• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Science My transgender hobbyhorse

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,851
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
It seems that the only folks who are trying to feel superior, or enable folks to feel superior, are those who try to exclude folks.
...says the guy who wrote:
I would eject anyone from a department who makes arguments such as theirs that "is" of their dubiously definite "sex" informs any kind of "ought" might not have the wherewithal to hack it in academia in the first place.

Superiority is fundamentally taking power over someone. Saying "by power of my strength, or the strength of the traditions of the past, or by the strength of my friends, you may not for your own sake do some thing to yourself."

That's what this is about.
And people who think like you are taking power over schoolgirls, constructively excluding them from school bathrooms by making those bathrooms a safe-haven for sexual harassment, and de facto saying to those girls "by power of our strength, the strength of our subculture's religious faith, and the strength of our friends, on school grounds you may not for your own sake do bladder evacuation to yourself."

(No doubt when the unintended but entirely foreseeable consequences of their actions ensue, those progressive lunatics tell themselves they didn't exclude the schoolgirls -- the schoolgirls excluded themselves. When an employer allows the men who work for him to sexually harass a woman to the point where she finds it intolerable and quits, the employer no doubt likewise thinks to himself that this was the woman's choice and has nothing to do with him. That will not save him from an adverse judgment in the woman's wrongful termination lawsuit. It's called "constructive dismissal".)
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,466
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Reality tells conservatives that the way they tell their wives and daughters they ought feel in particular spaces is unnecessary and harmful. Conservatives double down.
Curious that you want to simply cast this as evil conservatives. There are plenty on the "left" who are against men in female spaces. Like that fascist J. K. Rowling. That men should not be in females spaces is one of the most common sense things. Women shouldn't lose that simply because some guy wants to live out his autogynephilia.
I see you dropped an ought in there.

Your 'common sense' does not seem so common nor sensible, however.

If it is such a common sensibility then surely you can point to a commonly held, shared principle between us which necessitates this puritanical separation, when all of Europe seems to be doing just fine without it?
 

Oleg

Me
Joined
Jul 29, 2022
Messages
551
Reality tells conservatives that the way they tell their wives and daughters they ought feel in particular spaces is unnecessary and harmful. Conservatives double down.
Curious that you want to simply cast this as evil conservatives. There are plenty on the "left" who are against men in female spaces. Like that fascist J. K. Rowling. That men should not be in females spaces is one of the most common sense things. Women shouldn't lose that simply because some guy wants to live out his autogynephilia.
I see you dropped an ought in there.

Your 'common sense' does not seem so common nor sensible, however.

If it is such a common sensibility then surely you can point to a commonly held, shared principle between us which necessitates this puritanical separation, when all of Europe seems to be doing just fine without it?
Are you sure?


The Equality and Human Rights Commission has published guidance for providers of single-sex and separate-sex services: in short, it says bathrooms and domestic abuse refuges can be single sex in certain circumstances.
Once again, this could not be clearer. Separate-sex and single-sex services are permitted because men and women have different biology; that is not affected by a legal fiction created under GRA. Thank goodness that the EHRC is willing to point this out.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,466
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
It seems that the only folks who are trying to feel superior, or enable folks to feel superior, are those who try to exclude folks.
...says the guy who wrote:
I would eject anyone from a department who makes arguments such as theirs that "is" of their dubiously definite "sex" informs any kind of "ought" might not have the wherewithal to hack it in academia in the first place.

Indeed, the inability to avoid excluding others on account of their sex (applying an 'ought' to the 'is' of sex, whatever that happens to be) is grounds for dismissal.

Nobody has an obligation to tolerate fools or assholes



Superiority is fundamentally taking power over someone. Saying "by power of my strength, or the strength of the traditions of the past, or by the strength of my friends, you may not for your own sake do some thing to yourself."

That's what this is about.
And people who think like you are taking power over schoolgirls, constructively excluding them from school bathrooms
They excluded themselves on account of the abusive messaging of their parents. No matter how much you complain that you have to share a drinking fountain with darkie, it is still your own tantrum that injures you.

by making those bathrooms a safe-haven for sexual harassment,
Wow, Europe must be absolutely sick with sexual harassment everywhere then...

Or not.

and de facto saying to those girls "by power of our strength, the strength of our subculture's religious faith, and the strength of our friends, on school grounds you may not for your own sake do bladder evacuation to yourself."
They absolutely MAY use the bathroom. They are pointedly choosing not to, as a result of years of layered abuse from parents and teachers.

(No doubt when the unintended but entirely foreseeable consequences of their actions ensue, those progressive lunatics tell themselves they didn't exclude the schoolgirls -- the schoolgirls excluded themselves.
They did.

When an employer allows the men who work for him to sexually harass a woman to the point where she finds it intolerable and quits, the employer no doubt likewise thinks to himself that this was the woman's choice and has nothing to do with him.
Excepting of course that only these American girls in this American school are having this problem.

Of course as has been discussed, part of this does fall on the school and their incompetence in doing proper civil engineering to intelligently work with their policy decisions.

That said, since plenty of others can and do make the choice, and because it is not onerous anywhere else, one may surmise that it is an act of self-sabotage among the objecting families.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,851
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Reality tells conservatives that the way they tell their wives and daughters they ought feel in particular spaces is unnecessary and harmful. Conservatives double down.
Has it occurred to you that men who are married to women might potentially receive more expert input from women on the topic of how women feel in particular spaces than men who are married to men receive from their husbands on that topic? "tell their wives and daughters they ought feel". :facepalm: Your ignorance of ordinary heterosexual marriage is breathtaking.

Progressives are the ones telling women. I am listening to women.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,466
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Reality tells conservatives that the way they tell their wives and daughters they ought feel in particular spaces is unnecessary and harmful. Conservatives double down.
Has it occurred to you that men who are married to women might potentially receive more expert input from women on the topic of how women feel in particular spaces than men who are married to men receive from their husbands on that topic? "tell their wives and daughters they ought feel". :facepalm: Your ignorance of ordinary heterosexual marriage is breathtaking.

Progressives are the ones telling women. I am listening to women.
No, you really are not listening to women, because you are still in here insisting for arbitrary reasons that certain people aren't women.

What I find particularly stupid about your views on the topic are such that your views about what defines "woman" would in fact define my husband as such, and you quite pointedly made a show of insisting that his opinion is not germane...
 

Oleg

Me
Joined
Jul 29, 2022
Messages
551
you are still in here insisting for arbitrary reasons that certain people aren't women.
Half the population are not women. A subjective desire to present as a women doesn't make a man a woman. I mean, the whole point of dsyphoria is that these guys want to be something that they are not.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,466
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
you are still in here insisting for arbitrary reasons that certain people aren't women.
Half the population are not women. A subjective desire to present as a women doesn't make a man a woman. I mean, the whole point of dsyphoria is that these guys want to be something that they are not.
And then we are back full circle: prove that half the population are "not truly women".

I fully accept that LESS than half the population are not women because they say they are not women.

This is different from making some qualitative statement about half the population. People are allowed to make qualitative statements about themselves after all.

Get back to me when you have a definition that even qualifies for making qualitative statements about others, and then I'll laugh at you with Bilby again for a while when you metaphorically define "chair" in a way that captures "horse".
 

Oleg

Me
Joined
Jul 29, 2022
Messages
551
This is different from making some qualitative statement about half the population. People are allowed to make qualitative statements about themselves after all.
What's that saying, people are allowed their own opinions but not their own facts? So Rachel Dolezal is a black woman? It'd be great if the gender ideologists could pinpoint the exact stage in our evolution when the sexual binary imposed on all other mammals was magically erased.

Get back to me when you have a definition that even qualifies for making qualitative statements, and then I'll laugh at you with Bilby for a while when you metaphorically define "chair" in a way that captures "horse".
Enjoy milking your bull. I mean, your trans-cow.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,851
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Has it occurred to you that men who are married to women might potentially receive more expert input from women on the topic of how women feel in particular spaces than men who are married to men receive from their husbands on that topic? "tell their wives and daughters they ought feel". :facepalm: Your ignorance of ordinary heterosexual marriage is breathtaking.

Progressives are the ones telling women. I am listening to women.
No, you really are not listening to women, because you are still in here insisting for arbitrary reasons that certain people aren't women.
I'm doing nothing of the sort. Feel free to point out any case where I've insisted someone wasn't a woman, and I will present the non-arbitrary reason.

What I find particularly stupid about your views on the topic are such that your views about what defines "woman" would in fact define my husband as such
Your husband is a male-identifying person who was born female? Sorry, I didn't know that. If you've said it elsewhere, sorry, I confess to not having read all 11000 of your posts.

As for what my views are about whether your husband is a woman, you have no idea what my views are. You don't care enough about other people's views to make any effort to get it right when you tell others what they think.

, and you quite pointedly made a show of insisting that his opinion is not germane...
That was before you told me he has experience being female. In any event, I can't help but suspect that his experience is atypical -- if he didn't mind men in the women's room, that might be because he'd have preferred to be in the men's room anyway. I also can't help but suspect that your arguments here are based more on your own ideology than on passing along your husband's recollections -- you don't come off as all that big on taking input. "tell their wives and daughters they ought feel". :facepalm: Your ignorance of ordinary heterosexual marriage is breathtaking.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,466
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
As for what my views are about whether your husband is a woman, you have no idea what my views are
Yes, because every time when you have been asked to give a definition of "female" that doesn't lead to nonsense such as capturing "horse" as a chair, you provide nothing of merit.

You have been asked myriad times to actually present and defend this definition alluded to since the OP and you have failed miserably.
That was before you told me he has experience being female.
He doesn't. He has experience being himself.

You're the one insisting right here that he has experience being "female".

Now the next question is how much more embarrassment are you ready to get over what you assume about ME?

I can't help but think it goes back to my point which you seem very intent on trying to turn to some other purpose: to tell puritanical fucksticks to quit manufacturing harms into existence via the Tinkerbell Effect as pertains to bathrooms.

An injury has been done, clearly and visibly to one of two groups, and my guess is that it's not the group that can successfully parse coed bathrooms.

That harm is exclusively of the form "created by traditional gender/sex separation and essentialism". That the harms caused by this American abuse are so deep that girls are getting UTIs rather than allow their American sex-based brainwashing to expire says it all.

Conservatives are abusing children with puritanical moores.
 

Oleg

Me
Joined
Jul 29, 2022
Messages
551
Yes, because every time when you have been asked to give a definition of "female" that doesn't lead to nonsense such as capturing "horse" as a chair, you provide nothing of merit.
Which hips were you born with?

Capture-12-723x420.png
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,466
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Yes, because every time when you have been asked to give a definition of "female" that doesn't lead to nonsense such as capturing "horse" as a chair, you provide nothing of merit.
Which hips were you born with?

Capture-12-723x420.png
Certainly neither of those, those are hand drawn pictures of bones that don't belong to any human alive.

ceci n'est pas une pipe, and all that.

And I'm not going to show you the hips I have. Please stop soliciting me for pictures or measurements, such would be harassment were it to continue.
 

Oleg

Me
Joined
Jul 29, 2022
Messages
551
Yes, because every time when you have been asked to give a definition of "female" that doesn't lead to nonsense such as capturing "horse" as a chair, you provide nothing of merit.
Which hips were you born with?

Capture-12-723x420.png
Certainly neither of those, those are hand drawn pictures of bones that don't belong to any human alive.

ceci n'est pas une pipe, and all that.

And I'm not going to show you the hips I have. Please stop soliciting me for pictures or measurements, such would be harassment were it to continue.
This is a creationist level denial of reality.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,466
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Yes, because every time when you have been asked to give a definition of "female" that doesn't lead to nonsense such as capturing "horse" as a chair, you provide nothing of merit.
Which hips were you born with?

Capture-12-723x420.png
Certainly neither of those, those are hand drawn pictures of bones that don't belong to any human alive.

ceci n'est pas une pipe, and all that.

And I'm not going to show you the hips I have. Please stop soliciting me for pictures or measurements, such would be harassment were it to continue.
This is a creationist level denial of reality.
Yes, I acknowledge that your denial of reality is on the level of a creationist's. Biology is in fact messy and non-binary. It doesn't really fit into one box or another.
 

Oleg

Me
Joined
Jul 29, 2022
Messages
551
Biology is in fact messy and non-binary.
No it isn't. For millions of years humans, as well as every other animal on this planet, have had no difficult understanding the sex binary. Procreation depends on it.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,466
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Biology is in fact messy and non-binary.
No it isn't.

Yes, biology is messy, always has been, always will be.
 

Oleg

Me
Joined
Jul 29, 2022
Messages
551
Biology is in fact messy and non-binary.
No it isn't.
Oh, please. Procreation is not messy or "non-binary." Even did dinosaurs did it.
 

Oleg

Me
Joined
Jul 29, 2022
Messages
551
Biology is in fact messy and non-binary.
No it isn't.

Yes, biology is messy, always has been, always will be.
Your link refers to the messiness as it relates to adaptions. I don't doubt that at all. It has nothing to do with the sexual binary. No person can get themselves pregnant. No person born male can give birth. No person born female can impregnate.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,851
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
It seems that the only folks who are trying to feel superior, or enable folks to feel superior, are those who try to exclude folks.
...says the guy who wrote:
I would eject anyone from a department who makes arguments such as theirs that "is" of their dubiously definite "sex" informs any kind of "ought" might not have the wherewithal to hack it in academia in the first place.

Indeed, the inability to avoid excluding others on account of their sex (applying an 'ought' to the 'is' of sex, whatever that happens to be) is grounds for dismissal.

Nobody has an obligation to tolerate fools or assholes
Whom you evidently consider yourself superior to. You're the one trying to exclude folks.

Superiority is fundamentally taking power over someone. Saying "by power of my strength, or the strength of the traditions of the past, or by the strength of my friends, you may not for your own sake do some thing to yourself."

That's what this is about.
And people who think like you are taking power over schoolgirls, constructively excluding them from school bathrooms
They excluded themselves on account of the abusive messaging of their parents.
You have an unrealistic notion of how much influence parents have. They excluded themselves on account of schoolboys behaving like schoolboys.

No matter how much you complain that you have to share a drinking fountain with darkie, it is still your own tantrum that injures you.
Yeah, I was pretty sure sooner or later somebody was going to make that analogy. You know what would make it a better analogy? Whites-only drinking fountains having been established by the dominant blackiarchy as a kindness to the white underclass, in recognition that white people have good reason to be afraid of black people after thousands of years of social subordination of whites enforced by black-on-white violence.

You are arguing that making a historically-oppressed group a protected category with a set-aside for their benefit is the same thing as making a non-historically-oppressed group a protected category and having a set-aside that institutionalizes harm to the historically-oppressed group. I.e., you are arguing that affirmative action is racism. Do you in fact think affirmative action is racism?

by making those bathrooms a safe-haven for sexual harassment,
Wow, Europe must be absolutely sick with sexual harassment everywhere then...

Or not.
Can't help but notice those claiming Europe doesn't have a sexual harassment problem are men.

They absolutely MAY use the bathroom. They are pointedly choosing not to, as a result of years of layered abuse from parents and teachers.

(No doubt when the unintended but entirely foreseeable consequences of their actions ensue, those progressive lunatics tell themselves they didn't exclude the schoolgirls -- the schoolgirls excluded themselves.
They did.

When an employer allows the men who work for him to sexually harass a woman to the point where she finds it intolerable and quits, the employer no doubt likewise thinks to himself that this was the woman's choice and has nothing to do with him.
Excepting of course that only these American girls in this American school are having this problem.
:picardfacepalm:

So after you completely misrepresented the article I posted and got your ass handed to you for not having read it for content, you still haven't read it for content. Those were British girls in a UK school.

Of course as has been discussed, part of this does fall on the school and their incompetence in doing proper civil engineering to intelligently work with their policy decisions.
In the first place, re-engineering bathrooms costs serious money; slapping up a "gender-neutral" sign does not. Obviously schools were going to change policy first to get the activists off their case, and let "proper civil engineering" trickle in over decades, if at all. Anyone who would expect anything else is an idiot...

That said, since plenty of others can and do make the choice, and because it is not onerous anywhere else, one may surmise that it is an act of self-sabotage among the objecting families.
... and in the second place, what's improper and incompetent about the engineering they're going with, when you're going whole hog with blaming the ensuing misery on the victims and their families? You're making an "I never borrowed his lawnmower, it was already broken when I got it, and it was not broken when I returned it." argument.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,466
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Whom you evidently consider yourself superior to. You're the one trying to exclude folks.
PaRaDoX Of ToLeRaNcE!!!111

Yes, I'm attempting to exclude sexists because they create a hostile work and learning environment.
They excluded themselves on account of schoolboys behaving like schoolboys
To which I say "bullshit".

Girls elsewhere manage to survive hale and hearty and unraped and unmolested all the same.

I think rather sexist and puritanical sex culture is what is leading to abuse. That and shitty civil engineering.
In the first place, re-engineering bathrooms costs serious money; slapping up a "gender-neutral" sign does not.
Reengineering bathrooms can be done without even changing policy, just to make the bathrooms more secure for the students in general.

This is the kind of situation where, when the lesson is learned, it is learned to be structurally prepared before changing policies that way.

It doesn't matter what is cheaper, if the order of operations is wrong, it's a wrong order of operations, and there is no helping that. Obviously when you start the car and put down the gas before you get into the car and sit down, some bad results happen.

As has been pointed out, other folks all over the world can manage to do this, which indicates failure is an individual rather than endemic issue.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,851
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
As for what my views are about whether your husband is a woman, you have no idea what my views are
Yes, because every time when you have been asked to give a definition of "female" that doesn't lead to nonsense such as capturing "horse" as a chair, you provide nothing of merit.

You have been asked myriad times to actually present and defend this definition alluded to since the OP and you have failed miserably.
And yet again you prove you're a tribal zealot who sees all his outgroup as interchangeable parts. None of that ever happened. Nobody asked me for any definition alluded to since the OP. I volunteered a definition without being asked -- "One of those." -- and that is quite plainly a definition that does not lead to nonsense such as capturing "horse" as a chair. Nobody in the history of English has thought anybody who said a chair is "one of those" was implying a horse is a chair. You are mixing me up with somebody else because telling the truth about opponents is something you can't be bothered with.

That was before you told me he has experience being female.
He doesn't. He has experience being himself.

You're the one insisting
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

right here that he has experience being "female".
Hey, dude, I insist on nothing of the sort -- I'm just going with what you tell me.

What I find particularly stupid about your views on the topic are such that your views about what defines "woman" would in fact define my husband as such, and you quite pointedly made a show of insisting that his opinion is not germane...​

If your husband has no experience being female then why did you make a stink about my having inferred that his opinion is not germane? Why do you, married to a man who has never been a woman, think you have better insight into how women feel than I, who get told about it day after day year after year by my female soulmate?
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,851
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Whom you evidently consider yourself superior to. You're the one trying to exclude folks.
PaRaDoX Of ToLeRaNcE!!!111
Funny story about paradoxes. They aren't true. That's part of what makes them paradoxes.

"Paradox of tolerance" is self-congratulatory claptrap from intolerant people who want to pat themselves on the back about how tolerant they are while behaving indistinguishably from every other ideological bully.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,466
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
As for what my views are about whether your husband is a woman, you have no idea what my views are
Yes, because every time when you have been asked to give a definition of "female" that doesn't lead to nonsense such as capturing "horse" as a chair, you provide nothing of merit.

You have been asked myriad times to actually present and defend this definition alluded to since the OP and you have failed miserably.
And yet again you prove you're a tribal zealot who sees all his outgroup as interchangeable parts. None of that ever happened.
None of what, now, has ever happened?

I am pretty sure that you and DrZ have both been repeatedly asked for a definition of "woman" that does not run foul of where you would see it go.

Please cease with the dishonesty, and get on with providing a definition which, as has been mentioned, will most certainly not stand up for the purposes you have for it.

Nobody asked me for any definition alluded to since the OP.
I have asked repeatedly. Read the thread, maybe?

I volunteered a definition without being asked -- "One of those." -- and that is quite plainly a definition that does not lead to nonsense such as capturing "horse" as a chair.
No, that isn't a definition at all. It's just an arbitrary selection of some things. You have not justified your selection of "those" as the basis for likeness, nor have you in any way defined what it is to be "like" them.

Nobody in the history of English has thought anybody who said a chair is "one of those" was implying a horse is a chair.
And nobody in the history of the English language has ever successfully managed to use such a definition to exclude something from membership, because "one of those" does not provide a basis for exclusion in the first place.
That was before you told me he has experience being female.
He doesn't. He has experience being himself.

You're the one insisting
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Your statement that he "is" something is an insistence that someone is something.

right here that he has experience being "female".
Hey, dude, I insist on nothing of the sort -- I'm just going with what you tell me.
No, I said, quite specifically,
your views about what defines "woman" would in fact define my husband as such
I did not say he was "female". I made an educated guess as to how you would classify them but YOU are the one who decided "female" was appropriate. I don't feel it is. Maybe my husband might?

What I find particularly stupid about your views on the topic are such that your views about what defines "woman" would in fact define my husband as such, and you quite pointedly made a show of insisting that his opinion is not germane...​

If your husband has no experience being female then why did you make a stink about my having inferred that his opinion is not germane? Why do you, married to a man who has never been a woman, think you have better insight into how women feel than I, who get told about it day after day year after year by my female soulmate?
My point is that your own definition is inadequate. You make all sorts of declarations for others what they are or what they aren't, what is essential to them having opinions vs what isn't, when really that all just boils down to sexism, no matter who is spewing it.

I don't claim to have an insight how "women" feel.

I do claim to have an insight about how what culture tells people about how they ought to feel when in a bathroom can be rather skewed and problematic, so much to the point where people will injure themselves over such nonsense.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,466
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Whom you evidently consider yourself superior to. You're the one trying to exclude folks.
PaRaDoX Of ToLeRaNcE!!!111
Funny story about paradoxes. They aren't true. That's part of what makes them paradoxes.

"Paradox of tolerance" is self-congratulatory claptrap from intolerant people who want to pat themselves on the back about how tolerant they are while behaving indistinguishably from every other ideological bully.
Nobody has an obligation to tolerate those who fail to tolerate. This is where the paradox actually breaks down.

This has been hashed and rehashed and discussed a hundred times now: it all comes down to unilateral imposition.

When one party unilaterally imposes a gender on a second party, it is the unilateral imposition that will and ought see sanction.

Unilateral imposition of sex based expectations, obligations, and exclusions, especially when sex is not even clearly defined or definable, is in fact something that will and ought see sanctions.

There is, bizarrely, one way in which sex can be defined precisely, however it does not lend itself to trans exclusion; in fact for the most part it gives those who are not capable of becoming or making anyone else pregnant carte blanche to say they are whatever they please.

It also allows someone to be both "male" and "female" within the definition, and there are at least one or two living humans who satisfy both.
 

Oleg

Me
Joined
Jul 29, 2022
Messages
551
This has been hashed and rehashed and discussed a hundred times now: it all comes down to unilateral imposition.
Forcing the rest of us to participate in some guy’s autogynephilia is one hell of a unilateral imposition.

FdiXfQmXEAYWDgx
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,466
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
This has been hashed and rehashed and discussed a hundred times now: it all comes down to unilateral imposition.
Forcing the rest of us to participate in some guy’s autogynephilia is one hell of a unilateral imposition.

FdiXfQmXEAYWDgx
Unilateral impositions present in Oleg's post: calling someone a guy; calling them autogynephilic.

They did not call themselves these things. You called them these things.

I'd thank you for providing a textbook example of shitty, intolerant behavior, but fuck that, because as mentioned, your shitty, intolerant behavior is vile.
 

Oleg

Me
Joined
Jul 29, 2022
Messages
551
This has been hashed and rehashed and discussed a hundred times now: it all comes down to unilateral imposition.
Forcing the rest of us to participate in some guy’s autogynephilia is one hell of a unilateral imposition.

FdiXfQmXEAYWDgx
Unilateral impositions present in Oleg's post: calling someone a guy; calling them autogynephilic.

They did not call themselves these things. You called them these things.

I'd thank you for providing a textbook example of shitty, intolerant behavior, but fuck that, because as mentioned, your shitty, intolerant behavior is vile.
They’re quite open about getting a “euphoria boner” imagining themselves as women. Why the hell do the rest of us have to be part of that?

FdvoWnTXEAItIlq
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,466
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
Why the hell do the rest of us have to be part of that
For the same reason you have to accept people getting a "shopping boner": because people have a right to getting boners for just existing.

It's not for you to accept or reject.

You have to accept it for the same reason we had to accept and participate for four years in a presidency where it was unclear whether them shitting in their diaper or being called "president" would lead to similar results, but we all put up with it because while it is gross feeling, it's something we do for any president, though hopefully with less weird boners and shitty diapers involved.

It's not your place to say what other people have a right to be, nor what they feel in the process of being it.
 

Oleg

Me
Joined
Jul 29, 2022
Messages
551
You have to accept it for the same reason we had to accept and participate for four years in a presidency where it was unclear whether them shitting in their diaper or being called "president" would lead to similar results, but we all put up with it because while it is gross feeling, it's something we do for any president, though hopefully with less weird boners and shitty diapers involved.
Okay. We already have Godwin’s law. What about the reference to Trump? What law is that? ‘cause it’s real.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,466
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
It's not your place to say what other people have a right to be, nor what they feel in the process of being it.
It’s certainly may place to say I don’t have to affirm this:


There's nothing there for you to "affirm" in the first place.

It's a stranger relating their experience, and one they themselves discuss as being UNWANTED.

As it is, I wonder sometimes how awkward it would be if EVERYONE was "visible" when their tissues were undergoing an erection.

What I can say is your abject disaffirmation, despite the fact there was nothing there to affirm in the first place, is yet another act of shitty and intolerant behavior.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,580
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
One angry mother shared, "The cubicles were open at the bottom and top so older pupils can easily climb up the toilets and peer over."
So what? The doors out to the rest of the building aren't locked, so anyone could just walk in when the bathrooms were gendered.

Having gendered bathrooms does nothing to stop rule-breakers from breaking the rules. No rules ever stop rule-breakers from breaking the rules. If people are climbing up and peering into toilet cubicles to harass the users, that's a behavioural problem that needs to be corrected, and putting up a sign saying "Ladies" is just kicking that can down the road. Bullying and harassment of teenagers by teenagers isn't new, isn't surprising, and isn't effectively addressed by gendering bathroom spaces
Exactly. Gendered bathrooms provide an illusion of protection, they provide no actual protection.
 

Oleg

Me
Joined
Jul 29, 2022
Messages
551
One angry mother shared, "The cubicles were open at the bottom and top so older pupils can easily climb up the toilets and peer over."
So what? The doors out to the rest of the building aren't locked, so anyone could just walk in when the bathrooms were gendered.

Having gendered bathrooms does nothing to stop rule-breakers from breaking the rules. No rules ever stop rule-breakers from breaking the rules. If people are climbing up and peering into toilet cubicles to harass the users, that's a behavioural problem that needs to be corrected, and putting up a sign saying "Ladies" is just kicking that can down the road. Bullying and harassment of teenagers by teenagers isn't new, isn't surprising, and isn't effectively addressed by gendering bathroom spaces
Exactly. Gendered bathrooms provide an illusion of protection, they provide no actual protection.
Said the man.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,580
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
One angry mother shared, "The cubicles were open at the bottom and top so older pupils can easily climb up the toilets and peer over."
So what? The doors out to the rest of the building aren't locked, so anyone could just walk in when the bathrooms were gendered.

Having gendered bathrooms does nothing to stop rule-breakers from breaking the rules. No rules ever stop rule-breakers from breaking the rules. If people are climbing up and peering into toilet cubicles to harass the users, that's a behavioural problem that needs to be corrected, and putting up a sign saying "Ladies" is just kicking that can down the road. Bullying and harassment of teenagers by teenagers isn't new, isn't surprising, and isn't effectively addressed by gendering bathroom spaces
Exactly. Gendered bathrooms provide an illusion of protection, they provide no actual protection.
Said the man.
If it's used enough that a man in the women's is likely to get caught it's also likely if he does something wrong that a woman will walk in and catch him. The sign on the door is irrelevant, it's the risk of someone walking in that matters whatever the sign says.
 

Jarhyn

Wizard
Joined
Mar 29, 2010
Messages
12,466
Gender
Androgyne; they/them
Basic Beliefs
Natural Philosophy, Game Theoretic Ethicist
One angry mother shared, "The cubicles were open at the bottom and top so older pupils can easily climb up the toilets and peer over."
So what? The doors out to the rest of the building aren't locked, so anyone could just walk in when the bathrooms were gendered.

Having gendered bathrooms does nothing to stop rule-breakers from breaking the rules. No rules ever stop rule-breakers from breaking the rules. If people are climbing up and peering into toilet cubicles to harass the users, that's a behavioural problem that needs to be corrected, and putting up a sign saying "Ladies" is just kicking that can down the road. Bullying and harassment of teenagers by teenagers isn't new, isn't surprising, and isn't effectively addressed by gendering bathroom spaces
Exactly. Gendered bathrooms provide an illusion of protection, they provide no actual protection.
Said the man.
Gendered bathrooms provide an illusion of protection, they provide no actual protection.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,904
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
One angry mother shared, "The cubicles were open at the bottom and top so older pupils can easily climb up the toilets and peer over."
So what? The doors out to the rest of the building aren't locked, so anyone could just walk in when the bathrooms were gendered.

Having gendered bathrooms does nothing to stop rule-breakers from breaking the rules. No rules ever stop rule-breakers from breaking the rules. If people are climbing up and peering into toilet cubicles to harass the users, that's a behavioural problem that needs to be corrected, and putting up a sign saying "Ladies" is just kicking that can down the road. Bullying and harassment of teenagers by teenagers isn't new, isn't surprising, and isn't effectively addressed by gendering bathroom spaces
Exactly. Gendered bathrooms provide an illusion of protection, they provide no actual protection.
Said the man.
Gendered bathrooms provide an illusion of protection, they provide no actual protection.
Like male only sea-bathing; Mandatory neck-to-knees bathing suits; Mandatory wearing of long skirts (rather than trousers or, heaven forbid, short skirts) by women; Mandatory face or hair coverings for women; And a litany of other things that highly puritanical religious societies have (and in many cases still do) imposed in an attempt to throw the blame for sexual harassment and assault onto the (mostly women and girls) who are its victims.

If a bathroom provides privacy against casual exposure of user's nakedness, then it's suitable for all. If it doesn't, it's unsuitable for anyone - people mostly like privacy, and mostly don't like watching other people shitting or pissing.

If people are deliberately circumventing the protection against casual exposure, and are harassing, ogling, or assaulting other users of the facility, those people need to be penalised for their misbehaviour, even if their victim had her hair uncovered like a wanton hussy, or if the bathroom was shared, or if the victim was wearing a dress that showed her ankles, or any of the other breaches of arbitrary rules that do nothing but give the illusion of safety from such harassment.

If you poll Saudi women, you will find a non-trivial percentage who would be opposed to relaxation of the requirement for women to wear burkas in public for the exact reasons American and British women give for opposing unsegregated bathrooms. People like the illusion of safety. That doesn't make it any less an illusion.
 

Oleg

Me
Joined
Jul 29, 2022
Messages
551
One angry mother shared, "The cubicles were open at the bottom and top so older pupils can easily climb up the toilets and peer over."
So what? The doors out to the rest of the building aren't locked, so anyone could just walk in when the bathrooms were gendered.

Having gendered bathrooms does nothing to stop rule-breakers from breaking the rules. No rules ever stop rule-breakers from breaking the rules. If people are climbing up and peering into toilet cubicles to harass the users, that's a behavioural problem that needs to be corrected, and putting up a sign saying "Ladies" is just kicking that can down the road. Bullying and harassment of teenagers by teenagers isn't new, isn't surprising, and isn't effectively addressed by gendering bathroom spaces
Exactly. Gendered bathrooms provide an illusion of protection, they provide no actual protection.
Said the man.
If it's used enough that a man in the women's is likely to get caught it's also likely if he does something wrong that a woman will walk in and catch him. The sign on the door is irrelevant, it's the risk of someone walking in that matters whatever the sign says.
This sort of misses the point. Women do not like to be vulnerable / naked in front of men they don't know. Men are different about this. I've never seen a story where guys are upset that a transman is in the lockerroom / bathroom. Because dudes don't care. Chicks do.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,904
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
This sort of misses the point. Women do not like to be vulnerable / naked in front of men they don't know. Men are different about this.
That's not "the point"; It's an irrelevant distraction you have introduced in an apparent attempt to steer discussion away from the uncomfortable fact that you are utterly and hopelessly mistaken to believe that ungendered bathrooms are problematic.

Nobody is seen naked against their will in a public bathroom; So whether or not anyone dislikes being seen naked is completely irrelevant.
 

Oleg

Me
Joined
Jul 29, 2022
Messages
551
This sort of misses the point. Women do not like to be vulnerable / naked in front of men they don't know. Men are different about this.
That's not "the point"; It's an irrelevant distraction you have introduced in an apparent attempt to steer discussion away from the uncomfortable fact that you are utterly and hopelessly mistaken to believe that ungendered bathrooms are problematic.

Nobody is seen naked against their will in a public bathroom; So whether or not anyone dislikes being seen naked is completely irrelevant.
You're a dude. Of course you think that way. It's the triump of the patriachy that women and girls lose their own space.


Again, you never see stories of guys upset that girls are in their space. 'cause they don't care. Why can't a woman be more like a man? Right, Bilby?

 

southernhybrid

Contributor
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
7,033
Location
Georgia, US
Basic Beliefs
atheist
Without getting into the debate, I'd just like to clarify that most American cis women, as far as I can tell, don't want any men in their rest rooms. It's not so much about danger as it is about privacy. I don't want to pee in a stall next to a man. I have no problem with trans women in the ladies room and I don't mind super butch. looking women in my rest room. I just don't want men in there. I've actually discussed this thread with a friend the other day. She was horrified at the thought of having men in our rest room.

Plus, at least in the US, the Women's room is more than just a place to pee. Some older rest rooms have lounges where women can breast feed, literally rest, support a friend who is upset, fix their hair or makeup, or share secrets with female friends. It's always been a place to get away from the male dominated world, as well as a place to take a quick pee. I've never pooped in a public rest room, but some women do. I doubt they want men coming and going while they are emptying their bowels. I've even known women who don't want their own husbands in the area when they are eliminating. I would assume that these same women don't want strange men in the area when they are doing their business, as the saying goes.

It may be cultural. That's fine. I'm fine with the male or female single rest rooms, but I do miss the traditional ones that were mostly found in large department stores or hotels. This reminds me of Marilyn French's first feminist novel, titled "The Women's Room". Too bad I can't remember much of it since I read it about 30 or 40 years ago. Maybe it's time for a reread. :)

While I didn't save the link, I read that American men don't want women in their rest rooms either. I once accidentally started to wander into what I thought was a ladies room. It didn't have a door. It was one of those that had a hallway leading to the room. A man was on his way out and he gave me an ugly, horrified look. "Oh, excuse me," I said, as I turned around and located the ladies room.

I don't think little girls want little boys in their rest rooms either. There are times when females want to be totally free of men. Having a private place to pee is one of those times, at least that's the case where I live.

I'm done, so now this male dominated discussion can go back to making claims about what women want.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,904
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Without getting into the debate, I'd just like to clarify that most American cis women, as far as I can tell, don't want any men in their rest rooms. It's not so much about danger as it is about privacy. I don't want to pee in a stall next to a man. I have no problem with trans women in the ladies room and I don't mind super butch. looking women in my rest room. I just don't want men in there. I've actually discussed this thread with a friend the other day. She was horrified at the thought of having men in our rest room.
I have absolutely no doubt that this is true.

Most Edwardian women didn't want to swim in the same pools as men, for the exact same reasons.

Also, most Saudi women don't want to go out in public without a head covering, for exactly the same reasons.

The desire is the result of the rule; The rule isn't a reflection of an innate desire.

People (even including women) want things to be the way they're used to things being. The rule causes the desire which causes the rule - it's a circular argument.

Women who grew up with segregated bathrooms are often horrified at the thought of unsegregated bathrooms. That's true whether the segregation excludes men from women's bathrooms, or excludes blacks from white's bathrooms.

People who grew up without such segregation are incapable of understanding why anyone would give a rat's about it in the first place.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,851
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Mixed gender bathrooms have been the norm in many places in Europe since bathrooms were invented. The idea that such spaces must be segregated is an odd and twisted offshoot of puritanism.
If you encounter a woman who prefers her public bathrooms to be female-only, I'm sure she'll come to see how wrong she is if only you mansplain her feelings to her.
Life imitates art.

Without getting into the debate, I'd just like to clarify that most American cis women, as far as I can tell, don't want any men in their rest rooms. It's not so much about danger as it is about privacy. I don't want to pee in a stall next to a man. I have no problem with trans women in the ladies room and I don't mind super butch. looking women in my rest room. I just don't want men in there. I've actually discussed this thread with a friend the other day. She was horrified at the thought of having men in our rest room.
I have absolutely no doubt that this is true.

Most Edwardian women didn't want to swim in the same pools as men, for the exact same reasons.

Also, most Saudi women don't want to go out in public without a head covering, for exactly the same reasons.

The desire is the result of the rule; The rule isn't a reflection of an innate desire.

People (even including women) want things to be the way they're used to things being. The rule causes the desire which causes the rule - it's a circular argument.

Women who grew up with segregated bathrooms are often horrified at the thought of unsegregated bathrooms. That's true whether the segregation excludes men from women's bathrooms, or excludes blacks from white's bathrooms.

People who grew up without such segregation are incapable of understanding why anyone would give a rat's about it in the first place.
 

bilby

Fair dinkum thinkum
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
28,904
Location
The Sunshine State: The one with Crocs, not Gators
Gender
He/Him
Basic Beliefs
Strong Atheist
Mixed gender bathrooms have been the norm in many places in Europe since bathrooms were invented. The idea that such spaces must be segregated is an odd and twisted offshoot of puritanism.
If you encounter a woman who prefers her public bathrooms to be female-only, I'm sure she'll come to see how wrong she is if only you mansplain her feelings to her.
Life imitates art.

Without getting into the debate, I'd just like to clarify that most American cis women, as far as I can tell, don't want any men in their rest rooms. It's not so much about danger as it is about privacy. I don't want to pee in a stall next to a man. I have no problem with trans women in the ladies room and I don't mind super butch. looking women in my rest room. I just don't want men in there. I've actually discussed this thread with a friend the other day. She was horrified at the thought of having men in our rest room.
I have absolutely no doubt that this is true.

Most Edwardian women didn't want to swim in the same pools as men, for the exact same reasons.

Also, most Saudi women don't want to go out in public without a head covering, for exactly the same reasons.

The desire is the result of the rule; The rule isn't a reflection of an innate desire.

People (even including women) want things to be the way they're used to things being. The rule causes the desire which causes the rule - it's a circular argument.

Women who grew up with segregated bathrooms are often horrified at the thought of unsegregated bathrooms. That's true whether the segregation excludes men from women's bathrooms, or excludes blacks from white's bathrooms.

People who grew up without such segregation are incapable of understanding why anyone would give a rat's about it in the first place.
Meh.

It's rather odd that you think my reply beginning "I have absolutely no doubt that this is true" constitutes an attempt to show someone "how wrong she is".
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,851
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
One angry mother shared, "The cubicles were open at the bottom and top so older pupils can easily climb up the toilets and peer over."
So what? The doors out to the rest of the building aren't locked, so anyone could just walk in when the bathrooms were gendered.

Having gendered bathrooms does nothing to stop rule-breakers from breaking the rules. No rules ever stop rule-breakers from breaking the rules.
Interesting argument. Do you find it persuasive when American right-wing gun-lovers use that exact same argument -- when they tediously tell us over and over that gun control laws do nothing to stop gun crime because criminals don't obey laws?

The whole thing is only an issue because Americans (and the Poms) are so steeped in these random puritan rules that they've come to imagine these rules to be laws of nature.
It is painfully obvious that your assertion is false. Gendered bathrooms used to be standard in continental Europe. I lived in Germany for a year and never saw a gender-neutral public bathroom. The notion that this issue is purely Anglo-American is beyond laughable.

Nobody in the EU cares, so <unsupported conclusion snipped>
You assume facts not in evidence. Did any country in the EU that has gone down the non-gendered path offer its female population a vote on whether to lose their women's rooms?

These are completely artificial cultural idiosyncrasies, and no more harm arises from un-gendered bathrooms than from wanton refusal to wear a burka,
In the first place, you must be utterly lacking in empathy for women if you classify the psychological suffering that leads so many women to adopt desperate measures like dehydration and enduring extended urinary urgency as not counting as "harm".

And in the second place, you assume facts not in evidence...

We believe this study to be the first available longitudinal analysis related to gender-inclusion policies and harms. Relying on media-reported sexual incidents in Target stores, we databased and analyzed 220 sexual incidents. ...
Using the three-season forced-category measure, probably the most conservative measure, there were 2.3x the amount of upskirt incidents post-policy and 2.9x the amount of peeping tom incidents. ...
The most likely hypothesis to explain our findings is that Target’s policy signaled to sexual offenders that voyeuristic offenses would be easier to perpetrate in their stores than elsewhere.​


If you don't classify voyeurism as "harm", I guess you can mansplain that to women too.

or from women wearing trousers, or from bathing in costumes that fail to cover every inch of skin between neck and knee.

All of which protections for women against predatory men were (and in some cases and places, still are) deeply believed to be absolutely essential, the the point of requiring laws ensuring their continued universality. And none of which laws ever did anything to actually protect women against sexual harassment or assault.
As should be painfully obvious to anybody who isn't a misogynist, those were all restrictions on women. Men decided to protect women from men by subjecting women to male authority. What a surprise that that didn't work. Retaining ladies' rooms is not a restriction on women. It is a restriction on men. What a surprise that this does work.
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,851
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Meh.

It's rather odd that you think my reply beginning "I have absolutely no doubt that this is true" constitutes an attempt to show someone "how wrong she is".
Life imitating art was when you mansplained SH's feelings to her.

As for "how wrong she is", when you wrote "I have absolutely no doubt that this is true", your use of "this" was transparently a reference to the fact that she has the feelings she has; it was not a reference to her being right to favor the policy she favors. So the beginning of your reply in no way constitutes evidence against the hypothesis that you're attempting to show her she's wrong.
 

Loren Pechtel

Super Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 16, 2000
Messages
37,580
Location
Nevada
Gender
Yes
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
While I didn't save the link, I read that American men don't want women in their rest rooms either. I once accidentally started to wander into what I thought was a ladies room. It didn't have a door. It was one of those that had a hallway leading to the room. A man was on his way out and he gave me an ugly, horrified look. "Oh, excuse me," I said, as I turned around and located the ladies room.

I don't think little girls want little boys in their rest rooms either. There are times when females want to be totally free of men. Having a private place to pee is one of those times, at least that's the case where I live.
Once when my wife got hurt I had to wheel her into the men's because there was no family restroom. Nobody seemed to care. And I'd say half a dozen times I've seen women come into the men's at tech events. Again, nobody seemed to care. (Admittedly, those strongly skew young and nerdy and are not representative.)
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,851
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
So what? The doors out to the rest of the building aren't locked, so anyone could just walk in when the bathrooms were gendered.
... Bullying and harassment of teenagers by teenagers isn't new, isn't surprising, and isn't effectively addressed by gendering bathroom spaces
Exactly. Gendered bathrooms provide an illusion of protection, they provide no actual protection.
"Unisex changing rooms are more dangerous for women and girls than single-sex facilities, research by The Sunday Times shows. Almost 90% of reported sexual assaults, harassment and voyeurism in swimming pool and sports-centre changing rooms happen in unisex facilities, which make up less than half the total."​


[3... 2... 1... Cue somebody explaining that changing rooms are totally different from restrooms, so the fraction of sexual assaulters, harassers and voyeurs deterred by single-sex rules in changing rooms are invariably unaffected by single-sex rules in restrooms.]
 

Bomb#20

Contributor
Joined
Sep 28, 2004
Messages
6,851
Location
California
Gender
It's a free country.
Basic Beliefs
Rationalism
Gendered bathrooms provide an illusion of protection, they provide no actual protection.
Like male only sea-bathing; Mandatory neck-to-knees bathing suits; Mandatory wearing of long skirts (rather than trousers or, heaven forbid, short skirts) by women; Mandatory face or hair coverings for women; And a litany of other things that highly puritanical religious societies have (and in many cases still do) imposed in an attempt to throw the blame for sexual harassment and assault onto the (mostly women and girls) who are its victims.
...
If people are deliberately circumventing the protection against casual exposure, and are harassing, ogling, or assaulting other users of the facility, those people need to be penalised for their misbehaviour, even if their victim had her hair uncovered like a wanton hussy, or if the bathroom was shared, or if the victim was wearing a dress that showed her ankles, or any of the other breaches of arbitrary rules that do nothing but give the illusion of safety from such harassment.

If you poll Saudi women, you will find a non-trivial percentage who would be opposed to relaxation of the requirement for women to wear burkas in public for the exact reasons American and British women give for opposing unsegregated bathrooms. People like the illusion of safety. That doesn't make it any less an illusion.
[my bolding]
As should be painfully obvious, women-only bathrooms are not an attempt to throw the blame for sexual harassment and assault onto the victims. Equating them with burkas is insane.

Moreover, male attempts to police women's sexual behavior in pursuit of male interests are rife in the Middle East and North Africa; burkas are the moderate, compassionate solution to those patriarchies' female problem. Cross from Arabia into Africa and the burkas are gone. Egyptian women are out in public where anyone can see them, "protected" from the consequences of their wanton hussyhood only by female genital mutilation. If Saudi women prefer their burkas, what a surprise.
 
Top Bottom