Mississippi Passes "More Dead Kids Please" bill. Texas responds w/ "hold my beer"

[Jarhyn]

Your argument has been that trans women with penises should not be excluded from women’s shelters, and the reason you put forth has been that because they have no sperm, they are not a threat and should not be treated like one.

You then repeated over and over and over n this thread and others that violence against women is not something they should assign to penises, but to penises that make sperm.

I have repeatedly pointed out that there IS a second thing to worry about here, involving a drug that deranges folks, makes them more ready to do violence, and causes compartmentalization on thoughts.

I have provided at least some initial evidence that it is true irrespective of who the person is or what genitals they have.

The thing is "steroids", though, not penises.

So it's not JUST the lack of sperm, but also the lack of any special physiological threat too.

And that is offensive and bullshit and flat wrong.
Stop telling us what to feel.

I will tell racists "what to feel" too.

I will not stop telling people who are irrationally and destructively afraid of others to address and control their fears rather than allow them to splash around those fears at inappropriate targets.

Whatever broken or dysfunctional thought process that associates it with "penis" rather than "any person who invades a single person space, or any person who is significantly stronger and effected by a drug"

we FOR DAMN SURE protect ourselves when the risk is high or the vulnerability is high

The point here is that your heuristic is broken and you have a responsibility to manage it, and the social messaging that creates it.

Risk is not high when testosterone is absent and sperms are absent.

For someone not affected by testosterone, for someone not capable of producing sperms, that risk is no higher than the risk from people who were never born with testicles at all. Scientific studies have actually been provided which show this indicating that trans criminals are fleetingly rare, and that people who are trans "in bad faith, for the sake of access" will not and do not remove their access to testosterone, and are extremely, fleetingly rare.

If not for the difficulty in getting it passed, I would go so far as to say lying about one's hormones, saying one is not exposed to testosterone when one is, should be grounds for castration or even emasculation.

In any case, the presence of an exposed genital of any kind in a setting where genitals are not normally exposed is a major warning sign, even if that genital is not a penis.

Nobody with their genitals out in a common space ever has anything friendly planned, and nobody who enters a private space that is already occupied ever has anything friendly planned either.

People have no right at any time to be protected from penises.

Protected from people with balls, protected from people on testosterone, protected from people who produce sperm, but not protected from the mere presence of a "penis", unless you want to pose that if all women had peniform genitals that they would pose as much a threat to women as men who have penises.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Should I be required to accommodate the behavior or wishes of exhibitionists who wish to display their genitals in public? Should I be required to accommodate the behavior or wishes of a voyeur who wants to look naked women against their will?

Neither of those are "violent". And by Jarhyn's definition, those behaviors are caused by their brains... with the added implied judgement that because it's caused by their brain, it must be accommodated.

Should I be required to accommodate the behavior of women who wish to display too much and not wear a burka in public? How do you define what is "too much"? How are the cases different? (Now, you can make a legitimate case that there are certain body parts that should not be allowed to touch public seating. That is a separate issue.)

As for the voyeur--you're just equating "has penis" with "wants to spy on women". Think there weren't lesbians in the locker room before having a look??

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The same hormones don't cause the exact same results for people who produce the same gamete. Your point?

Definitely second this--wife's gyno some years back: She didn't care about what blood tests said about hormone levels as she didn't believe there was a "right" level--you determine "right" by observing the result. What was right for one woman might be out of line for another.

 

[Jarhyn]

Should I be required to accommodate the behavior or wishes of exhibitionists who wish to display their genitals in public? Should I be required to accommodate the behavior or wishes of a voyeur who wants to look naked women against their will?

Neither of those are "violent". And by Jarhyn's definition, those behaviors are caused by their brains... with the added implied judgement that because it's caused by their brain, it must be accommodated.

Should I be required to accommodate the behavior of women who wish to display too much and not wear a burka in public? How do you define what is "too much"? How are the cases different? (Now, you can make a legitimate case that there are certain body parts that should not be allowed to touch public seating. That is a separate issue.)

As for the voyeur--you're just equating "has penis" with "wants to spy on women". Think there weren't lesbians in the locker room before having a look??

I wonder if she thinks there aren't women putting in upskirt and other toilet cams in restrooms to participate in and make money on voyeurism schemes?

As it is, it's not illegal to have ones genitals exposed in all public settings. In many states public nudity is absolutely allowed so long as it is not for sexual purposes.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Should I be required to accommodate the behavior or wishes of exhibitionists who wish to display their genitals in public? Should I be required to accommodate the behavior or wishes of a voyeur who wants to look naked women against their will?

Neither of those are "violent". And by Jarhyn's definition, those behaviors are caused by their brains... with the added implied judgement that because it's caused by their brain, it must be accommodated.

Should I be required to accommodate the behavior of women who wish to display too much and not wear a burka in public? How do you define what is "too much"? How are the cases different? (Now, you can make a legitimate case that there are certain body parts that should not be allowed to touch public seating. That is a separate issue.)

As for the voyeur--you're just equating "has penis" with "wants to spy on women". Think there weren't lesbians in the locker room before having a look??

Toni has effectively explained that it is a legitimate reflex issue for women in a locker room. In a perfect world, Toni wouldn't be right, but we unfortunately don't live in that world, and it makes things more complicated than the black and white treatment you want regarding pre-surgical transgendered people in the women's locker room.

Your solution is to ignore women raising a concern about it and justice will prevail. Seeing this doesn't impact you, the locker room you'd be in, that seems a bit isolated and pandering?

 

[Jarhyn]

Should I be required to accommodate the behavior or wishes of exhibitionists who wish to display their genitals in public? Should I be required to accommodate the behavior or wishes of a voyeur who wants to look naked women against their will?

Neither of those are "violent". And by Jarhyn's definition, those behaviors are caused by their brains... with the added implied judgement that because it's caused by their brain, it must be accommodated.

Should I be required to accommodate the behavior of women who wish to display too much and not wear a burka in public? How do you define what is "too much"? How are the cases different? (Now, you can make a legitimate case that there are certain body parts that should not be allowed to touch public seating. That is a separate issue.)

As for the voyeur--you're just equating "has penis" with "wants to spy on women". Think there weren't lesbians in the locker room before having a look??

Toni has effectively explained that it is a legitimate reflex issue for women in a locker room. In a perfect world, Toni wouldn't be right, but we unfortunately don't live in that world, and it makes things more complicated than the black and white treatment you want regarding pre-surgical transgendered people in the women's locker room.

Your solution is to ignore women raising a concern about it and justice will prevail. Seeing this doesn't impact you, the locker room you'd be in, that seems a bit isolated and pandering?

No, the solution is to change how the concern is addressed.

If there is a reflex going off because a penis is seen owing to some intentional exposure, this is a reflex that should be considered as appropriate to anyone.

If the reflex is fear that a person merely has one, then all the concerns of "females" are identical to, and not distinct from, and not meaningfully separable from the population of folks who lack testicles and testosterone but who still have a penis, and only partially separable from the concerns of people who are on hormone blockers for long term periods.

If pregnancy is not to be considered "the core risk", then the focus still is on testosterone here.

Personally I have no problems with pointing to testosterone and saying it creates a clear issue that people should be expected to learn all the rules of responsibly living under it's effects, and it does involve self-awareness and self-control, before getting free run of the world.

I expect this would be badly received mostly because of "men": the incels, the sociopaths, the victim blamers, the "real men", the people who feel proud of laughing at kids in highschool in the locker room. Those people are well placed in society because they know if they can't be in control, then things turn out badly for them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Should I be required to accommodate the behavior or wishes of exhibitionists who wish to display their genitals in public? Should I be required to accommodate the behavior or wishes of a voyeur who wants to look naked women against their will?

Neither of those are "violent". And by Jarhyn's definition, those behaviors are caused by their brains... with the added implied judgement that because it's caused by their brain, it must be accommodated.

Should I be required to accommodate the behavior of women who wish to display too much and not wear a burka in public? How do you define what is "too much"? How are the cases different? (Now, you can make a legitimate case that there are certain body parts that should not be allowed to touch public seating. That is a separate issue.)

As for the voyeur--you're just equating "has penis" with "wants to spy on women". Think there weren't lesbians in the locker room before having a look??

Toni has effectively explained that it is a legitimate reflex issue for women in a locker room. In a perfect world, Toni wouldn't be right, but we unfortunately don't live in that world, and it makes things more complicated than the black and white treatment you want regarding pre-surgical transgendered people in the women's locker room.

Your solution is to ignore women raising a concern about it and justice will prevail. Seeing this doesn't impact you, the locker room you'd be in, that seems a bit isolated and pandering?

No, the solution is to change how the concern is addressed.

By ignoring as you do just below.

If there is a reflex going off because a penis is seen owing to some intentional exposure, this is a reflex that should be considered as appropriate to anyone.

If the reflex is fear that a person merely has one, then all the concerns of "females" are identical to, and not distinct from, and not meaningfully separable from the population of folks who lack testicles and testosterone but who still have a penis, and only partially separable from the concerns of people who are on hormone blockers for long term periods.

And this is the problem. It has been expressed CLEARLY what the concern is... and it isn't an issue of floppiness. The concern is the instinctual (from being told to be weary) reaction that it doesn't belong and there is a very real chance of an imminent threat.

You are going well out of your way to ignore what has been explained and isn't irrational.

Emily is guilty of muddying the waters, because her positions on anything female tend to be about 'protecting the brand'. But others have kept things a bit more level in their explanation.

 

[Toni]

Rape is not a question of uncontrolled sexual attraction or desire. Rape is about violently assaulting another person. Rape can be and frequently is carried out using objects other than a penis.

Some sex offenders go on to commit more rapes after chemical or physical castration.

Jarhyn is correct that in a perfect world, no one would have to be concerned about being raped or sexually assaulted no matter who was standing next to them in a shower. It is unclear whether people would still feel a strong need for personal privacy or segregation by gender/sex. I suspect that some would still prefer privacy and/or segregation from others not of their sex or gender.

 

[Jarhyn]

The concern is the instinctual (from being told to be weary) reaction that it doesn't belong and there is a very real chance of an imminent threat

Nothing justifies an instinctual reaction from being told to be wary because a thing does not belong there when that thing is not exactly the thing that causes a threat.

It must be justified that trans women, and for that matter people off testosterone, present that threat. Loren has provided solid evidence that it is not the penis that creates the real threat, but the testosterone.

People do not have a right to hold forever to the delusion that being born with a penis means one is born doomed to the effects which are specific to testosterone, OR doomed to the fear that they make make someone pregnant.

 

[Toni]

Should I be required to accommodate the behavior or wishes of exhibitionists who wish to display their genitals in public? Should I be required to accommodate the behavior or wishes of a voyeur who wants to look naked women against their will?

Neither of those are "violent". And by Jarhyn's definition, those behaviors are caused by their brains... with the added implied judgement that because it's caused by their brain, it must be accommodated.

Should I be required to accommodate the behavior of women who wish to display too much and not wear a burka in public? How do you define what is "too much"? How are the cases different? (Now, you can make a legitimate case that there are certain body parts that should not be allowed to touch public seating. That is a separate issue.)

As for the voyeur--you're just equating "has penis" with "wants to spy on women". Think there weren't lesbians in the locker room before having a look??

Toni has effectively explained that it is a legitimate reflex issue for women in a locker room. In a perfect world, Toni wouldn't be right, but we unfortunately don't live in that world, and it makes things more complicated than the black and white treatment you want regarding pre-surgical transgendered people in the women's locker room.

Your solution is to ignore women raising a concern about it and justice will prevail. Seeing this doesn't impact you, the locker room you'd be in, that seems a bit isolated and pandering?

No, the solution is to change how the concern is addressed.

By ignoring as you do just below.

If there is a reflex going off because a penis is seen owing to some intentional exposure, this is a reflex that should be considered as appropriate to anyone.

If the reflex is fear that a person merely has one, then all the concerns of "females" are identical to, and not distinct from, and not meaningfully separable from the population of folks who lack testicles and testosterone but who still have a penis, and only partially separable from the concerns of people who are on hormone blockers for long term periods.

And this is the problem. It has been expressed CLEARLY what the concern is... and it isn't an issue of floppiness. The concern is the instinctual (from being told to be weary) reaction that it doesn't belong and there is a very real chance of an imminent threat.

You are going well out of your way to ignore what has been explained and isn't irrational.

Emily is guilty of muddying the waters, because her positions on anything female tend to be about 'protecting the brand'. But others have kept things a bit more level in their explanation.

I disagree that Emily has been ‘guilty’ of muddying the waters. She seems to be close enough to my age to be acutely aware of just how hard women have worked —for hundreds of years—to have opportunities that actually exist, even if they are not on par with opportunities enjoyed by males. Too often, women are not taken seriously in medicine, even in areas which focus on women’s reproductive health. And now, increasingly, those female oriented specialties are avoiding using the words women and female in favor of persons who me struate—which ignores post menopausal women or those who have had hysterectomies. Men’s medical specialties are not labeled as being for people who produce sperm. Women are being erased in a brand new way.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The concern is the instinctual (from being told to be weary) reaction that it doesn't belong and there is a very real chance of an imminent threat

Nothing justifies an instinctual reaction from being told to be wary because a thing does not belong there when that thing is not exactly the thing that causes a threat.

And feel free to ignore it... just as women should then ignore your concerns about access.

Jarhyn: Pre-surgical transgender women should be allowed access to the women's locker room. We don't feel comfortable in a men's locker room.
Women: Having pre-surgical transgender women in the locker room is going to be alarming for some (most?) women, and some would feel uncomfortable to alarmed.
Jarhyn: Well, fuck your feelings. We belong here.
Women: Well... we can do that too and fuck your feelings, you stay in the men's locker room.

We making progress yet?

It must be justified that trans women, and for that matter people off testosterone, present that threat.

An initially perceived threat doesn't have to be accurate. If a gun open carries a gun, that doesn't mean they are an imminent... but that also doesn't mean you shouldn't have an immediate reaction regarding a potential threat.

Women and teenaged girls are besieged with everything they need to do that best help their chances of not getting sexually assaulted. So, seeing a person with a penis in a women's locker room is going to be off putting. It isn't intended to be insulting or bigoted, but it is a reaction, a rational one due to the risk involved with just being a woman. And you want to tell women to feck off. To deal with it.

That isn't addressing the problem, it is ignoring it.

 

[Toni]

The concern is the instinctual (from being told to be weary) reaction that it doesn't belong and there is a very real chance of an imminent threat

Nothing justifies an instinctual reaction from being told to be wary because a thing does not belong there when that thing is not exactly the thing that causes a threat.

It must be justified that trans women, and for that matter people off testosterone, present that threat. Loren has provided solid evidence that it is not the penis that creates the real threat, but the testosterone.

People do not have a right to hold forever to the delusion that being born with a penis means one is born doomed to the effects which are specific to testosterone, OR doomed to the fear that they make make someone pregnant.

Nope. Acting on instinct precludes inquiries as to the hormonal status of those one encounters in a locker room. Men who have undergone chemical or physical castration have in some cases gone on to commit rapes, occasionally even with their own penis but more often with foreign objects.

Most men are not rapists. Testosterone is not the issue. After all, women ( who can also commit rape) produce testosterone in their ovaries and adrenal glands.

 

[Emily Lake]

Evolution happens because of genetic mutations. The vast overwhelming number of mutations are deleterious: they are fatal outright or inhibit the fitness of the individual for survival and the opportunity to pass on its genes. The vast overwhelming majority of mutations are not passed on to subsequent generations.

Those mutations that are passed on to offspring confer some type of advantage, generally with respect to the environment under which the organism is living.

Technically, those mutations that get passed on are those that don't fuck it up too badly. There are a lot of mutations that are moderately deleterious to the individual, but which do not act as a barrier to either natural selection or sexual selection. Color blindness, for example, is one that is arguably deleterious to the individual, as it limits the set of wavelengths they can perceive, leading to less overall useable information about their environment. But color blindness almost never has a material impact on the ability of that individual to survive long enough to reproduce, so it isn't weeded out by natural selection. Similarly, color blindness almost never is a barrier to an individual being able to find a willing partner with which to reproduce, so it isn't weeded out by sexual selection either.

There are a whole lot of mutations that have entered our species (all species really) that are elements of Non-Darwinian evolution. Mutations that aren't directly subject to pressures from either fitness or sex.

We tend to think of evolution in Darwinian terms: "That which makes an individual more fit for their environment is more likely to be passed along to offspring, and thereby is propagated through the species". But that's not actually how it works. It really is "That which doesn't produce enough harm to be a barrier is more likely to get passed along to offspring, and may become endemic within a specific population of the species, depending on the size and mobility of the population itself". That's how we end up with low-melanin skin in a good chunk of humans - relative isolation allowed the mutation to be propagated throughout a specific geographic population, and because of the environmental conditions it didn't cause harm enough to prevent it being passed on.

 

[Emily Lake]

Stop telling us what to feel. Stop telling us what rape is like. Stop telling us to turn off a lifetime of experience and conform to your unicorn world where the past does not exist. Stop harming the cause of trans women with your bullshit.

 

[Emily Lake]

You don't have any right to fear all people with penises any more than anyone else has a right to fear all people who are poor, any more than people have a right to fear all people who are black.

Rule 12 above

 

[Emily Lake]

Yes? This does not speak against people with penises.

People get raped by people who entirely lack penises, too.

Even the fear that someone might be made pregnant is a major contributor and even finding out you were not does not change that.

It doesn't change the horrific nature of being raped even when you do not fear pregnancy.

Nobody has ever just been "ok" after being raped. The difference is that while I've been raped, I don't blame "people with penises", I fear something else. A bearing and mannerism, a way of acting. I fear rapists and people who posture like them.

It's possible to both reject rape and not fear penises.

It just takes some work.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm sure someone raped with a broom handle would feel the same way about brooms, generally.

You're wrong. In so many ways you're wrong. People who have been forcibly penetrated with objects against their will don't fear the objects, they fear the type of person who forcibly penetrated them. And in 99% of cases, that person is a male.

 

[Emily Lake]

Your sorting error is to place people with penises and no testicles on the "probably rapist" or "is deserving of fear" side.

To me it's more about the steroid whose side effect is mild derangement, clouding of the understanding of consent, and which makes it much easier to physically override consent.

I don't fucking care what is' about to you. And you do not get to dictate to women what we are and are not allowed to do in order to provide ourselves with reasonable protection against possible assaults.

 

[Emily Lake]

I will not stop telling people who are irrationally and destructively afraid of others to address and control their fears rather than allow them to splash around those fears at inappropriate targets.

This would be Rule 2, Rule 3, Rule 9, Rule 12, and Rule 13 of Misogyny, all rolled into one sentence.

 

[Emily Lake]

Risk is not high when testosterone is absent and sperms are absent.

HOW THE HOLY FUCK ARE WE SUPPOSED TO TELL WHETHER OR NOT TESTOSTERONE IS PRESENT IN A MALE?