Gender Roles

[Jokodo]

Also, I don't know about the US (as usual), nor am I claiming my experience is representative of Europe or even Austria (as usual), but in my personal experience, fathers in search of a diaper changing table, or fathers accompanying a daughter old enough to go to the toilet herself but too young to clean up independently who don't want to expose her to the kind of toxic masculine conversations she might overhear at the gents', typically make up a larger share of "men using women's rooms" than pre-, post- and non-op trans women combined.

The majority of places in the US where young children are reasonably expected to be present have a family restroom that contains the changing table. This often doubles as a separate disabled restroom, in that it affords overall more space and it's not common to have a line for either disabled people or parents with young kids. It's become quite a bit more common to have changing tables in some men's rooms in venues that have a lot of kids. Because, you know, we don't expect mommy to stay home with the babies as much as we used to.

I'm willing to bet the rate of men staying at home at least for a couple of months is higher in many places In Europe than it is in the US. It's also true here that the stall containing the changing table often doubles as a disabled stall - but often enough, that one's still found within the women's complex.

 

[Jokodo]

We were however discussing biology. I claimed that it is biologically plausible that otherwise male individuals with biologically female cognition (to the extent that that's a meaningful concept) exist at rates well above what one might expect from the known, more easily determined, rates of other types of mismatched phenotypes. To which you raised as a counterargument that apparently crime statistics show transwomen as perpetrators at rates more similar to cis males than to cis females. This is a valid counterargument only insofar as transwomen's crime rates relative to those other groups are largely caused by biology.

I'm quite curious here. You seem to be saying that the rate of violent and sexual offending amount transgender identified males is the same as that of other males because of "biology". But you're also accepting the premise that such transgender identified males have "biologically female cognition"?

Not at all. I said that, to the extent that "biologically female cognition" is a meaningful concept, which I find a highly debatable notion, it is biologically plausible that otherwise male individuals with a "biologically female cognition" exist at rates well above more visible intersex conditions and make up a significant share of the m2f transgendered community. To this, @Bomb#20 (not me) raised the objection that crime rates among m2f transgendered individuals seem to suggest otherwise. My objection to his objection is that it seems to have the hidden premise that crime rates among transgender identified males are the same as those of other males because of "biology", a premise I don't think we can take for granted because there are other things that aren't equal between the two groups, some if which are independently known to affect crime rates.

 

[Jokodo]

Emily isn't "women". Emily is Emily. There sure are other women you think like Emily, but neither of us knows how numerous they are and pretending otherwise is dishonest.

Emily is rather tired of men telling women what women should be happy with, rather than actually granting us the basic humanity of forming our own opinions without male oversight.

I'm seeing a lot of different positions among women in discussions like this, including in this thread. I'm also seeing a lot of men who are quite vocal in the "keep the trannies out" camp, some of them with a history of advocating strongly anti-feminist positions on other topics. Painting this as an issue where (all or nearly all) want one thing and men push against them is either naive or dishonest.

 

[Emily Lake]

I don't know if that's true. My impression is rather that gender/sex segregated restrooms were never as universal in the first place.

Have you, I dunno, ever looked into the Urinary Leash?

Having restrooms that are separated by sex is only a couple of hundred years old, sure. But that's because up until then females didn't have access to restrooms in public facilities in the first place, and were expected to just stay home. Denying females access to facilities was part and parcel of relegating us to second class citizens.

I'm sure that's true. I'm less sure it's relevant to what I was writing about. A male restroom that may or may not "graciously" allow women in under exceptional circumstances is a very different place from a restroom that was designed from the get-go to be for everyone. The kind of restroom I talk about may only have stalls, if it does have urinals, they're around a corner so you don't have to pass within sight of them to get to the stalls. That's worlds apart from a restroom where the one or two stalls are at the end of a long tract of urinals.

If you want to talk about the unfairness specifically to women of venues charging for the use of stalls but letting men use the urinals for free or for a much lower fee, I'm on board. I actively avoid such places even as I'm supposedly a beneficiary.

I kind of think it's directly relevant to exactly what you wrote. Which is why I responded to that part of it.

 

[Emily Lake]

We were however discussing biology. I claimed that it is biologically plausible that otherwise male individuals with biologically female cognition (to the extent that that's a meaningful concept) exist at rates well above what one might expect from the known, more easily determined, rates of other types of mismatched phenotypes. To which you raised as a counterargument that apparently crime statistics show transwomen as perpetrators at rates more similar to cis males than to cis females. This is a valid counterargument only insofar as transwomen's crime rates relative to those other groups are largely caused by biology.

I'm quite curious here. You seem to be saying that the rate of violent and sexual offending amount transgender identified males is the same as that of other males because of "biology". But you're also accepting the premise that such transgender identified males have "biologically female cognition"?

Not at all. I said that, to the extent that "biologically female cognition" is a meaningful concept, which I find a highly debatable notion, it is biologically plausible that otherwise male individuals with a "biologically female cognition" exist at rates well above more visible intersex conditions and make up a significant share of the m2f transgendered community. To this, @Bomb#20 (not me) raised the objection that crime rates among m2f transgendered individuals seem to suggest otherwise. My objection to his objection is that it seems to have the hidden premise that crime rates among transgender identified males are the same as those of other males because of "biology", a premise I don't think we can take for granted because there are other things that aren't equal between the two groups, some if which are independently known to affect crime rates.

Gotcha, thanks for the clarification.

 

[Emily Lake]

Emily isn't "women". Emily is Emily. There sure are other women you think like Emily, but neither of us knows how numerous they are and pretending otherwise is dishonest.

Emily is rather tired of men telling women what women should be happy with, rather than actually granting us the basic humanity of forming our own opinions without male oversight.

I'm seeing a lot of different positions among women in discussions like this, including in this thread. I'm also seeing a lot of men who are quite vocal in the "keep the trannies out" camp, some of them with a history of advocating strongly anti-feminist positions on other topics. Painting this as an issue where (all or nearly all) want one thing and men push against them is either naive or dishonest.

I wasn't speaking as if this is a universal issue. Note that I said I was tired of it. I suppose that me referring to myself in the third person was confusing, but I really thought it was pretty clear.

 

[Jokodo]

Emily isn't "women". Emily is Emily. There sure are other women you think like Emily, but neither of us knows how numerous they are and pretending otherwise is dishonest.

Emily is rather tired of men telling women what women should be happy with, rather than actually granting us the basic humanity of forming our own opinions without male oversight.

I'm seeing a lot of different positions among women in discussions like this, including in this thread. I'm also seeing a lot of men who are quite vocal in the "keep the trannies out" camp, some of them with a history of advocating strongly anti-feminist positions on other topics. Painting this as an issue where (all or nearly all) want one thing and men push against them is either naive or dishonest.

I wasn't speaking as if this is a universal issue. Note that I said I was tired of it. I suppose that me referring to myself in the third person was confusing, but I really thought it was pretty clear.

Maybe you weren't. Bomb was.

 

[Jokodo]

I don't know if that's true. My impression is rather that gender/sex segregated restrooms were never as universal in the first place.

Have you, I dunno, ever looked into the Urinary Leash?

Having restrooms that are separated by sex is only a couple of hundred years old, sure. But that's because up until then females didn't have access to restrooms in public facilities in the first place, and were expected to just stay home. Denying females access to facilities was part and parcel of relegating us to second class citizens.

I'm sure that's true. I'm less sure it's relevant to what I was writing about. A male restroom that may or may not "graciously" allow women in under exceptional circumstances is a very different place from a restroom that was designed from the get-go to be for everyone. The kind of restroom I talk about may only have stalls, if it does have urinals, they're around a corner so you don't have to pass within sight of them to get to the stalls. That's worlds apart from a restroom where the one or two stalls are at the end of a long tract of urinals.

If you want to talk about the unfairness specifically to women of venues charging for the use of stalls but letting men use the urinals for free or for a much lower fee, I'm on board. I actively avoid such places even as I'm supposedly a beneficiary.

I kind of think it's directly relevant to exactly what you wrote. Which is why I responded to that part of it.

It would be relevant if the form and function of gender non-separated restrooms in, say, Austria in the 1980s and 1990s, were like the male-only restrooms in the Victorian era. We are however talking about a time and place where separate restrooms where the norm, where we were for the most part past denying females access to facilities, but when bathroom designers didn't give much thought at all to making things less awkward for trans who might be made to feel that they don't belong in either. The last one is an important feature because Bomb had insinuated that unisex bathrooms in Europe (where they exist, they aren't the default anywhere) are a case of going further in accommodating to unreasonable demands of the trans lobby than the US has gone so far, which I don't think is true.

The only thing these bathrooms really have in common with Victorian era ones is that it doesn't say "ladies" at the door. That makes the comparison kind of irrelevant.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't know if that's true. My impression is rather that gender/sex segregated restrooms were never as universal in the first place.

Have you, I dunno, ever looked into the Urinary Leash?

Having restrooms that are separated by sex is only a couple of hundred years old, sure. But that's because up until then females didn't have access to restrooms in public facilities in the first place, and were expected to just stay home. Denying females access to facilities was part and parcel of relegating us to second class citizens.

I'm sure that's true. I'm less sure it's relevant to what I was writing about. A male restroom that may or may not "graciously" allow women in under exceptional circumstances is a very different place from a restroom that was designed from the get-go to be for everyone. The kind of restroom I talk about may only have stalls, if it does have urinals, they're around a corner so you don't have to pass within sight of them to get to the stalls. That's worlds apart from a restroom where the one or two stalls are at the end of a long tract of urinals.

If you want to talk about the unfairness specifically to women of venues charging for the use of stalls but letting men use the urinals for free or for a much lower fee, I'm on board. I actively avoid such places even as I'm supposedly a beneficiary.

I kind of think it's directly relevant to exactly what you wrote. Which is why I responded to that part of it.

It would be relevant if the form and function of gender non-separated restrooms in, say, Austria in the 1980s and 1990s, were like the male-only restrooms in the Victorian era. We are however talking about a time and place where separate restrooms where the norm, where we were for the most part past denying females access to facilities, but when bathroom designers didn't give much thought at all to making things less awkward for trans who might be made to feel that they don't belong in either. The last one is an important feature because Bomb had insinuated that unisex bathrooms in Europe (where they exist, they aren't the default anywhere) are a case of going further in accommodating to unreasonable demands of the trans lobby than the US has gone so far, which I don't think is true.

The only thing these bathrooms really have in common with Victorian era ones is that it doesn't say "ladies" at the door. That makes the comparison kind of irrelevant.

As someone who JUST visited Europe, the separation of mens and women's bathrooms is such there that oftentimes you can clearly see into both bathrooms from the hall, the only thing obscured, generally by doors, is the stalls themselves which you often have to pay for.

Sometimes the stalls themselves are separated, but they share a common washroom.

Sometimes it's just stalls on a single washroom, without separation at all.

Of these 'more exposed' bathrooms, the ability of people in the normal establishment to see the people washing their hands and entering stalls would reasonably be expected to increase the security of the space, seeing as the number one enabler of assaults is seclusion, and that isn't possible when an entire dining room can see the WC doors, and the single washroom is just in the common space outside them.

Maybe 2 of the 8 communal restrooms intended up seeing had offset hallways so someone couldn't just see right in, and the one of those I remember was in the airport in Dublin.

I will say, however, that my husband, a trans man, definitely prefers mens' restrooms in general because women's restrooms tend to be quite bad.

I'm not sure if it's the high proportion of children that end up passing through, the hoverers, or both, but the proportion of feces smeared on the walls, piss on the floors, and other unfortunate trash not making it into a bin is disappointing to say the least.

"Men's" restrooms tend towards being a little gross all the time, maybe an unflushed pee or poo.. The other tends to oscillate wildly between 'clean' and 'war zone' as the stalls are concerned.

All that aside, it strikes me that the American invention of sequestered washrooms that can't be seen into from a common space are wholely unnecessary except in extreme circumstances.

Also, the changing rooms tended to have their own dedicated space and washroom, and we're not labeled for any gender in particular.

There were also toilets located in public and situated for public use at a fairly high frequency, unlike in the US where a public toilet in the middle of a city is a rare beast indeed, and these were unisex.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I don't know if that's true. My impression is rather that gender/sex segregated restrooms were never as universal in the first place.

Have you, I dunno, ever looked into the Urinary Leash?

Having restrooms that are separated by sex is only a couple of hundred years old, sure. But that's because up until then females didn't have access to restrooms in public facilities in the first place, and were expected to just stay home. Denying females access to facilities was part and parcel of relegating us to second class citizens.

In fact, throughout the developing world, you will find that advocates for advancement and for women's equality will stress the need for sex-specific facilities.

Sex specific facilities are a luxury that used to not be practical.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of these 'more exposed' bathrooms, the ability of people in the normal establishment to see the people washing their hands and entering stalls would reasonably be expected to increase the security of the space, seeing as the number one enabler of assaults is seclusion, and that isn't possible when an entire dining room can see the WC doors, and the single washroom is just in the common space outside them.

That's how I see it, also. The door is security theater, but actually increases the threat.

 

[Jarhyn]

This has had FAR more traumatic impact on me than even events where I was forced to threaten someone with violence in response to an evolving situation.

This has to be poor wording, so I'd ask you to elaborate or rephrase.

Right now, this reads as if you're saying that other people threatening you has more impact on you than you threatening other people has impact on you. Which is a bit of a "no shit" statement as well as begging the question of whether or not you are considering the impact that your threats had on other people.

You don't get to hear about it.

Would you mind re-reading what I asked for? I didn't ask for details of the event, and your trite "you don't get to hear about it" has no bearing on what I asked.

Your statement, as written, says that it is more traumatic for you to be harassed by someone, and that it is less traumatic for you to physically threaten someone else.

As I said, you don't get the details. You can either accept that there might be a valid reason some people don't talk clearly about some events in their life, or you will reject that premise.

Use your intelligence and maybe figure it out if you are half as good as being empathetic as you claim.

Spoiler: Something generated by ChatGPT

[T]here are numerous reasons why someone might not want to talk about instances where they have offered or used violence. Here are several considerations beyond shame:

1. **Privacy**: Many individuals value their privacy and prefer not to disclose personal experiences, especially those involving violence, to avoid unwanted attention or intrusion.

2. **Ethical Beliefs**: Some people believe that discussing acts of violence, even if done for protection, can glamorize or normalize violence, which they find ethically problematic.

3. **Emotional Impact**: Recalling and discussing violent incidents can be emotionally taxing and may trigger distressing memories or trauma.

4. **Fear of Judgment**: There is often a concern that others might misinterpret or judge their actions, leading to misunderstandings or negative perceptions.

5. **Avoidance of Glorification**: People may want to avoid any perception of seeking praise or recognition for their actions, especially if they view the act as simply fulfilling a moral obligation.

6. **Legal Concerns**: Sharing details about violent incidents could potentially lead to legal repercussions, including investigations or accusations.

7. **Respect for Others Involved**: Out of respect for the privacy and dignity of those involved, individuals might choose not to discuss incidents that include others' experiences or identities.

8. **Desire for Normalcy**: Discussing violence can disrupt one’s sense of normalcy and daily life, leading individuals to avoid such conversations to maintain a sense of routine and peace.

9. **Focus on Solutions**: Some prefer to focus on finding solutions to prevent future violence rather than dwelling on past incidents, which can seem less constructive.

10. **Complexity of Motives**: The reasons behind offering violence can be complex and multifaceted, making it difficult to explain or discuss without oversimplifying the situation.

11. **Fear of Misinterpretation**: There is a risk that others may not understand the context or motives, leading to potential misinterpretation of the actions taken.

12. **Cultural and Social Norms**: Cultural or social norms might discourage open discussions about violence, favoring more private handling of such matters.

13. **Personal Growth**: For some, discussing past violent actions can feel like reopening a chapter of their life they have moved past and prefer to leave behind.

14. **Impact on Relationships**: Revealing past violent actions can alter how others perceive and interact with them, potentially straining relationships or changing dynamics.

By understanding these varied reasons, it becomes clearer why someone might choose to keep such experiences private, emphasizing that it's not merely about shame but a complex interplay of personal, ethical, and social factors.

 

[Jokodo]

I don't know if that's true. My impression is rather that gender/sex segregated restrooms were never as universal in the first place.

Have you, I dunno, ever looked into the Urinary Leash?

Having restrooms that are separated by sex is only a couple of hundred years old, sure. But that's because up until then females didn't have access to restrooms in public facilities in the first place, and were expected to just stay home. Denying females access to facilities was part and parcel of relegating us to second class citizens.

In fact, throughout the developing world, you will find that advocates for advancement and for women's equality will stress the need for sex-specific facilities.

Sex specific facilities are a luxury that used to not be practical.

"Not practical" is very often an excuse to keep minorities excluded. We might as well argue that having stalls at all is "not practical" because 90% is the time people (that is, men) only come to pee anyway, or that having wheelchair-accessible trains is not practical because wheelchair users aren't going to use trains anyway, or that, or that colorblind- friendly designs are not practical because there are tools that read out the RGB value of a pixel and colorblind people can be expected to know and use them.

 

[Emily Lake]

This has had FAR more traumatic impact on me than even events where I was forced to threaten someone with violence in response to an evolving situation.

This has to be poor wording, so I'd ask you to elaborate or rephrase.

Right now, this reads as if you're saying that other people threatening you has more impact on you than you threatening other people has impact on you. Which is a bit of a "no shit" statement as well as begging the question of whether or not you are considering the impact that your threats had on other people.

You don't get to hear about it.

Would you mind re-reading what I asked for? I didn't ask for details of the event, and your trite "you don't get to hear about it" has no bearing on what I asked.

Your statement, as written, says that it is more traumatic for you to be harassed by someone, and that it is less traumatic for you to physically threaten someone else.

As I said, you don't get the details. You can either accept that there might be a valid reason some people don't talk clearly about some events in their life, or you will reject that premise.

Use your intelligence and maybe figure it out if you are half as good as being empathetic as you claim.

Dude, you legitimately aren't reading. I am not asking you for any details of any sort at all. Look at the words you wrote. Think about the meaning of the words - not the context that you have in your head behind them, but the actual phrase that you used.

You wrote, of being harassed:

This has had FAR more traumatic impact on me than even events where I was forced to threaten someone with violence in response to an evolving situation.

Let me translate that and see if you can follow:

Bob feels very traumatized by someone harassing him.
Bob feels less traumatized about threatening someone with physical violence.

The actual words that you wrote are saying that you prefer threatening other people with physical violence over being harassed - that it is less traumatizing to you when you threaten someone else with violence, and it is more traumatizing to you when people harass you.

Threatening someone with physical violence isn't traumatizing to you, it's traumatizing to them. The fact that you feel less traumatized when you're the person inflicting trauma on someone else is not surprising in its effect. But it's a very weird, uncaring, and self-focused thing to say.

 

[Jarhyn]

Dude, you legitimately aren't reading. I am not asking you for any details of any sort at all. Look at the words you wrote. Think about the meaning of the words - not the context that you have in your head behind them, but the actual phrase that you used.

And I am saying, in no uncertain terms to read that little bit behind the cut and maybe try to figure out why someone might have incredibly deep trauma from a moment they offered violence.

You don't get to decide what does and doesn't traumatize people.

I know you don't understand this. In fact, I have no evidence in over 10 years on these forums that you are even capable of understanding this.

 

[Toni]

This has had FAR more traumatic impact on me than even events where I was forced to threaten someone with violence in response to an evolving situation.

This has to be poor wording, so I'd ask you to elaborate or rephrase.

Right now, this reads as if you're saying that other people threatening you has more impact on you than you threatening other people has impact on you. Which is a bit of a "no shit" statement as well as begging the question of whether or not you are considering the impact that your threats had on other people.

You don't get to hear about it.

Would you mind re-reading what I asked for? I didn't ask for details of the event, and your trite "you don't get to hear about it" has no bearing on what I asked.

Your statement, as written, says that it is more traumatic for you to be harassed by someone, and that it is less traumatic for you to physically threaten someone else.

As I said, you don't get the details. You can either accept that there might be a valid reason some people don't talk clearly about some events in their life, or you will reject that premise.

Use your intelligence and maybe figure it out if you are half as good as being empathetic as you claim.

Dude, you legitimately aren't reading. I am not asking you for any details of any sort at all. Look at the words you wrote. Think about the meaning of the words - not the context that you have in your head behind them, but the actual phrase that you used.

You wrote, of being harassed:

This has had FAR more traumatic impact on me than even events where I was forced to threaten someone with violence in response to an evolving situation.

Let me translate that and see if you can follow:

Bob feels very traumatized by someone harassing him.
Bob feels less traumatized about threatening someone with physical violence.

The actual words that you wrote are saying that you prefer threatening other people with physical violence over being harassed - that it is less traumatizing to you when you threaten someone else with violence, and it is more traumatizing to you when people harass you.

Threatening someone with physical violence isn't traumatizing to you, it's traumatizing to them. The fact that you feel less traumatized when you're the person inflicting trauma on someone else is not surprising in its effect. But it's a very weird, uncaring, and self-focused thing to say.

OK, I must admit that I have only sporadically read bits and pieces of this thread. Please forgive any mixed context here but also please accept that not everyone on this board is going to share their traumas here, full stop, much less to satisfy someone else's need to understand why they feel the way they do.

Like many women, I have been sexually assaulted on different occasions by people I should have been able to trust. Actually, I am not sure why anyone would think that I or any other person should not be able to expect not to be sexually assaulted. We should all be able to walk around safe in this world. Full stop.

I am repeating what I am certain I have written more than once elsewhere on these forums: I was not raped because I fought back. Not because I am so awesome at self defense or martial arts but because I was incredibly lucky and because in every single case, I was much smaller than the individual who was attempting to harm me and also (believe it or not) of a quiet demeanor so my resistance and my actual willingness to inflict pain was completely unexpected. And no, for all of you in the cheap seats: I never aimed for a crotch. Surprise is a great advantage.

BUT: I also pre-emptively 'committed violence' albeit mild violence, once with an audience that was certain to wonder what the hell brought that on--and ask questions. THAT ultimately stopped the repeated assaults whenever he thought he could get away with it. Fear of discovery and the consequences of that discovery, which would have been violence at the hands of at least a couple of male authority figures. Which, actually I did not want. I only wanted him to stop and to never put his hands on me again. Stopping the filthy suggestions he would mutter was less an object and more a consequence.

Unfortunately for me, my original assailant was not the only person who sexually assaulted me or who threatened to do so. But fortunately for me, I had discovered the absolute power of fighting back when it was unexpected and also fear, especially fear of discovery.

A co-worker who was 2.5-3 times my size (I weighed less than 100 lbs at the time) suggested I needed to be 'nice' to him, with a look that suggested that nice might involve a back room. This is when I straight out told him that if he laid a hand on me, I would castrate him. So, there I was, threatening violence against someone I perceived wanted to do me harm, based upon my own personal experience and some hard won judgment. A court of law or my boss could have perceived me as the aggressor. He had not yet touched me. Just a veiled threat and a leer. Given the size differential and the presence of dark, isolated spaces where he might catch or drag me, I was pro-actively violent. I think his behavior was far worse than mine. But he never laid a hand on me and never again made a single comment that might have included a threat or even a double entendre.

I never was much of a drinker and even more rarely did I drink to excess (which for me, still means more than 2 drinks over a couple of hours) but long ago, one night I sat in a friend's apartment and she thought it would be a good idea to make a pitcher of screwdrivers. We both weighed under 100 lbs. But we were alone in her apartment, didn't have to work the next day, and she was telling me about her boyfriend's pervy friend and his attempts at assaulting her. So, stressful for her. And.... one screwdriver was good and made it seem like another would be better and after that, why not finish the pitcher??? So we were fairly but very amicably plastered when her boyfriend came home--bringing said pervy friend. They were amused to see us drunk. But not so amused that my friend and her boyfriend did not retire to the bedroom to have a huge fight about why he thought he could bring pervy friend to their apartment and btw, why was he still friends with pervy friend???

Leaving me alone with pervy friend, who I knew slightly, who knew I had my own boyfriend, and who had zero--absolutely zero context for thinking that I might be receptive to his advances. Except, I was very drunk and therefore, an easy mark and consent was unlikely to be an issue--because no one would expect me to be able to back up my NO. And our friends, my potential defenders were having their own fight and were so unlikely to hear my protests. At the third NO--each accompanied by an increasingly forceful push away: I went ballastic on him. A lot of details are lost to time and alcohol but in the end, I was on top of him, whaling the tar out of him. I proactively kept whaling until help arrived. The actual assault had ceased but I was on top of him, continuing to pound the shit out of him when my own boyfriend pulled me off of him. And had to restrain me from continuing my own assault on him.

I am willing to bet that EmilyLake can well understand my actions and can understand exactly why I did what I did and probably does not think me out of line in any of those instances, although in one or two, the law might have felt differently.

I very much understand that people sometimes do things out of trauma or trauma based experience that those not sharing those traumas. I very much understand not wanting to share those traumas with strangers on a forum. Or anyone. It took me years and years and years and to this day, family does not know about the assaults that happened when I was a girl. He would never tell them and I have not and likely will not ever. But they know I dislike this person, very strongly. If they were perceptive enough, they would realize that I went out of my way to ensure that no other young female member of the family group/adjacent friends was ever left alone with him. Ever. But nope.

So, when someone states they have a significant trauma, please grant them the grace to accept that they were traumatized, even if you do not know the circumstances or the actual facts and even if you believe that you would not have felt the same events to be traumatic.

Boys and men can be subjected to terrible trauma. It is more common if one is not gender conforming or straight or frankly anyone who is not a straight white male but even those straight white males may experience terrible trauma. In fact, my first assailant (straight white male) had experienced terrible trauma and had witnessed his bio father commit terrible acts of violence against his mother and sister, which is part of the reason I was reluctant to out him initially. Later, it became something I feared revealing because I was terrified I would not be believed or would be blamed for. Which I would not have survived.

I've openly revealed these traumas to all of you readers because it's been many years and because frankly, if we bumped into one another on the street, we would never know it. You are all strangers. I don't give a shit about your judgment of me. At the same time, I love you all and wish nothing but peace and happiness, even if I argue vehemently with you about (insert issue or non-issue, tbh).

But no one has to do what I did. I realize my traumas are relatively minor as I managed to escape actual rape. And I'm old enough to not care much about anyone else's opinion or their attempts to use my traumas or weaknesses against me.

But I very well understand pre-emptively engaging in acts of violence when a threat is perceived and prevention is the best course of action. This is not sex or gender specific.

Don't we all owe each other the grace of believing their stated experiences?

 

[Emily Lake]

Dude, you legitimately aren't reading. I am not asking you for any details of any sort at all. Look at the words you wrote. Think about the meaning of the words - not the context that you have in your head behind them, but the actual phrase that you used.

And I am saying, in no uncertain terms to read that little bit behind the cut and maybe try to figure out why someone might have incredibly deep trauma from a moment they offered violence.

You don't get to decide what does and doesn't traumatize people.

I know you don't understand this. In fact, I have no evidence in over 10 years on these forums that you are even capable of understanding this.

I'm just going to go ahead and say this one more time, then I'm going to let it go. For all intents, what your words mean is:

I like to threaten other people with physical violence more than I like being harrassed by other people.

 

[Jarhyn]

Dude, you legitimately aren't reading. I am not asking you for any details of any sort at all. Look at the words you wrote. Think about the meaning of the words - not the context that you have in your head behind them, but the actual phrase that you used.

And I am saying, in no uncertain terms to read that little bit behind the cut and maybe try to figure out why someone might have incredibly deep trauma from a moment they offered violence.

You don't get to decide what does and doesn't traumatize people.

I know you don't understand this. In fact, I have no evidence in over 10 years on these forums that you are even capable of understanding this.

I'm just going to go ahead and say this one more time, then I'm going to let it go. For all intents, what your words mean is:

I like to threaten other people with physical violence more than I like being harrassed by other people.

And maybe that says something pretty damning about you, because you can't seem to understand that you are exactly wrong about your interpretation: I don't like either of these things.

You being able to render such a statement for others is really you rendering that statement for yourself and putting it in my mouth so you don't have to face yourself for it.

Quit speaking for me. You don't know me, you don't know the situation, and in front of the few people that DO know the whole situation, you will only embarrass yourself.

I specifically stated that it was MORE traumatic being threatened with social violence (really deferred violence) than it was being in the other situation, because the consequences would be deeper.

Your inability to understand that trauma is traumatic is, sadly, par for the course.

I didn't like either situation. I liked both situations 0 much. I hated one situation more than the other. These are not ends of the same scale, they are ends of different scales.

 

[Emily Lake]

So, when someone states they have a significant trauma, please grant them the grace to accept that they were traumatized, even if you do not know the circumstances or the actual facts and even if you believe that you would not have felt the same events to be traumatic.

I have not rejected any claims of trauma, nor have I in any way at all asked for any details of trauma, nor even remotely suggested that such trauma isn't material to them.

I made a comment on the tone-deafness of the actual words that were written, and what they mean to normal people.

"Being harassed by someone was very traumatic to me. It was way more traumatic to me than when I threatened someone with physical violence"

Look, let me try this a different way. I'm going to lay out four statements, and ask you to consider which of them a reasonable outside observer would consider to be most traumatic to the subject of the statement.

1) Pat was harassed by Alex
2) Pat was threatened with physical violence by Alex
3) Pat harassed Alex
4) Pat threatened Alex with physical violence

Which of those would an external observer with no additional information consider to be the most traumatic to Pat? Which would be considered the least traumatic to Pat? Which are the most and least traumatic for Alex?

With no additional information, which person does your sympathy lie with in each scenario?
Do you think it's reasonable for Pat to expect that an external observer would feel sympathy toward Pat in scenario 4?

Now go back and reread the small portion of what Jarhyn wrote that I actually responded to, and consider what it means. Jarhyn presented the situation as if we, the external observers, should be expected to feel sympathy for Jarhyn when Jarhyn was the one who threatened someone else with physical violence.

 

[Emily Lake]

I specifically stated that it was MORE traumatic being threatened with social violence (really deferred violence) than it was being in the other situation, because the consequences would be deeper.

No shit, sherlock! Everyone on the planet will feel worse about someone harassing them than they feel about threatening someone else. This is neither new nor interesting nor insightful. Everyone dislikes being yelled at by someone else more than they dislike punching someone else - in the first case, they personally feel the negative emotions of it, in the second they don't feel the negativity of it themselves - it's directed at someone else.

I'm not assuming you have no trauma, not at all. Nor do I need to know anything at all about your trauma - and I have not at all asked for any details whatsoever and I prefer not to have any of them!

It's the fact that you seem to think that *we* should have sympathy for the trauma *you feel* when *you physically threaten someone else* in the first place.