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

[Emily Lake]

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

Hay ladies - Let's all be thankful to for the mansplaining here, as Jarhyn has just informed us that we women have not right to not be raped!

 

[Emily Lake]

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??

Woo hoo ladies! Let's be thankful to this man for this episode of mansplaining. It turns out that we're just completely wrong about having a right to consent - if a man wants to show his genitals to us, that's his prerogative, his privilege to do so. And if a man wants to peep through our window and watch us undress, well, that up to him to decide, we have no say in it. Hooray for progress, I feel so much safer now!

 

[Emily Lake]

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

Oh ladies, it looks like there's a perfect solution to all of our hysterical fears, so we can stop overreacting about things that aren't really a big deal! All we have to do is get ourselves re-educated so that we don't worry about things that have caused us harm from time immemorial!

We should all be super grateful to this wonderful man for mansplaining to us the error of our ways. Clearly, this man knows what is really important to women, so much more than women do.

 

[TomC]

Should I be required to accommodate the behavior of women who wish to display too much and not wear a burka in public?

No.
Just stay out of rooms labeled, on the door in big letters, "WOMEN".

Easy Peasy.

How hard is this?
Tom

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Honestly, a third space would be perfectly reasonable. They don't have to stay in the men's locker room, let's all pitch in and help build a few stand-alone sex-neutral spaces.

Otherwise, yeah, spot-on.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Honestly, a third space would be perfectly reasonable. They don't have to stay in the men's locker room, let's all pitch in and help build a few stand-alone sex-neutral spaces.

Otherwise, yeah, spot-on.

Amazing how you missed part of my point. You and Jarhyn are so entrenched on your positions that there is no discussion.

 

[Toni]

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.

Some mutations do confer advantages. Sickle cell is the obvious example: it provides protection against malaria as the deformed blood cells cannot provide an adequate environment for plasmodium responsible for malaria. Cystic fibrosis may confer resistance to cholera or other infections that cause wasting diarrhea. Such mutations provide an advantage that allows survival to reproductive age, allowing the trait to be passed on. Other mutations seem to provide protection against heart disease or broken bones.

 

[Elixir]

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.

Some mutations do confer advantages. Sickle cell is the obvious example: it provides protection against malaria as the deformed blood cells cannot provide an adequate environment for plasmodium responsible for malaria. Cystic fibrosis may confer resistance to cholera or other infections that cause wasting diarrhea. Such mutations provide an advantage that allows survival to reproductive age, allowing the trait to be passed on. Other mutations seem to provide protection against heart disease or broken bones.

Emily is right though. There is no preference for “beneficial” mutations. Evolution works because the fitness landscape is dynamic. Today’s “harmful mutation”, if not an impediment to reproductive success, can become tomorrow’s saving grace for a species after languishing indefinitely within a population as a “neutral” or “non- lethal” mutation.
Evolution throws everything at the wall.

 

[Toni]

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.

Some mutations do confer advantages. Sickle cell is the obvious example: it provides protection against malaria as the deformed blood cells cannot provide an adequate environment for plasmodium responsible for malaria. Cystic fibrosis may confer resistance to cholera or other infections that cause wasting diarrhea. Such mutations provide an advantage that allows survival to reproductive age, allowing the trait to be passed on. Other mutations seem to provide protection against heart disease or broken bones.

Emily is right though. There is no preference for “beneficial” mutations. Evolution works because the fitness landscape is dynamic. Today’s “harmful mutation”, if not an impediment to reproductive success, can become tomorrow’s saving grace for a species after languishing indefinitely within a population as a “neutral” or “non- lethal” mutation.
Evolution throws everything at the wall.

I never said that Emily was wrong. I merely provided additional information, from the POV of a biologist with some background in genetics and cell and molecular biology.

Evolution is not a thinking process with a will and a mind. It is simply the process of change via an accumulation of mutations which either are not deleterious prior to reproduction or confer an absolute advantage for that particular advantage. Mutations are random, are mostly deleted through editing/repair of the cell's DNA and those which persist are mostly deleterious. Mutations which were advantageous in one environment may persist in another environment and may be deleterious in that new environment.

 

[Elixir]

Evolution is not a thinking process with a will and a mind. It is simply the process of change via an accumulation of mutations which either are not deleterious prior to reproduction or confer an absolute advantage for that particular advantage.

Yeah it works out to something like that.
More simply “a change in allele frequencies within a population.“

 

[Toni]

Sure. Nonbiologists have plenty to google and repeat on the internet. I'm out.

 

[Elixir]

Sure. Nonbiologists have plenty to google and repeat on the internet. I'm out.

Hey, I didn’t pretend to invent that famous definition. If you have a beef with it because it doesn’t delve into any of the myriad factors that lend to changes in allele frequencies, I think that’s excessive nitpickery. It doesn’t matter what causes it, whether sexual preferences, changing fitness landscapes, cosmic rays or whatever. I like that definition of evolution because it is an accurate description of the outcome that matters. It’s short and concise. and I did not just “look it up”. I committed it to memory (a huge investment of brain cells for an uneducated layperson, for sure) decades ago. I don’t see it as a discussion ender, but if you do that’s cool. Just don’t look down your nose at me for not owning a PhD in evolutionary biology. Rest assured, I admire those who do, but I don’t see it as a guarantor of authoritarian accuracy. Nor is the lack of advanced degree a guarantor of incomprehension.

 

[Jarhyn]

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.

What part of "testosterone and sperm is clearly the problem, not the penis" makes you think I said "let people in who produce testosterone and sperm"?

The only point at which I would endorse that is for people under the age of 18, or 21, or whatever age people are allowed to get their testicles off, and only to the extent that they have been off testosterone for long enough to get their testicles off, were they to be old enough.

 

[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??

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.

Many states? I thought it was only a few.

And in practice if you do it in an area with lots of people you're likely to get arrested for disturbing the peace.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

They have a right to believe what they want. That doesn't make it not a delusion, though.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You don't get to tell someone they don't have a right to a fear. You can say the fear is unreasonable and others should not be required to coddle the fear, but you can't take the fear away.

Your (hypothetical) terror of dogs doesn't mean you can require that I not walk my dog on public lands.

I can absolutely point to the fact that some of those fears, some of those fever pitched hate mongering calls are based on phantoms and hate.

Yup, it's the media's eternal need for eyeballs. Beat the drums of fear. It's worse on the right but both sides are guilty.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

You're tarring all who share a characteristic with an evildoer.

If it's ok to keep men out it's also ok to keep blacks out.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Some mutations do confer advantages. Sickle cell is the obvious example: it provides protection against malaria as the deformed blood cells cannot provide an adequate environment for plasmodium responsible for malaria. Cystic fibrosis may confer resistance to cholera or other infections that cause wasting diarrhea. Such mutations provide an advantage that allows survival to reproductive age, allowing the trait to be passed on. Other mutations seem to provide protection against heart disease or broken bones.

Add hemochromatosis/infection. It's not even a case of one hit good/two hits bad, but rather benefit now for death later.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Honestly, a third space would be perfectly reasonable. They don't have to stay in the men's locker room, let's all pitch in and help build a few stand-alone sex-neutral spaces.

Otherwise, yeah, spot-on.

Amazing how you missed part of my point. You and Jarhyn are so entrenched on your positions that there is no discussion.

I didn't think I missed any of your point, I just added an element of my own position. I feel like my position was a bit more middle ground that what you presented - and I think it's a position that most women would also support.

If you feel I genuinely missed something salient, please fill me in.

 

[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.

Some mutations do confer advantages. Sickle cell is the obvious example: it provides protection against malaria as the deformed blood cells cannot provide an adequate environment for plasmodium responsible for malaria. Cystic fibrosis may confer resistance to cholera or other infections that cause wasting diarrhea. Such mutations provide an advantage that allows survival to reproductive age, allowing the trait to be passed on. Other mutations seem to provide protection against heart disease or broken bones.

Yes, of course. Some mutations are subject to Darwinian evolution. I wasn't trying to imply that mutations that increase fitness don't exist, just fleshing out that many heritable traits are not Darwinian, they just don't cause enough of a problem to get weeded out. It was a bit of a digression though