade often how do you reliably figure a value?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I do find it fairly hilarious that someone would rather put on a rubber suit and respirator and wade in a literal vault of shit rather than doing the much easier thing of just joining a scat fetish group and buying a glass table... Or just googling glass table porn.

I find it disturbing and quite funny that men are, in fact, more likely to do that (sit in a vat of shit) than to do as Derec suggests and dress up as women, but the reality is that cross dressing doesn't afford such access and requires actually being expected to understand and listen to women talking about their feelings... It's got all of the emotional costs and none of the sexual benefits that are presumed by people.

I think you're assuming that the attraction is the scat, rather than the voyeurism of an non-consenting victim.

If it wasn't the scat (or perhaps the pee) why in the world would they do something much more complex and to most people repulsive than necessary?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A simple fix that would probably be a big help with the issue: Change the law so toilet video isn't considered obscene. We keep seeing it again and again--consenting adult porn takes a big bite out of sex crime.

WTF? Please translate this.

Right now, I'm having trouble making this make sense. There's already plenty of porn out there that involves watching people pee or poop and related activities. So I don't know what law you think ought to be changed. It ends up sounding like you think the law should be changed to allow people to place hidden cameras so they can watch people use the toilet without having to bother with consent in the first place.

And I'm assuming that's NOT what you mean.

It's considered obscene in the US, AFIAK you will not find it from any US websites or much of anything under the control of the credit card processors.

And I'm not talking about hidden camera stuff, but consensual. Pay someone to go on camera.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Note that female attire as a disguise is not the same as being transgender.

How do you tell the difference? If you see a random person out in the world who is observably male based on the plethora of visual indicators of sex, and they are wearing a dress... what clues you in to whether they are transgender, or whether they're a man who likes a healthy breeze around his nethers, or whether they're in disguise?

I'm talking about female attire as a disguise rather than because the person wants to live as female.

 

[Gospel]

ffs, transgender “women” (or ex men) never had a “right” to be housed in women’s prisons. There no such “right”.

ffs, they've been doing that in California for about 3 years. Don't you live there?

There is another case in California (where else?) where a male serial male sex offender went the transgender route to get housed in the women’s prison. There are at least two cases in the Scottish prison system.

Great, share it. While I find it unusual that you need to refer to international cases despite having three years of California legislation to examine, I'm open to looking into that case as well.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you're going to be hiding a camera you don't want to be observed--no emotional cost because you don't interact. But also no benefit from pretending to be trans, drag would do it. Or dress up as a plumber and carry appropriate tools. Dressing like a worker who belongs in a location gets people into an awful lot of places.

Do you have any idea how creepy it is to be a woman listening to men brainstorm ways to violate women's consent?

Offense and defense are two sides of the same coin. You can't defend against a threat you haven't realized exists. Security systems have to be looked at with an eye of how to break them or you'll end up with a worthless design.

And your lack of brainstorming about this is part of the problem--you say no people with penises in the women's room while not considering the flip side of this--you'll have male-looking people with vaginas instead. And you think that somehow a sign keeping the trans people out will keep out the bad actors?! You're focused on security theater and ignoring actual security.

 

[TSwizzle]

ffs, transgender “women” (or ex men) never had a “right” to be housed in women’s prisons. There no such “right”.

ffs, they've been doing that in California for about 3 years. Don't you live there?

This is a law Sb132? Passed in California, it’s not a “right” that men who don a dress and slap on some lipstick get to bunk in with the women prisoners.

There is another case in California (where else?) where a male serial male sex offender went the transgender route to get housed in the women’s prison. There are at least two cases in the Scottish prison system.

Great, share it. While I find it unusual that you need to refer to international cases despite having three years of California legislation to examine, I'm open to looking into that case as well.

Isla Bryson case for Scotland, the other name escapes me at this time.

Nevertheless, what is the threshold where actual women get assaulted by pretend women where you say “that’s enough of that” While the actual women’s protests are ignored? Must the actual women wait for men to decide, is that the game?