Charlie Kirk shot at (shot?) in Utah

[Politesse]

The number of trans people committing rape is irrelevant in any case. Emily isn't afraid of trans people as such, she's afraid of penises. This fear obviously originates in the actions of men, all or nearly all of them cis men. But she can't do anything about them, the patriarchy has proven utterly indifferent to the feminist critique. With trans women, though, she has a vulnerable population that has the real or imagined penis, but not the social protection, of a cis man. And she knows she can find allies in both parties who will agree to go after them. Clearing a locker room of the symbols of manhood, she is symbolically purifying and thus protecting her body against men. Charlie Kirk was on a very different wavelength, opposing trans rights not for the sake of protecting himself, but out of fear of a wrathful god who offers no mercy to the sinful except that won by rebirth in a new and purified body as per Christian tradition. He needed the locker rooms purged to stave off divine wrath at the mixing of opposites. In all cases, though, ritual violence as a form of symbolic purification and protection is an ancient human patrimony, and it is always leveled at the vulnerable. You'll never see Emily trying to expel, say, volleyball players from the locker room, even if you presented her with a 90 page booklet full of statistics proving that female volleyball players perform 90% of rapes. These kinds of symbolic purifications can only be leveled at those who are already vulnerable - like teenage girls.

 

[ZiprHead]

Pizza pranks, Charlie Kirk rants: More disturbing livestreams surface in Cranford murder case

In Cranford, a young man charged with murder allegedly targeted two girls on an e-bike, with disturbing online comments surfacing after the tragic crash.

nj1015.com

Why's it the left that has to "tone down the rhetoric"?

Should be in the right wing violence thread.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't know., there never has been a golden days of the PD forum. What I will note, however, in that posting here for so long, there have been apparent shifts in politics of some conservative and moderate posters, and these days, they appear very liberal. Their positions haven't changed much, but the underlying political state of the United States has.

Yup. My father ran for political office as a Republican in the early 60s. (Sacrificial candidate, losing by 50 in a -60 district was actually a very good showing.) By the 80s he was voting straight Democrat--he didn't change, the parties did. Even in the 60s he saw changes in the Republicans he did not like.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Em did not defend Kirk's views. She's an atheist and not some nutball Dominionist, and she certainly does not think women should be barefoot and pregnant! Like Bomb, she was trying to explain his views, in the respect that they did not all have to come from hate. Ie, if he truly believed transgenders were mentally ill, than that belief was not absolutely, necessarily one of hate. Maybe it was! I would not doubt that! He had despicable views. Bomb called the man a dirtbag, but due to lack of comprehension and/or deliberate misrepresentation, or a combination of both, he was dragged through the mud and hauled up as a bigot and worse. l'll be next, and it's already starting.

His position clearly is one of hate. If it were about risk there would be an indication of regret that it was necessary, we saw none of that. Look at the comparison to Typhoid Mary--unfortunately it was necessary to lock her up as otherwise she would go back to the only profession she knew: cook.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Scapegoating an infinitessimally small minority doesn't accomplish that, though. Quite the opposite. If the civilian police force is engaged primarily hunting down "antifa terorrists" for using the wrong bathrooms or wanting to play junior high tennis without being misgendered, who is investigating actual sexual assaults?

Exactly. All laws have cost. All efforts to prevent bad things have costs. If you fail to consider these costs you will end up with insane systems that divert resources away from big threats to addressing small threats.

(Simple example: coal fired power has approximately 1000x the risk of nuclear power.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

What's with the eyerolls? Still not going to admit we know Project 2025 is happening and the impact it will have on marginalized groups?

Project 2025 is being implemented with gusto by that creep Russell Vought who is the real power behind the stupid evil Trump. There is no way that stupid Trump could think up all of the thousands of his executive orders. Vought is pulling all the strings. And Trump loves it. The destruction of a Nation.

Crowing ad nauseum about how your opponent is evil over and over again, framing them as the absolute worst possible person... that's the tactics used by the inquisition, jihadists, and authoritarians across the world and throughout time.

When has our country been at such risk since it's founding?? And pretending that this will end up being ok is exactly what they need in order to destroy our country. And some of them are actively trying to make the End Times come about.

 

[TSwizzle]

What's with the eyerolls?

It’s all these diatribes deserve.

Still not going to admit we know Project 2025 is happening and the impact it will have on marginalized groups?

I’m not familiar enough with project 2025 to know but how will it impact white males, one of the most marginalized groups of the last few years?

 

[Toni]

Something that the males posting in this forum do not completely understand is that girls and women are conditioned to fear sexual assault from a very young age. I think most of us are aware of ‘the talk’ parents of black sons have to give their sons regarding the very legitimate fears of violence and victimization they face at the hands of law enforcement and society in general. Few of us do not understand the necessity of this

The problem here is that you are applying a legitimate fear to a situation where it does not make sense. If there's enough traffic that a man hiding in the women's room would be exposed there's enough traffic that a rape would be interrupted. Thus it is not a realistic threat.

And yet some high school kid managed to rape two different girls in two different high school bathrooms while pretending to be trans.

 

[bilby]

And yet some high school kid managed to rape two different girls in two different high school bathrooms while pretending to be trans.

...and if only that kid had been told not to use those bathrooms, his plan to commit rape would have been stymied, by his obviously law-abiding nature and unwillingness to break any rules of any kind.

Or is rape not against the rules in that jurisdiction?

Committing rape "while pretending to be trans" doesn't imply that the rapist was in any way assisted to commit rape by his "pretending".

An unlocked door with a sign on it isn't the barrier to criminals you appear to imagine it to be.

 

[unapologetic]

Isn't that clear? A person is only a fascist if they say "I am a fascist".

BULLSHIT. Naive. No one thinks of themself as evil. It takes someone else to hold up the mirror.
Perhaps 'fascist' is the wrong word.
How about: Power Hungry Authoriatarian Anti-democracy Tyrant wanta-be. And the people who support that shit (MAGA).
'Fascist' is just shorthand. Common usage. It didn't have the evil conatation when it was coined. But it absolutly does now.

I once had a page of origional art by Jim Starlin from a Warlock comic.
Wherein the evil White Queen says "We are all heroes in our own mind ........Even me."

​

 

[unapologetic]

Since this thread has strayed into 'transgender', could someone please define "transgender" for me
(A) Most people believe, as I did, that transgender are folks who 'identify' or think they are the opposite gender.
(B) I have, only once, heard that transgender people are born with genitals somewhere between male and female.
If B, all discussions have been too squemish polite to say so. So the general public believes A.

 

[Politesse]

Isn't that clear? A person is only a fascist if they say "I am a fascist".

BULLSHIT. Naive. No one thinks of themself as evil. It takes someone else to hold up the mirror.
Perhaps 'fascist' is the wrong word.
How about: Power Hungry Authoriatarian Anti-democracy Tyrant wanta-be. And the people who support that shit (MAGA).
'Fascist' is just shorthand. Common usage. It didn't have the evil conatation when it was coined. But it absolutly does now.

I once had a page of origional art by Jim Starlin from a Warlock comic.
Wherein the evil White Queen says "We are all heroes in our own mind ........Even me."

​

Indeed. I would be very surprised if many Nazi officials described themselves as fascists. Or "Nazis", for that matter, that would be like Nancy Pelosi referring to herself as a "Dem".

 

[bilby]

(B) I have, only once, heard that transgender people are born with genitals somewhere between male and female.

That's called intersex, not transgender.

The "only once" commentator was presumably confusing the two.

 

[Politesse]

Since this thread has strayed into 'transgender', could someone please define "transgender" for me
(A) Most people believe, as I did, that transgender are folks who 'identify' or think they are the opposite gender.

Yes. Or, less often but still commonly, are nonbinary, eg, don't identify with any gender stereotypes at all. A transgender person is anyone who chooses to live other than according to the gender assigned to them at birth.

(B) I have, only once, heard that transgender people are born with genitals somewhere between male and female.

This can be caused by quite an array of conditions, collectively referred to by researchers "disorders of sexual development" or DSDs. DSDs are all types of Intersex conditions, intersex being the I in LGTBQIA. Not all intersex conditions result in DSDs. Those that do account for somewhere between 1 in 1500 to 1 in 2000 live births. It's thought that most intersex persons do not turn up transgendered later in life, though the data is pretty scattered due to stigma and secrecy. In short, rare is the parent inclined to let a researcher examine their newborn's genitals for abnormalities and study the results.

If B, all discussions have been too squemish polite to say so. So the general public believes A.

It would be best not to confuse the two situations, however complicated the situation may be in practice. Many trans people are probably intersex on some level, but how many is a disputed situation, and DSDs are a particularly rare result of intersexuality.

 

[unapologetic]

That's called intersex, not transgender.

So (A) it's all in their mind.

It would be best not to confuse the two situations,

So keep it simple. (A) or (B), yes or no.
That's the problem.

An 'identity' would be Superman or Clark Kent. But just one physical person.
Your identity is your problem, nobody else gives a shit.
Nobody ever talks about intersex, but that's a physical reality. That, I could have sympathy for.
I have no sympathy for folks who think they are in the wrong body. That is just woo. Don't insist I agree with your beliefs.

Thank you for clearing it up for me.

 

[bilby]

I have no sympathy for folks who think they are in the wrong body.

Why not? It seems to me to be a pretty good reason for both sympathy and kindness.