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

[Emily Lake]

I'll tell it to anyone believes that they deserve comfort in the form of tolerance of their prejudices.

You believe you deserve comfort in the form of tolerance for your prejudices too.

You think men are a risk, and you don't want to be around men when you're vulnerable. And because you have that prejudice against men... you think that your prejudice should be tolerated by women. You think that women should give way and make room for you to invade and colonize our spaces - on the basis of your own prejudices.

Maybe try being less hypocritical.

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

Hey, the TRAs have already gotten started getting the stats down: lots of jurisdictions have taken up counting offenses by self-identified transwomen in the "Offenses by women" statistics...

 

[Emily Lake]

Not a man. I had a man sharing my head for a while and abusing my life but I sorted that.

Look buddy, you may not view yourself as a figurative man, but you're sure as fuck not a woman - either figuratively or literally.

Why do you think that your own bespoke definition of "eunuchs aren't men" holds water for anyone else? It's special pleading on your own behalf.

We get it. You had your own balls removed (I'm not even sure it was done medically based on some of what you've said) because you were unable to manage your invasive thoughts, and you decided that somehow your balls were to blame for you having aggressive tendencies and invasive thoughts.

And now... you want to use your own choice to remove your testicles as a club to force women into submission to your desire to share intimate space with women - against their will.

You bully women, you castigate women, you call us names, you demean and degrade us. You do it a lot, and not just in this thread. You've expressed the view that lesbians who only like females have a "genital fetish" because they're unwilling to entertain the desires of males to stick their penises in them. You have spent a LOT of time on this site trying to verbally intimidate women. And so far as I can tell, you are also victim blaming all of us by insisting that we're bigots who are prejudiced just because we've learned from our own experiences and the experiences of other women throughout the world, and throughout the known history of humankind that males as a group represent an increased risk.

We as women have the right to say no to men - even if those men don't have balls. We have the right to set reasonable boundaries for who we allow to see us while we're naked, as well as for who we are exposed to while they are naked. We have the right to be safe from both the physical violence of males, but also from their invasive gaze.

We have to deal with it every fucking time we go out in public. I'm old, I'm short, I'm overweight, I'm out of shape... and I STILL have to deal with strange males ogling my tits, commenting on what they'd like to do to me, and copping a feel in crowded situations. This is the reality of life for almost every single female in the world - some places are a LOT worse than the US.

We sure as fuck shouldn't be FORCED to have to deal with it when we're vulnerable and in intimate spaces.
And we absolutely fucking shouldn't even have to remotely entertain being FORCED to do so by a MALE who is trying to BULLY us into it because HE has decided that HE knows what's best for women.

 

[Emily Lake]

You have ONE data point.

He has ONE data point, and I'm not entirely convinced that his ONE data point is as safe as he keeps insisting it is.

 

[Jarhyn]

We as women have the right to say no to men - even if those men don't have balls

"We as white people have the right to say no to black people even if there is nothing about those black people we can point to that defines them as a threat."

You and your... 8 posts of gish gallop... Have not provided a simple answer which quantifies the threat "men" of the form "everyone born with a penis" pose which is not founded purely on "I don't like them" or "one of them hurt me".

I am not the person that hurt you.

No person who has had their testicles removed is the person that hurt you.

The persons you deal with it from are not me, nor anyone who lacks testicles, most certainly, guaranteed.

 

[Emily Lake]

No. I don't.

Never once have I said that any person should be forced to tolerate that, or risk it.

Well... you mean aside from insisting that women should be forced to allow men who meet YOUR PERSONAL criteria into their spaces, whether they like it or not?
So far as I can tell, you are very adamantly demanding that women should be forced to both tolerate and risk it.

I would just say if someone wishes to prove they don't want to and deserve be able to not be around "men" that they don't drag one along to the party inside their head.

So... women have to PROVE to you that they DESERVE to be allowed to not be around men... but you also think you aren't forcing anyone to tolerate it or risk it?

I call absolutely bullshit. Pretty sure it stinks all the way to Jupiter.

I'll accept in a social setting a woman who has an in her head, or a eunuch that has a man in their head, because to say more is to enforce a fascist state against men.

I'll accept in a bathroom a woman or eunuch that has a man in their head that has been chemically silenced, and who does not have the ability to ejaculate sperms.

I'll accept in a controlled shower room a woman or eunuch who has entirely removed the need to chemically silence said man in their head, does not produce sperms, and become themselves a eunuch or woman without testicles.

I'll accept in uncontrolled showering the expectation that those for whom visual inspection does not promptly indicate at least some anatomical common comorbidity of being hormonal modification, that such folks both have and use a space which is maintained for single user occupancy.

Great. YOU accept them all you want.

But you are also DEMANDING that WE accept them. You are attempting to bully and intimidate women into giving you what YOU want.

2. Women saying no to men is a hate crime.​

​

3. Women speaking for themselves are exclusionary and selfish.​

8. Men are whatever men say they are and women are whatever men say they are.​

9. Men always know the “real reasons” for everything women do and say.​

12. Women’s ability to recognize male behavior patterns is misandry.​

14. Women have all the rights they need: The right to remain silent.​

15. Men are the default human. Women are strange subhuman others.​

 

[Bomb#20]

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.

The very thing that makes Tommy gun prohibition 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 Tommy gun prohibition to be wrong. It is prejudicial to good order and individual merit.

I am denied the power to act in the world with a Tommy gun, not because of my individual merit -- I have never murdered anyone -- but on the basis of Al Capone using them to murder people, something that has nothing to do with my decisions. Therefore banning Tommy guns is the same as racism.[/sarcasm]

Seriously though, what is it with people not putting five seconds of critical thought into testing their ethical theories before they post them?

 

[Emily Lake]

Hey, if you want to argue for moving the line we use to separate the sex categories, to some other position that seems fairer to you, knock yourself out. Just argue the case of sex based on its own merits. Don't argue based on a bogus analogy to race, where the right answer is to have no categories and no line separating them, when you already know that that's not the right answer for sex. How hard is that?

It's all kinds of disingenuous. Jarhyn isn't arguing for removal of sex separation - he just wants to have the existing line shifted so he can invade women's intimate spaces against their will and feel righteously justified in doing so. He just wants the right to violate women's boundaries while also telling himself he's "on the right side of history" while he does it.

 

[Emily Lake]

True, however some drunk people make it home without hitting people and some sober people hit people in cars. We restrict alcohol limits during driving anyway.

Sure. Some male people don't rape anyone, and some female people do. But we separate their intimate spaces on the basis of sex anyway!

Just so you don't miss this, your argument throughout this thread is tantamount to demanding that drunk driving be made legal, on the basis that some people are capable of driving well even when intoxicated, and sobriety does not guarantee no accidents. Your argument is essentially that we 1) issue special licenses to people who are able to drive well while intoxicated that identifies them as "safe drunk drivers" and that if they get pulled over, they can show their "safe" id and not get in trouble and 2) if we see a person driving erratically we have to assume that they're "safe" and are NOT drunk, until it can be 100% proven that they are actually drunk or under the influence.

You're demanding that everyone who has a rational approach to mitigating the risk posed by drunk drivers abandon all of their mitigation strategies, and just take it on faith that all drivers are going to be either sober or "safe drunk drivers"... at least until someone actually crashes into us and sends us to the hospital.

Jarhyn... What is your view on MAPs? Should they be destigmatized and treated with compassion?

 

[Emily Lake]

I am. I am asking those who wish to go to a "women's prison" to either give up on such aspirations or give up on their testicles.

I don't expect them to make either decision in particular, but I do expect them to make a decision.

Emily expects them to also cut off their penises. This is unreasonable.

Actually, Emily doesn't actually think that cutting off their balls and their dicks is sufficient to make a male into a female. Because Emily does not think women are the "other" that Jarhyn describes as "non-men".

But Emily is willing to consider a case-by-case exception in specific circumstances, which INCLUDES both testicles and penis removed, AS WELL AS no history of sexual offenses or domestic violence.

Because Emily believes that women are humans in their own right, and that men do not get to tell women what to do and who to accept into their intimate spaces. Emily believes that No means NO, all the time. Even if it hurts the feelings of a man.

 

[Jarhyn]

Emily, no matter how much you dishonestly post, you won't change the fact that women and men are not defined by their gonads or genitals, but by their brains and the chenicals that influence those brains.

This doesn't make any person more or less "failed", though I can only wonder what psychology could motivate that view.

You post dishonestly about my motivations, and have brought up numerous red herrings to get away from the basic fact the desire to segregate on the penis and only ever the penis is to judge people on the basis of something that is not a causal behavioral contributor.

You wish to create a barrier that nobody can step across, but all such barriers outside of actual behavioral causal contributors are prejudice. Every single one of them. While some aspects of prejudice MIGHT be warranted in some situations, anywhere they can be stepped from, they must be.

Sure. Some male people don't rape anyone, and some female people do. But we separate their intimate spaces on the basis of sex anyway

The point here is that you continue conflating the actual causal behavioral contributor (is on testosterone) with the non-casual comorbid element (the penis).

You do a bait and switch around this conflation with your rhetoric: you draw the reader in talking about the things men do when on testosterone, and then you switch to talking about everyone with a penis.

 

[Emily Lake]

Your attempts to conflate women's needs and desires for security and safety within women's only spaces with racism is nothing but gaslighting. It is disgusting and unacceptable.

It is reprehensible gaslighting and an attempt to intimidate and bully women into giving him his way.

 

[Emily Lake]

The valid mechanism of separation is specifically the decision to have the effect of testosterone upon one's active and ongoing thoughts.

Horseshit. You are making a special claim, for your own special desires, and your wish to violate women's boundaries.

 

[Emily Lake]

When it's about me, and people stepping on my rights

You're assuming that you have the right to use female-only intimate spaces, without the consent of the females for whom they were designed. You're committing the entirely patriarchal mistake of assuming that what you want is what is right - because you're male and males are heavily conditioned to assume that it is right and proper for their desires to be met.

You want to exclude yourself from the category of male based on philosophical claptrap. This was something you have done all on your lonesome, other males did not exclude you. And because you have voluntarily excluded yourself from the category of male, you feel that women should be forced to accept you into their category. In part, this is because you persistently and consistently present a binary view of "men" and "non-men", where the criteria for "men" is a self-serving, special pleading, arbitrary, and incredibly sexist concept of men... and which over and over again reflects that you deeply believe that men are the default around which everything was built, and that those men have the natural right to demand acquiescence from "the other".

The funniest (in a sad way) thing about this, is that you exhibit every last ounce of patriarchal zeal in your approach - you demand you intimidate and you bully women because you feel that your emotional desires are more important than our safety, our dignity, and our comfort.

You didn't bother to consult any women when you decided to sacrifice your testicles, and now you're angry that we don't wish to honor your sacrifice. But we didn't ask for that sacrifice in the first place, and if you'd bothered to ask the views of some women, you'd have known that cutting your balls off doesn't mean a fucking thing to us when it comes to whether you should be granted the special privilege of violating our reasonable boundaries.

 

[Emily Lake]

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.

Please go start a thread calling black people names and trying to bully and intimidate them because they have adapted to a society that maintains a lot of systemic racism in its function. Please, please, go start that thread telling black people who wrong and bigoted and prejudiced they are. I really want to see that thread.

 

[Emily Lake]

I am not the person that hurt you.

You're hurting me right fucking now.

You're hurting me by trying to bully me into compliance with your desires.
You're hurting me by trying to intimidate me with labels and name calling.
You're hurting me by trying to deny me the right to my own boundaries.
You're hurting me by trying to remove my consent.
You're hurting me by attempting to gaslight me.
You're hurting me by repeatedly treating women as "the other" which includes an arbitrary collection of males that YOU have personally decided are "non-men"

You hurt my heart by showing zero compassion and empathy for women at all.

 

[Emily Lake]

Emily, no matter how much you dishonestly post, you won't change the fact that women and men are not defined by their gonads or genitals, but by their brains and the chenicals that influence those brains.

Which is totally why it's equally likely for a man to give birth as it is for a woman to give birth!

It is not dishonesty to reject your faith-based premise as the religious zeal that it is.

 

[Jarhyn]

The valid mechanism of separation is specifically the decision to have the effect of testosterone upon one's active and ongoing thoughts.

Horseshit. You are making a special claim, for your own special desires, and your wish to violate women's boundaries.

No, I'm making a claim based on observable scientific situations.

The brain has been studied, and behavioral science impugns the brain in all differentiations of behavior.

If you wish to make the claim that the effects you are seeing are specific and universal to people born with penises, you will have to show a causative relationship.

You have not.

I do not care about (specifically bigoted) boundaries on the basis that they are bigoted. They are not boundaries universal to "women". They are boundaries you impute on women, and boundaries you impute and sponsor without justification.

My desire is to see people unfairly and prejudicially targeted for their having a penis even when they can validate that special causative elements are absent.

 

[Jarhyn]

You're hurting me by trying to deny me the right to my own boundaries

And yet racists said the same thing when people pointed out Jim Crow's "boundaries" were based on bad assumptions.

You can proclaim a boundary, and in proclamation of a boundary institute prejudice.

Some boundaries proclaimed by folks lack a reasonable basis. When boundaries established lack reasonable basis, they can and should be dispensed with.

 

[Bomb#20]

women and men are not defined by their gonads or genitals, but by their brains and the chenicals that influence those brains.

Can you rewrite that assertion without using the passive voice?[/grammar nazi]