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

[Jarhyn]

You want women to set aside many thousands of years of social conditioning and instinct and reflexes that accompany significant PTSD from trauma they have suffered and just ignore all of that—on someone else’s say so. Just assume they’re ok. Harmless.

No.

Individual women do not have many thousands of years of social conditioning.

Actual individual women have somewhere between 0 and ~120 years of it.

Racists have just as much of each of these things driving their racist behavior.

Racists said "no" as well. Then we fought a war. Then racists still said "no". The we fought a protracted political battle. Then racists still said "no".

We are still fighting, because we recognize that the behavior has some quality about it which makes it wrong.

It is wrong to judge people on some broad aspect of their appearance, no matter that appearance, when that the appearance is not specific to an action

If the appearance obscures some normal appearance of action, then validation MUST be available and satisfied before asking for trust beyond the threshold of validation

 

[Toni]

You want women to set aside many thousands of years of social conditioning and instinct and reflexes that accompany significant PTSD from trauma they have suffered and just ignore all of that—on someone else’s say so. Just assume they’re ok. Harmless.

No.

Individual women do not have many thousands of years of social conditioning.

Actual individual women have somewhere between 0 and ~120 years of it.

Racists have just as much of each of these things driving their racist behavior.

Racists said "no" as well. Then we fought a war. Then racists still said "no". The we fought a protracted political battle. Then racists still said "no".

We are still fighting, because we recognize that the behavior has some quality about it which makes it wrong.

It is wrong to judge people on some broad aspect of their appearance, no matter that appearance, when that the appearance is not specific to an action

If the appearance obscures some normal appearance of action, then validation MUST be available and satisfied before asking for trust beyond the threshold of validation

I find it extremely racist that you are comparing women, of whom a minimum of 1/4 are raped and many more are sexually assaulted, feeling concerned about the presence of a naked stranger person with a penis standing next to them in a women's locker room/shower to those who seek to deny ordinary rights to persons based on the color of their skin, in the US because of a nasty history of slavery and genocide. Forms of slavery are still in existence in the US.


As woke as I think you believe that you are, I am certain that you are aware of systemic racism. and how it affects the lives of persons of color today.

Well, women are socialized under systemic sexism, and cultures that some ways find it acceptable that women are subjugated, raped, beaten, denied education, job opportunities, access to medical care, controlled. manipulated, treated as property, expected to set aside every single need and want in favor of what some man (or boy: a male child can become the head of family and so have absolute control over his mother, sisters, aunts, grandmother) needs or wants, including whims. This is less true in the US than say, in Afghanistan, but in the US, women are seeing their rights erode, under attack throughout the US.

The US has a nasty history of burning women at the stake, claiming that they were witches but really seeking to gain control over property and wealth. Of course, women my age remember Help Wanted ads being sorted by sex, and when it was not hidden that males were paid more than females for the exact same work. It was not until 1974 that women were allowed to have credit or even a bank account in their own name! There is a thread right now about eliminating No Fault divorce, which would roll back rights of women to seek a divorce from a marriage they no longer wish to be in--including one where their husband abuses them. Sexism and the desire to subjugate women to the will of men and the laws to enforce such will have not disappeared, nor has discrimination in medical care, credit, employment, housing and a thousand other things. The US has failed enact an amendment to the US Constitution guaranteeing equal rights for women.

If you want to compare women fearing a naked stranger with a penis in a shower next to them with racism, at least get the comparison right: Women fear naked strangers with penises in the shower next to them for the exact same reason black men fear being pulled over by the police. Police are not likely to rape black men but there is an extremely good chance they will decide they need to use lethal force against them. How are black people supposed to determine which cops are 'good' and which are 'bad?' Yeah, that's exactly how women are supposed to determine which naked strangers with penises in women's only spaces, standing next to them in the shower.


Knock of the racism comparisons. It won't go the way you think it will.

 

[Jarhyn]

As woke as I think you believe that you are, I am certain that you are aware of systemic racism. and how it affects the lives of persons of color today

The very thing that makes racism wrong, the exact thing, is that it denied people power to act in the world on the basis of something that has nothing to do with their decisions, or something to do with decisions denied to them.

That specifically causes racism to be wrong. It is prejudicial to good order and individual merit.

If you want to talk about it, they come from the same root.

Both situations are wrong for the same reasons. The only difference is that you apparently want to hold on to one of those prejudices, even when you know it does not make you more secure, and in fact makes someone else much less secure for no reason, such as in a locker room where someone has established membership on account of them validating their absence of testicles and testosterone before having access to the space containing said locker room.

 

[Toni]

As woke as I think you believe that you are, I am certain that you are aware of systemic racism. and how it affects the lives of persons of color today

The very thing that makes racism wrong, the exact thing, is that it denied people power to act in the world on the basis of something that has nothing to do with their decisions, or something to do with decisions denied to them.

That specifically causes racism to be wrong. It is prejudicial to good order and individual merit.

If you want to talk about it, they come from the same root.

Both situations are wrong for the same reasons. The only difference is that you apparently want to hold on to one of those prejudices, even when you know it does not make you more secure, and in fact makes someone else much less secure for no reason, such as in a locker room where someone has established membership on account of them validating their absence of testicles and testosterone before having access to the space containing said locker room.

And here you are, insisting that women accept something that goes against their best interests because some man said so.

You have repeatedly gaslighted the women in this thread, insisting that they must overcome their fight/flight instincts to satisfy the desire of a subset of men and calling them a variety of names when they refuse to acquiesce.

Penis haters.

The same thing as racist except prejudice against penises. Never mind that at least some if not all of the women in this thread are cis women married to men, so have demonstrated that in fact, they kinda have a thing for: penises.

YOU are wrong for the same reason that racism is wrong. YOU are behaving in an aggressive, misogynist way towards women in general and women in this thread in particular.

YOU are gaslighting people.

YOU are expecting women to accept a strange person with a penis standing next to them in a women's only shower when YOU are unwilling to do the same thing. You even had yourself castrated so that you would 'fit in' more in the women's locker room.

YOU have very good reasons, and a long and terrible history of having reasons to not want to stand naked in a shower next to a naked stranger with a penis. SO DO WOMEN.

Instead of showing any empathy with the plight of women, you gaslight us for wanting to ensure our safety and comfort, for not wishing to be traumatized in spaces that are supposed to be safe for women. YOU want to make it easier for our daughters to be groomed by perverts by teaching them to accept naked strangers with penises next to them in the shower room. Nothing wrong with that unless they are raping you and by then, it's way too late. But no worries: the next naked stranger with a penis is unlikely to also be a rapist. JUST CHECK FOR BALLS.

I'm calling bullshit but also a small thank you for reminding us all that men still want to tell women what is and is not safe and what is and women do and do not have to accept. Hint: It's whatever some man says.

Bullshit.

 

[Bomb#20]

The US has a nasty history of burning women at the stake, claiming that they were witches but really seeking to gain control over property and wealth.

That's a myth -- burning at the stake for witchcraft was mainly a thing in central Europe. All the executed accused witches in Massachusetts and Connecticut were hanged, in accordance with British practice. Also, the motives for the false accusations were almost always just petty resentments among neighbors -- few of the victims had any wealth for an accuser to gain. "The banality of evil" applies in spades.

 

[bilby]

burning at the stake for witchcraft was mainly a thing in central Europe

As a general rule, Protestant countries hanged witches, and Catholic ones burned them, though there were plenty of exceptions. Beheading was always popular for the nobility and aristocracy, but was considered far too good for the peasants.

The Roman Catholic Church really liked setting people on fire.

Nobody was ever burned at the stake for witchcraft in England, though most English people genuinely believe that it was a common practice. I imagine the US has a similar history and similar mythology.

 

[Emily Lake]

Every bit as much as white people who do the same.

Hey black and brown folk - Jarhyn has mandated that you are bigoted if you view cops as potential threats, and take actions to minimize any attention you might draw to yourself, or otherwise alter your own behavior to mitigate that perceived risk.

Jarhyn, in his infinite wisdom, has decided that you have to make certain you are completely vulnerable to potential bad actors UNTIL AFTER they start acting badly.

 

[Emily Lake]

If we force places to allow blacks in our restrooms, that equally applies to all people's houses.

Yes. It means if you don't invite someone into your house "because they are black" you are a racist.

That says nothing about not inviting someone into your house "because you do not know them".

The point was ANALOGIES SUCK!

I wish I could give this more than one thumbs up.

 

[Emily Lake]

And women aren't raped for being female, they're raped because they have what some men want. The equivalent is mugging.

Makes perfect sense. Which is why the statistics for victimization are the same for males and females, right? RIGHT???????

 

[Emily Lake]

I think it's pretty clear that those who never experienced male puberty are competitively female. Beyond that I get the feeling the research is more ideologically driven than scientifically driven.

However, that has nothing to do with the rest of society.

In this thread, a man declares that if a man hasn't had the entire benefits of testosterone during puberty, he's not really a man, and should compete with the rest of the non-men who haven't managed to attain the great honor of manhood as the will of god and the designer of the universe has decreed.

A male who doesn't have puberty is still a male - they will still be taller, have larger hands and feet, will still have a larger heart and larger lung capacity, and will still have the benefit of a male gait as a result of their pelvic structure.

I don't know how many ways I can say this: WOMEN ARE NOT FAILED MEN; MEN WHO DIDN'T HAVE PUBERTY DON'T TURN INTO WOMEN AND ARE NOT COMPARABLE TO WOMEN; EUNUCHS ARE JUST AS MALE AS WHEN THEY HAD THEIR BALLS.

Also, just in case you've missed it - no male can have a female puberty. That's not possible. No amount of testosterone suppression and exogenous estrogen is going to cause a male's non-existent uterus to enlarge, or for them to experience menarche from their non-existent uterus and non-existent ovaries, and it won't cause their entirely male pelvis to alter shape or position.

The absolute best you can hope for is to lock a male child into a permanently juvenile body.

PERMANENTLY JUVENILE MALES ARE NOT FEMALES.

 

[Emily Lake]

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"

Your experiment has a problem: You're playing Monday morning quarterback.

Case E: A psychopathic male dressed in drag walks in.

C, D and E will all appear female until they undress.

It's security theater, not actual security.

Are you genuinely unable to tell the difference between a man in a dress and a woman?

The first three scenarios, as well as your psycho in drag scenario are all going to be perceived as male in about 99% of cases. And I'm only giving a teensy smidge of possibility for the presurgical transwoman on the far-fetched assumption that they've actually had a whole lot of facial feminization surgeries done while not having addressed their twig and giggle berries.

Honestly, the vast majority of transwomen - even post surgical transwomen - *still* read as male.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

You keep saying that as though it were a logical implication. It isn't. It's perfectly possible for it to be okay to keep men out but not okay to keep blacks out -- all it takes is for your parallel to break down in some way. For example, if ladies' rooms had been instituted by the matriarchy to keep the female rulers and their ingroup from having to rub elbows with the powerless men they oppress, that would make your parallel quite a bit better than it in fact is.

In both cases it's a decision based on a basically immutable characteristic that causes fear.

Nobody has addressed this.

It has been addressed.

1 in 4 women have been the victim of a rape or attempted rape by a man.
One in four.
That has NEVER EVER been true of white people being victims of black crime. Ever.

Moreover, white people claiming they were attacked by black people have never been accused of being the cause of their own attack.


Women have navigated this all our lives. We know who attacks us and we know what happens to us if we DON’T aggressively manage that risk.


The fact that you sit there and say we never addressed it when we HAVE and in this thread, is a demonstration of the problem.

NO, the two are not the same. They never were. Black Americans have been unjustly deemed a threat by people who were never attacked. The same is not true for women managing not only their risk but their typical blame For not managing their risk enough.

This argument applies equally to keeping men out of any location.

No it doesn’t.
How dare you call the hard wired instinct that women have to protect themselves from sexual assault, an instinct that is reinforced throughout all societies all over the world…comparable to racism????

This is ducking no different than what all of us women have been hearing since we were born: wherever we draw any kind of boundary, no matter how reasonable, no matter how rational abd necessary for our own security, for our own safety, for our own survival—there’s some asshole man t calling us a name fir daring to have a boundary. Usually it’s something like uptight bitch but now I guess that’s not enough. Now we are almost racists for wanting to not shower with strangers with penises—-that someone else have deemed ‘safe.’ And of course, that someone else will be male.

And hey, if we don’t like it we can just crawl back into our little hidey holes and continue to clean up whatever shit some man leaves lying about. Let men have all the jobs, all the power, all the control. We need to know it’s fir our own good. So asshole men will approve of us. Of course with a smile, always with a smile. We mustn’t forget to always smile.

I think there’s a movie about that, isn’t there? Called Smile? Haven’t seen it but sounds right.

That would be rules 2, 3, and 12.

Jarhyn has a whole lot of Rule 15 in his view, in his persistent need to exile any men who aren't man enough by his own very odd standards as being "other" along with women. Men without balls, men with low testosterone, men who cross dress, and transgender identified males are all things that Jarhyn tosses into the pile of "non-men" and insists there's no difference between any of those and women as a whole.

 

[Emily Lake]

Every single example of why eunochs should not be treated with fear if they haven’t exhibited aggressive behavior is true for the #NotAllMen who think that they, too, should be assumed safe until they prove otherwise.


Billions of women have been attacked, raped and murder by letting down that guard. 1 in 4 women.
We manage our known risk.
You do not understand that risk, Jarhyn, as you keep saying it’s exactly the same as people who face a 1:1,000,000 risk.

It’s actually more than 1 in four.

It's 1 in 4 that get reported on because they were far enough outside of the background noise of the steady stream of sexualized behaviors that we normally experience.

Seriously - how many of us have been felt up by a complete stranger in a crowded venue? I don't even know how many times I've had my boob or my butt grabbed by some skeezy asshole just because he had the opportunity to do it without being caught.

 

[Emily Lake]

As you note most men (here to be considered as "folks with greater than some mutually acceptable measure of testosterone and below some mutually acceptable measure of estrogen")

Stop trying to force your bespoke definition of man into everyone else's views. You are the only person who uses that definition, largely because it's a completely ridiculous definition.

 

[Emily Lake]

If you see someone you know with a penis in a bathroom, then they will be someone you know is trans and on HRT, or someone you can know isn't, especially if you can demand to see markers on their ID.

Why do you keep assuming this is true?

Why do you think that women will personally know every single member of a gym they go to? Every single person at the local pool?

Why do you think that every single non/pre-op transwoman is on HRT in the first place? Why do you think they will out themselves to every single person in the vicinity so that everyone knows they're trans?

Why do you think women will be able to demand an ID? Why do you think be-penised males will actually show their id?

What exactly do you think is going to happen if the bepenised male who is naked in the showers fails to provide an ID?

Your entire approach rests on some utopian fantasy where nobody ever lies or decieves or exploits poorly written policies.

And you KEEP coming back to your own weird definition of "men have a lot of testosterone and everyone who doesn't have that arbitrary-made-up-by-Jarhyn level of testosterone is indistinguishable from women so they belong with all the other non-men"

 

[Emily Lake]

A naked stranger with a penis in the shower next to you is extremely unexpected in a women's only locker room.

And a naked stranger with a penis in a prison is extremely unexpected to be anything but a trans person.

And a naked stranger with a penis in a locker room at "Aria's Gym for Women" is extremely unexpected to be anything but a trans person.

Are you sure? How confident are you that it's actually BE a transwoman versus SAY THEY ARE a transwoman? Why do you think women should just take it on faith that this is the case?

Also, a naked stranger with a penis in a women's locker room is EXTREMELY UNEXPECTED TO BE THERE AT ALL.

 

[Emily Lake]

But even in a school type setting, the school will have vetted the trans individual’s medical records and will have established that this individual is trans. They will likely have put into place whatever accommodations are necessary to ensure the safety and comfort of all students involved.

Unless it's in Illinois, where the female girls who objected to the presence of the 100% completely unaltered male "girl" were told that 1) they had no right to visual privacy (thus decriminalizing voyeurism) and 2) if they didn't like it, they could find some other place to shower and change.

The safety and comfort of female girls seems to be consistently overlooked and disregarded.

 

[Emily Lake]

They will react just as "instinctively" as whites responding to blacks.

Just because you have problems controlling your own racist tendencies doesn't mean that the average well-adjusted white person responds "instinctively differently" to black people. That's some seriously racist assumptions on your part, extending your own discriminatory views to everyone else.

 

[Emily Lake]

If for some reason out of my control I never saw another black person again, I would be simultaneously mournful and more comfortable. I don't deserve or want that comfort. What I deserve is to be educated by experience and consistent effort at challenging my unwanted and anti-social biases.

Don't extend your own racist tendencies to anyone other than just you.

Safety I deserve.

So YOU deserve safety from the potential risk of males... but females do NOT deserve any safety from the potential risk of males. You want the privilege of being able to mitigate your perceived risks... but you want females to just take it on faith and ignore their actual experience and history. Your personal comfort is more important to you than the safety and comfort of ALL females.

Comfort, I must earn in ethical ways. For the person with racially coded anxieties... That comfort must be earned through removal of the response in continued presence of stimulus.

So too for the person with genital-coded anxieties.

Hey, like I said, if you can get the stats down, I'm game. Right now, 99%of sexual offenses are perpetrated by males, and 95% of their victims are females. All I'm asking is for parity. Reduce the rate of sexual offenses against women so that they're at the same per-capita rate as experienced by men, and I'll set aside my life-long experience and the experience of all the women I know.

That's all I'm asking for: parity. Do that and you win.

You better get started.

 

[Emily Lake]

What the actual fuck.
Tell that to all the women who have been attacked in locker rooms.


YOU DON’T UNDERSTAND, Jarhyn.

You. Do. Not.


You have absolutely no idea what the inside of a women’s locker room is like, over time. You have no idea AT ALL what the norms are, nor what risk mitigations women take ALL THEIR LIVES.

You Do. Not. Know.


We don’t need your ongoing fucking mansplaining about what we “should” be worried about and what we “shouldn’t.”
Your arguments are based in ignorance and special, “But I’m not LIKE them!!!!” appeals.
It is insulting and flat fucking wrong. ANd you have done nothing to aknowledge the information being given to you BY ALL OF THE WOMEN. And you take your man experience and try to ‘Splain to us what our locker rooms are like.

You want to be with the women without understanding the women. You want to TAKE OVER our space and make it your space.

And let me be clear that EVERY ONE of the women on this thread and I think also all of the men have said, “YES, there should be a third option of private changing and peeing and sheltering spaces for trans people with penises who would be in danger in a men’s room.”

So what THE FUCK is your ongoing argument?
Yes there should be a third space. What is your argument with that?


Sorry for the swears, but JTFCoaS your insults to women for not being intelligent enough or unbigotted enough to understand and manage our own risks are insufferable.

1 in 4, Jarhyn. 1 in fucking 4.