Girls made to do all sorts of things because of their gender

[TomC]

Also, the article is a mess. Was she passed out or blacked out? The article treats these terms interchangeably, when in reality they mean very different things.

Very different.

For those of you don't have the benefit of my long and checkered past,
"Pass out" stage of a serious drunk is being inert. No decisions, no activity, might as well be comatose. "Black out" stage is very different. People say and do all kinds of ridiculous and irresponsible things in black out, they just don't remember doing it when they sober up. It still happened, they just don't remember doing it or why they did it. It's nearly impossible for the drunk to distinguish between what happened as black out drunk stage moved into pass out drunk stage.

Been there done that.

Going from shrieking "Do Me, Do Me, Do Me..." to "Why did you do that?!", in what seems like a moment, is all too common for drunks teetering between black out and pass out.

Trust me, I know.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

"Deliciously"? Is your bigoted right-wing bluster all some recreation for you?

What have I said that's "bigoted"?

But you continue to ignore the obvious. Let me try to express this very very simply for you.

I'm not sure how many "females" have a "gender identity of woman" or vice versa, but I think it is upwards of 99.99% in either case.

OP is about the hundreds of millions of women with bad outcomes because they're female; let's round that down to a mere 100 million.

The purpose of the OP is to take a jab at my recent post about boys being coerced into apologising to girls at a Victorian high school.

Then you pop in, wanting to ignore 99,990,000 women that OP is concerned with, just to make some pointless rant about transsexuals. Why?

What rant? Where did I mention 'transsexuals' or anything like it?

On top of that, there are plenty of individuals born male with a "gender identity of woman" who do have negative outcomes because of their gender identity, so your stupid point isn't even valid.

But you haven't even understood my point. Having a gender identity that conflicts with your actual sex is bound to cause you problems, but that's true no matter what sex you were born.

Hope this helps.

You brought 'transsexuals' into this even though I had not mentioned them or alluded to them. I made a simple point that 'gender' was the wrong word for the OP to use and multiple people attacked me for it. Feminists spent a not inconsiderable amount of time in the second wave getting people to understand the difference between sex and gender and now they are being re-conflated.

 

[laughing dog]

Ah, the pedantic splitting of hairs to miss the point.


More pedantic hair splitting.
I quoted the title and you respond with more pedantic hair-splitting.

All you have is pedantic hair-splitting.

Indeed, the entire OP was a thinly veiled dig at my own recent post about the coerced apology from boys at a Victorian high school.

Don2 listed 16 things girls are required to endure. Instead of addressing those things - all of which any decent human being would agree are truly awful or horrific - you decide to engage in petty hair-splitting because your ego is bruised.

To any other reader in this thread and to Don2, I apologize for feeding this pathetic pathology.

You're right that Metaphor's post wouldn't have appeared for me until you quoted them, but don't apologize to me. I'm intrigued to try to deduce what in tarnation has Metaphor so upset.

AFAICT, the thread is about Hundreds of Millions of girls and women who are abused because they are females. And Metaphor wants to divert attention ... to what? To the few Archie Bunkers and Trumpist morons who rant on YouTube or Parler or donjr.com about their bitterness at being asked to share a bathroom with a transsexual??

PLEASE tell me I'm missing something major. If Metaphor has no point here beyond feeding on such homophobic hatred and ignorance, he deserves great pity.

You aren't. Metaphor is making a boring pedantic and hypocritical distinction without a difference between gender and sex. I say hypocritical because the thread which he claims this is mocking, does not make that distinction in the thread title nor in his OP.

Notice that none of his posts to date actually address the content of the OP outside of his pedantic hair-splitting.

 

[Metaphor]

You aren't. Metaphor is making a boring pedantic and hypocritical distinction without a difference between gender and sex. I say hypocritical because the thread which he claims this is mocking, does not make that distinction in the thread title nor in his OP.

Of course this thread OP was a jab at me, and it takes a specially kind of dense obtuseness to deny it. The title of this thread is a clear reference to my own thread, "Boys made to stand up and apologise on behalf of their gender at Victorian high school". As for the use of 'gender' in my thread, I quoted the words in the news article's title that I linked to (I am always ready to get pointless grief about my posts, but getting grief because I changed the article title is something I can try and avoid).

Notice that none of his posts to date actually address the content of the OP outside of his pedantic hair-splitting.

Notice that none of your posts to date actually address the content of the OP. Indeed, since Don2 had almost no original commentary and never revisited his OP to talk about it, it seems both you and he are not interested in addressing anything in it either.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Minnesota court rules rape charge doesn't apply if the victim got willingly drunk

The Minnesota Supreme Court on Wednesday ruled that a man who had sex with a woman while she was passed out on his couch cannot be found guilty of rape because the victim got herself drunk beforehand.

The big picture: Minnesota is one of the many states that says that for a victim to be too mentally incapacitated to give consent, they must have become intoxicated against their will, such as if a person secretly drugged someone's drink, The Washington Post reports.

Context: Francios Momolu Khalil in 2017 picked up a woman from a Minneapolis bar and took her back to his home. The woman "blacked out" on Khalil's couch and woke up to find him allegedly sexually assaulting her, per The Post.

A jury in 2019 convicted Khalil of third-degree criminal sexual conduct. His lawyers appealed the decision saying that the charge was not applicable because that statute applies when the victim took drugs or alcohol without their consent, while the woman in this case had taken five vodka shots herself prior to meeting Khalil.

If a person is convicted of the third-degree charge, they could face up to 15 years in prison, pay a fine of no more than $30,000, or both.

I find this interesting. If you follow the links, the statute reads if the victim is sexually penetrated while incapacitated or drunk, it's sexual assault of 3rd degree. Whether I agree or not is irrelevant as the Minnesota courts have added the stipulation it only applies to involuntarily getting drunk. In conservative-speak, this would be called judicial activism and going against the rule of law, but you don't see any conservatives frothing at the mouth screaming about judicial activism over this issue. We know why--conservatives typically get their panties in a twist when it appears the power structure of societal hierarchies are shifting. This causes intense fear, the main psychological feature correlated to conservatism in studies. There is no real logical consistency to conservative tribalism.

Going back to the very specific court case, I think most liberals agree that if TWO people are drunk, i.e. equally incompetent or mentally competent to nearly the same degree...since it's a continuum, then it ought not be assault on the basis of drunkeness alone. As an aside, one ought not be legally capable to give up a kidney either if one is incapacitated. BUT that isn't what the court ruled...they over-reached in stating any voluntary drinking at all consequently means a sober person taking advantage cannot be 3rd degree. It's hard to say that Khalil was equally drunk or completely sober...he competently drove to his apt, was he drunk, maybe she wanted to fool around, maybe he told her they were at a diner, not all the facts of the case are known. BUT still it's a court overreach and one side is not upset over it.

Not only is one side not upset. There's rambling, irrational points being spewed to provide cover. When grown men are not willing to change structures that allow injustice to women, it's no wonder there is so much injustice as per the op.

 

[Derec]

Going back to the very specific court case, I think most liberals agree that if TWO people are drunk, i.e. equally incompetent or mentally competent to nearly the same degree...since it's a continuum, then it ought not be assault on the basis of drunkeness alone.

Judging from our debates on college rape kangaroo tribunals, you would be sadly mistaken. Of course, I do not really consider those people to be liberals in any true sense of the word.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Notice that none of his posts to date actually address the content of the OP outside of his pedantic hair-splitting.

That's true.

Well, here's an open question maybe to get the ball rolling in the right direction. ...

To All:
What should be done to improve the statistics, i.e. reduce these problems? What can we do as individuals?