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

[Emily Lake]

I don't know a single male person who has not been threatened, assaulted, or raped by a person on testosterone.

I would be hard pressed to think of a single time I have been physically assaulted by someone who is not on testosterone.

You've swapped sexual assault with physical assault, and you seem to think nobody would notice.

 

[Rhea]

But have you ever actually been attacked by a black person, for absolutely no reason other than that you are white?

I watched someone directly in front of me being attacked by black people because they were white, yes, and have been harassed by black people because I am white on several occasions.

random unwarranted attacks by black people do not happen in a materially and statistically different way than they do by white people

This is not my lived experience.

Every woman who has participated in this thread has been assaulted by a man - and we weren't assaulted for an external reason, we were assaulted by men because we are women

No, you were assaulted by men because they were assholes on testosterone.

I have been threatened by women and men in equal measure over the course of my life, more often by black people than white people.

Outside of the course of direct violent crime, in the realm of mere threats, the threats were shaped differently but they were no less equivalent as threats.

I can readily identify that trans people, who I run into at much higher rates than the general public does, have never threatened me with violence... Though one did threaten me with a false rape accusation. I'll give you even money on what gender they were.

I don't know a single male person who has not been threatened, assaulted, or raped by a person on testosterone.

I would be hard pressed to think of a single time I have been physically assaulted by someone who is not on testosterone.

I HAVE been SOCIALLY assaulted by people on estrogen, however.

These are simple facts.

People on testosterone do not threaten you because they were born with a penis or because they are "men" or because you are women. They do it because they have poor judgement made worse by exposure to testosterone, and they do it to everyone.

It's just most people on testosterone don't attribute it to them being male, because there's no identifiable difference to assume as the motive. Because they are also generally on testosterone and a relatively equal physical match, they don't make much of it.

It's the testosterone that is the major differentiable causal contributor to this violent behavior, and I can see it in painfully stark relief as someone who is not on testosterone, and have direct visibility on the kinds of thoughts that happen while exposed to it because of past experience.

Your sex does not determine whether you will be harassed, assaulted, or otherwise targeted. It only determines the shape of the harassment, assault, or targeted violence.

This is profoundly insulting.

Jarhyn - your inward-pointing thoughts centering yourself in a discussion about the violence that women face all our lives is monumentally insulting. And you are talking about something you don’t understand - that you are demonstrating that you don’t understand - and telling women that the entire #metoo movement was incomprehensible to you.

That you don’t even know that pre-pubescent boys mimic the behavior of cultural men and with no puberty-driven testosterone will STILL attack females for being female is just another example of what you don’t even know about our lives. It’s like being right back in that courtroom and hearing my attacker and his lawyer argue that it could not have been a crime, because…. “After all, she knew who he was. He wasn’t a stanger.” And the judge saying, “oh that makes sense. No punishment, then,” even though I had never met him before he showed up at my house with a baseball bat.

I continue to find your manspaining to be both insulting and detrimental to the progress of trans women. You do them no favors. Indeed, you harm their cause.

 

[Emily Lake]

I HAVE been SOCIALLY assaulted by people on estrogen, however.

What the actual fuck is a "social assault"?

 

[Emily Lake]

It's the testosterone that is the major differentiable causal contributor to this violent behavior, and I can see it in painfully stark relief as someone who is not on testosterone, and have direct visibility on the kinds of thoughts that happen while exposed to it because of past experience.

I have been unable to discern any difference in your level of aggression.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How are you measuring "stronger" and "more physically developed"? No doubt you can back that claim up if you cherry pick the data, but otherwise?

There's a table of childhood track and field records here, listed by event, sex and age. http://age-records.125mb.com/

Matched by age, before puberty, the boys' records are systematically better than the girls' records in nearly all the events.

Your source is 5 to 19 year olds. It includes boys who have gone through the majority of puberty.

There is a period of time where girls gain height more quickly than boys, so for about a year it would be true that girls have a slight advantage. But the variance is very small relative to the difference caused by puberty.

I think it's reasonable to say that prior to puberty, girls and boys have essentially the same physicality with respect to athletics.

Well, yes and no. My daughter had a much greater ability to follow technical instructions in 1st grade than girls on average. Is this because she is super human? No, she is smart, but it was more in part because this was reinforced at home.

Girls can be taller for a moment, but as the study in the Cycling World article accurately indicates, males are groomed for athletics. The study indicates that such discrepancy is actually quite large and impacts female athlete's potential for performance. IE, it isn't because the transgeneder woman is using a "man's chassis", but because they had better access to train... because they were a male.

 

[Emily Lake]

The correct path is always going to be to respect the results of research while attempting to validate it more heavily, rather than rejecting the results of research.

It is "trust, but verify" not "distrust while attempting to confirm one's biases".

Are you serious? You're the one arguing that transwomen should be allowed to particpate in female sports, while we do some additional studies to see if there's an advantage to them being male.

Apparently creating disruption and disadvantage to female women is just not a big deal to you, as long as the male women get to feel good about themselves.

 

[Emily Lake]

The panic reaction of a rabbit when it sees a wolf is totally just prejudice

"Trans women are WOLVES!!!!111"

No. You are the one acting like the wolf here.

Emily was not analogizing wolves to transwomen; she was analogizing wolves to men.

I took that as Jarhyn tacitly admitting that transwomen are men.

No, it was you calling trans women men.

You call people with penises "men" consistently, regardless of whether they are men or not.

Trans women often have penises, even ones without balls.

You are the one who broad brushed "penis=wolf", straight up.

I analogized males to wolves, and how they identify in their completely subjective minds is irrelevant to that. A transwoman is still male. In fact, being male is a prerequisite for them to be a transwoman in the fist place.

Whether they have balls is irrelevant to their status as males. Even if they remove both their penis and their balls, they are still male.

You're the one who keeps making the inane argument that women are "people without testosterone" and ignoring the myriad material differences between the two sexes.

 

[Emily Lake]

Men are taller
Men have longer legs and arms
Men have larger feet and hands
Men have larger hearts
Men have larger lungs
Men have more fast-twitch muscles
Men have different femur angles
Men have different tendon and musculature attachment points for hips and shoulders
Men's internal organs are more tightly bound into position

No, some men are going to be taller and some men are shorter than any given woman.
Some men have longer legs and arms and some men have shorter legs and arms than any given woman...
And so on.

That there exist some very few extremely small men and some very few extremely tall women does not in any way invalidate the statistically material differences between the sexes.

The determinant of this is a variety of factors based on when, and which hormones, effect the body, and to what extent, along with a myriad of other factors completely independent of sex hormones.

Height, heart size, lung size, fast-twitch muscle density, femur angles, attachment points, and internal organ elasticity are NOT a result of hormones. They're a result of millions of years of evolution in a sexually reproductive species. They're a result of those myriad other factors that are independent of sex hormones... but they're NOT independent of sex. This is why your insistence that "women are people without testosterone" argument is fallacious and wrong.

"Men" as a group are not anything in particular because the group of "men" is an artificial group selection.

Even when I publicly identified as a man, I was not "men", I was only ever just "me".

And when I publicly identified as a man, before I cut testosterone out of my life, it was the testosterone that caused my body to grow in the ways it did.

There is less between-group variations than there is within-group variation, regardless.

This is rampant special pleading wrapped up in a No True Scotsman all fallaciously formed in order to support your desire to gain access to female spaces due to your lack of testicles.

 

[Emily Lake]

Currently we know men in general faster/stronger than women, ie kind for kind... competitive men v competitive women, non-competitive men v non-competitive women.

The research needs to show that this is not true for the case of formerly competitive men.

Well, we know damned well that Lia Thomas was NOT competitive when living "as a man", but has broken many female records while living "as a woman".

We've seen this over and over and over with self-declared transwomen, who meet the requirements for reduced testosterone. We see again and again that they are UNcompetitive when they still had testosterone and were competing against men... and they become record breakers when the reduce testosterone and compete against women.

 

[Emily Lake]

How are you measuring "stronger" and "more physically developed"? No doubt you can back that claim up if you cherry pick the data, but otherwise?

There's a table of childhood track and field records here, listed by event, sex and age. http://age-records.125mb.com/

Matched by age, before puberty, the boys' records are systematically better than the girls' records in nearly all the events.

Your source is 5 to 19 year olds. It includes boys who have gone through the majority of puberty.

There is a period of time where girls gain height more quickly than boys, so for about a year it would be true that girls have a slight advantage. But the variance is very small relative to the difference caused by puberty.

I think it's reasonable to say that prior to puberty, girls and boys have essentially the same physicality with respect to athletics.

Well, yes and no. My daughter had a much greater ability to follow technical instructions in 1st grade than girls on average. Is this because she is super human? No, she is smart, but it was more in part because this was reinforced at home.

Girls can be taller for a moment, but as the study in the Cycling World article accurately indicates, males are groomed for athletics. The study indicates that such discrepancy is actually quite large and impacts female athlete's potential for performance. IE, it isn't because the transgeneder woman is using a "man's chassis", but because they had better access to train... because they were a male.

Okay, yes, the social conditioning plays a role in performance. I was trying to focus on the physicality itself - prior to puberty, there is little innate physical dimorphism between males and females. If, for example, society were to flip on its head and emphasize athletics for girls and dissuade it for boys, we might see girls performing better than males... becuse the difference in performance before puberty is not materially due to differences in our physical build.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Currently we know men in general faster/stronger than women, ie kind for kind... competitive men v competitive women, non-competitive men v non-competitive women.

The research needs to show that this is not true for the case of formerly competitive men.

Well, we know damned well that Lia Thomas was NOT competitive when living "as a man", but has broken many female records while living "as a woman".

Many records? I'm pretty certain Ledecky was faster than her. I've noted repeatedly, swimming is much more chassis in-tuned (exterior... ie height/width/shoulders). There is so little data on Lia Thomas. From what little I've found, their swimming times didn't decrease appreciably, and their transition was relatively late.

We've seen this over and over and over with self-declared transwomen, who meet the requirements for reduced testosterone.

You make it sounds like we have a huge book of data on this. We don't. It isn't that common.

We see again and again that they are UNcompetitive when they still had testosterone and were competing against men... and they become record breakers when the reduce testosterone and compete against women.

And the UCI study indicates the issue isn't necessarily them being a male... but also includes a significant impact from the benefits they received for training because they were a male. (See USNWT (USWNT?) for soccer about that).

 

[Emily Lake]

You make it sounds like we have a huge book of data on this. We don't. It isn't that common.

I think it's more common that you are aware of.

 

[Toni]

Men are taller
Men have longer legs and arms
Men have larger feet and hands
Men have larger hearts
Men have larger lungs
Men have more fast-twitch muscles
Men have different femur angles
Men have different tendon and musculature attachment points for hips and shoulders
Men's internal organs are more tightly bound into position

No, some men are going to be taller and some men are shorter than any given woman.
Some men have longer legs and arms and some men have shorter legs and arms than any given woman...
And so on.

The determinant of this is a variety of factors based on when, and which hormones, effect the body, and to what extent, along with a myriad of other factors completely independent of sex hormones.

"Men" as a group are not anything in particular because the group of "men" is an artificial group selection.

Even when I publicly identified as a man, I was not "men", I was only ever just "me".

And when I publicly identified as a man, before I cut testosterone out of my life, it was the testosterone that caused my body to grow in the ways it did.

There is less between-group variations than there is within-group variation, regardless.

All groups are selected.

Most animal species are divided into male and female. Most societies, animal and human, group themselves according to sex and/or gender.

In humans and mammals, those with XY chromosomal array, testes and a penis are grouped as 'male.' Those with XX chromosomal array, ovaries, uterus and a vagina (and often other genitalia) are grouped as female. Male cats and dogs and horses and cows, etc. are still male even if they are castrated. Female cats and dogs who have had complete hysterectomies are considered female, even if they lack ovaries and uterus (and fallopian tubes, etc.) In cats and dogs, spaying/neutering changes mating behavior and can reduce some types of aggression in male dogs.

Humans assign arm and leg to different limbs, depending on their location, which also determines the function of the limb.

 

[Jarhyn]

Instinctual fear for physical safety at the hands of a group that has been demonstrated to cause physical harm is not any kind of ism

And this is the case for all groups of persons which may be visually distinguished from one's own group.

It is instinctual.

And people have been having race wars since the beginning of time.

It's still racism to do it.

It's still not justified because you are judging individuals on the basis of people who are not them, rather than on the basis of something about them specifically.

 

[Toni]

Instinctual fear for physical safety at the hands of a group that has been demonstrated to cause physical harm is not any kind of ism

And this is the case for all groups of persons which may be visually distinguished from one's own group.

It is instinctual.

And people have been having race wars since the beginning of time.

It's still racism to do it.

It's still not justified because you are judging individuals on the basis of people who are not them, rather than on the basis of something about them specifically.

I don't think that racism is instinctual. Race is an artificial construct, to begin with. Depending on where one lives in the world, racism may be obvious and severe, or it may be absent or negligible, and mostly in between. Racism has much more to do with socialization than it does instinct. Socialization includes within the family group and in different, larger groups within society and between societies.

Unlike you, I do not see sex as an artificial construct. We tend to be rigid about what constitutes male and what constitutes female and not all societies accept that there are more than one gender or that intersex individuals exist. But biology has assigned pregnancy and birth giving as female. It has assigned fertilization of the ova to males.

Society has also assigned social roles according to the agreement and power structure of the society, and that differs according to society. Such roles are often rigid and often enforced, on groups based on whether they are grouped as male or female. Such roles, aside from reproduction and breast feeding, have no biological basis. Those are arbitrary, even though many of them are based in long time tradition of supporting pregnant and lactating females.

Wars are fought because of a desire to exert power and control or to maintain power and control. Skin color, ethnicity, religion, language, educational status and other categories provide the excuse for the war but war is about aggressive desire to exert power and control.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You make it sounds like we have a huge book of data on this. We don't. It isn't that common.

I think it's more common that you are aware of.

That wouldn't be common. That wasn't a particularly long list, 28 cases. Possible data to toss in the hopper. This is not to be misconstrued that each of these cases is fair sport.

 

[Jarhyn]

I don't think that racism is instinctual

Personal group exceptionalism is bread and butter to the darwinistic process. There's so much selection pressure towards "for me and those most identifiably like me, if I can get away with it"....

"Race" is an artificial concept, sure..

What I'm talking about is a core element of zero-sum-game survival.

I'm just speculating it here, but I suspect that this is so core to life fully half of our brain evolved towards primary considerations of ME, and the other half, literally the whole half, evolved towards primary considerations of US.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Instinctual fear for physical safety at the hands of a group that has been demonstrated to cause physical harm is not any kind of ism

And this is the case for all groups of persons which may be visually distinguished from one's own group.

It is instinctual.

And people have been having race wars since the beginning of time.

It's still racism to do it.

It's still not justified because you are judging individuals on the basis of people who are not them, rather than on the basis of something about them specifically.

Let's play thought experiment:

• A completely casual guy, to whom nudity means nothing, walks into the women's locker room intent on taking a shower, getting dressed, and going home.
  • Toni, in same locker room sees the guy, she has an immediate reaction of fight or flight.
• A psychopathic male who is intent on violently assaulting a woman in the women's locker room, walks into the women's locker room intent on walking into a shower stall and committing a heinous crime.
  • Toni, in same locker room sees the guy, she has an immediate reaction of fight or flight.
• A presurgical transgender woman, walks into the women's locker room intent on taking a shower, getting dressed, and going home.
  • Toni, in same locker room sees the guy, she has an immediate reaction of fight or flight.
• A woman walks into the women's locker room.
  • Toni, in same locker room sees the woman, goes back to whatever she was doing.

The odd part is that Toni is as guilty of "judging" the to be rapist, because she can't possibly know he intends to commit an act of sexual violence. You are indicating that until they are under attack, a random woman in the locker room has no basis to form any opinion, other than "that person belongs in here because they are here". I can't imagine a woman getting sexually assaulted thinking "well thank goodness I didn't offend a transgender woman"

 

[Toni]

I don't think that racism is instinctual

Personal group exceptionalism is bread and butter to the darwinistic process. There's so much selection pressure towards "for me and those most identifiably like me, if I can get away with it"....

"Race" is an artificial concept, sure..

What I'm talking about is a core element of zero-sum-game survival.

I'm just speculating it here, but I suspect that this is so core to life fully half of our brain evolved towards primary considerations of ME, and the other half, literally the whole half, evolved towards primary considerations of US.

If you are going to talk about core element of zero sum game survival, then women definitely have every reason to not want any male appearing man in any space where the women might be in some state of undress without their express consent.

 

[Jarhyn]

A completely casual guy, to whom nudity means nothing, walks into the women's locker room intent on taking a shower, getting dressed, and going home.

• Toni, in same locker room sees the guy, she has an immediate reaction of fight or flight.

More details are needed according to my stated methodology, and first off you are automatically proclaiming it a "guy". I'll treat with you starting at "person with a penis and no breasts".

Where is this locker room -- is it in the YMCA, or is it in a "women's" gym, or is it after a sports game, or is it after a college class, or is it at the local pool...
Context here matters. People can be reasonably expected to properly contextualize their fears and work through them when they have contextually inappropriate reactions.
Does she know who it is?

Do they have testicles?

A psychopathic male who is intent on violently assaulting a woman in the women's locker room, walks into the women's locker room intent on walking into a shower stall and committing a heinous crime.

• Toni, in same locker room sees the guy, she has an immediate reaction of fight or flight.

A psychopathic woman who is intent on violently assaulting people...

Again, though, a lot depends on where she is.

If she's in a YMCA, I already provided that there should be an option that isn't the other.

If it's a normal women's fitness club, either this person no longer has testicles AND has passed a urinalysis for testosterone, so they are a regular member of the gym, OR they have already shot everyone from the front desk to the locker room, she has many other indicators as to what is going on.

Let's assume thought that she is, perhaps, a deaf person and doesn't hear the sounds of someone in the building forcing their way past the person at the front desk, forcing a door, traveling through the gym, and getting naked BEFORE attacking her...

I'm sorry, but your situation is not plausible.

There is going to be myriad things that warrant reasonable reaction (though not expected reaction) prior to that point.

If it is the YMCA and she attacks a female with a flat chest in automatic fight or flight because that person looks "mannish", she's just attacked someone based on knee-jerk prejudice, and if she runs... Well, that's a really fucking shitty thing to do to someone.

If she is in the YMCA and the person has a penis out, she would be fully encouraged (though not expected because that would be victim blaming) to fight or run, because I have already said that where there is mixed public access, there needs to be a third option which does not out trans people.

If it is after a sports game, either the psychopath is already someone she knows and is on her team, as an intact male psychopath, or is a complete stranger and she is not expecting to see them and then again, fully encouraged to fight or run.