That doesn’t mean that any of those people did not abhor sexual violence. They just did not want to or know how to deal with the actual fact that it involved a family member/someone they knew and not a big scary black stranger.
Like... the media portrayal of trans women in bathrooms. A terrifying, hulking rapist in a bad muumuu, leering at the passersby.
Which is why I see anti-trans hysteria as the opposite of protecting women. It's making a scapegoat of innocent, scared teenage girls, while actual rapists seldom face serious consequences.
And now every woman who is large, hairy, or wears a mumu will now feel less safe going to the bathroom.
Its almost like these "women" who back such efforts are really just judgemental assholes encouraging stochastic violence against insufficiently "feminine" women.
If people don't like the fact that women are indoctrinated --and for very good reason---to fear unexpected male appearing persons who are naked in women's only spots, then maybe men can start to be better about teaching each other not to violate other people's boundaries and not to touch or leer or make remarks much sexually assault other people.
The first sign someone might be a predator is him/her being in a place where their 'prey' is likely to be found, without an immediately obvious valid reason to be there: in a girl's locker room, a boy scout camp, a beauty pageant dressing room full of half-dressed teenagers, etc.
And tell us exactly HOW IN HELL WE ARE SUPPOSED TO DIFFERENTIATE IN THE MOMENT BETWEEN A PERSON WHO IS TRANS AND SAFE (they are not all safe, btw) FROM SOMEONE WHO IS ACTUALLY A THREAT? In the moment. When we are extremely vulnerable, not dressed, not expecting anything other than other women.
Every single time some asshole ex-husband or ex-boyfriend is hunting their former wife/girlfriend. And sometimes when someone is stalking a girl or woman they want to be in a relationship with and won't take "no" for an answer. And occasionally when a creeper wants to be creepy. I don't know the dimensions of the incel problem but women are routinely targeted for harassment and coercion by men in our society.
Any time a man shows up in a women-only space like a locker room or restroom there's a good change he's a stalker looking for his soon-to-be victim. Women don't want to be constantly aware of potential peril in their everyday lives, they have to be.
Trans people aren't the problem. Men are. And men have to change that, not just shove the problem of male violence against trans people onto women to deal with.
No. You think you are advocating for the opposite. But in advocating for a non-viable solution you are allowing them to slip the notion of the problem past you, you don't realize you're arguing for a solution to a non-problem. The actual effect is you are part of the trans witch hunt, even though you do not realize it.
The space didn't change. Faux Noise and associates beat the drums of fear. It's an obsession over a threat that does not appear to actually exist at all.
The reason that it can be traumatizing is because of sexual assault by men. Not because someone is trans. Not because someone is a prude. But because, if you grew up as a female, you'd know that we are conditioned from an early age to be very wary of naked penises in inappropriate contexts. Which has included until very very recently the understanding that means a naked penis in a women's only space would reasonably be considered inappropriate and a threat.
This says absolutely nothing about trans girls or women. It says a lot about rape culture in the US. And the fact that women, cis or trans, are pretty much left to defend ourselves against it.
So it should be no surprise if cis girls and women do exactly that: scream to raise the alarm. As we are conditioned to do.
Your solution is for us to give up all semblance of pretenses of privacy and have everything be universal for everyone. It sure isn't to give us any way to discern IN THE MOMENT that seems like an emergency that that person is just another woman.
Because that seems good to you. Inclusive.
It's not inclusive to women who require, for whatever reasons, more privacy. It's exclusive of such women and girls.
And you're ok with that. Because women who are religious or modest or who have been raped are all just anti-trans bigots.
A rather large portion of them ARE cis men. That's part of the problem . Due to policy and law changes that the trans lobby have pushed through - often without the public even being aware of it - what constitutes "trans" has become an ever-expanding umbrella. At this point, a rather large portion of the self-proclaimed transwomen out there are heterosexual men with a cross-dressing fetish. Many of them get sexual arousal out of fantasizing of themselves as women, being treated the way they think women should be treated - and the way they think women should be treated is degrading, because they view women as inherently degrading. They get off on invading women's spaces and making women uncomfortable, they get arousal from overriding women's boundaries.
Not all by any means, but a whole, whole, whole lot more than I'm comfortable letting into spaces where women are vulnerable or naked. I don't think women should be forced to become supporting actors in a man's sexual fantasy live action role play.
And since there's no way to tell which are which... the only reasonable course of action for the safety of women and girls is to exclude ALL males from female spaces, sports, and services, and to support separate unisex facilities that they can use instead.
A rather large portion of them ARE cis men. That's part of the problem . Due to policy and law changes that the trans lobby have pushed through - often without the public even being aware of it - what constitutes "trans" has become an ever-expanding umbrella. At this point, a rather large portion of the self-proclaimed transwomen out there are heterosexual men with a cross-dressing fetish. Many of them get sexual arousal out of fantasizing of themselves as women, being treated the way they think women should be treated - and the way they think women should be treated is degrading, because they view women as inherently degrading. They get off on invading women's spaces and making women uncomfortable, they get arousal from overriding women's boundaries.
Not all by any means, but a whole, whole, whole lot more than I'm comfortable letting into spaces where women are vulnerable or naked. I don't think women should be forced to become supporting actors in a man's sexual fantasy live action role play.
And since there's no way to tell which are which... the only reasonable course of action for the safety of women and girls is to exclude ALL males from female spaces, sports, and services, and to support separate unisex facilities that they can use instead.
The reason that it can be traumatizing is because of sexual assault by men. Not because someone is trans. Not because someone is a prude. But because, if you grew up as a female, you'd know that we are conditioned from an early age to be very wary of naked penises in inappropriate contexts. Which has included until very very recently the understanding that means a naked penis in a women's only space would reasonably be considered inappropriate and a threat.
This says absolutely nothing about trans girls or women. It says a lot about rape culture in the US. And the fact that women, cis or trans, are pretty much left to defend ourselves against it.
So it should be no surprise if cis girls and women do exactly that: scream to raise the alarm. As we are conditioned to do.
Your solution is for us to give up all semblance of pretenses of privacy and have everything be universal for everyone. It sure isn't to give us any way to discern IN THE MOMENT that seems like an emergency that that person is just another woman.
Because that seems good to you. Inclusive.
It's not inclusive to women who require, for whatever reasons, more privacy. It's exclusive of such women and girls.
And you're ok with that. Because women who are religious or modest or who have been raped are all just anti-trans bigots.
I’m not ok with anyone dying. Maybe cus men need to be more accepting. Women ( cus, trans) are by and large not the ones bearing up other women, trans, cis, whatever.
Stalls with doors endanger no one except those bigots who so tightly cling to their: it you don’t accept trans women naked in women’s only spaces that we he men woukd beat to death on sight you’re just an anti-trans sissy who probably is lying about sexual assault and if you are t lying you probably deserved it.
You know, don’t you, that the only reason I don’t have you on ignore is that I cannot have you on ignore because you are a mod.
I agree that what matters most is that this individual raped other students. At two different schools. Apparently under the guise of being trans which gave them more access to girls in restrooms. And probably greater latitude and ‘understanding.’
The problem here is that we have had a long time for the anti-trans crowd to establish better evidence--but none has been presented. We have one news report saying "in a skirt" and even that said it probably wasn't a trans issue.
At the end of the day, males are males Jimmy. Males aren't females, nor can they become females. Gender identity is completely, 100%, unequivally an internal subjective thing. There is absolutely no possible way to determine whether a person's actual gender identity is what they say it is, or if they even have one. It's taken entirely on faith, and faith alone. There is no way to verify it.
Sexuality is 100% in the head, also, with no external way to verify it. Do we conclude homosexuality doesn't exist?
And the bad results from attempting to surgically correct intersex babies very strongly suggests there's something that's set before birth that determines gender.
And the idea that men would go so far as to live as women to get a look at naked women makes no sense.
I've already posted the facts that very few people once they've committed to their trans nature go back. Apparently she is also unaware of the stigma attached to coming out as trans in middle aged people and what it could do to their families.
I agree that what matters most is that this individual raped other students. At two different schools. Apparently under the guise of being trans which gave them more access to girls in restrooms. And probably greater latitude and ‘understanding.’
The problem here is that we have had a long time for the anti-trans crowd to establish better evidence--but none has been presented. We have one news report saying "in a skirt" and even that said it probably wasn't a trans issue.
It does not matter to you because your safety is not at risk.
The problem is that men are the risk for women: all women, cis and trans, gay or straight.
The issue—and there were multiple news reports—is that the assailant identified themselves as trans in order to access the girls’ bathrooms/dressing rooms where they assaulted multiple victims at different schools.
The problem is Loren that you don’t care about anybody who is t you, you have a crap memory for anything that doesn’t bother you personally and you are seriously empathy impaired.
You’ve had a long time to make your case and you have failed to do so. You enjoy public nudity so you see no issue for anyone else.
Unfortunately, there are those who absolutely do wish to target trans people.
Horrendously, there are some very few individuals with nefarious motives who want access to women’s facilities first the purposes of predation. This is pretty rare and it makes it much more difficult to reach consensus that protects everyone from the criminal intentions of a small number of people.
Note that the second group should be divided into those who enter in disguise vs those who do so openly. What's the usual scenario? Rest stop or the like, isolated, predator is hiding outside, waiting for a victim to show up. Will laws about trans have any effect on these? No. The only relevant ones are those entering in disguise.
Real world news reports, we see repeated examples of the former. The anti-trans crowd struggles to come up with any evidence for the latter. It's very clear which side is victimized more. That says to me the laws are too restrictive. I care an awful lot more about those who are harmed rather than those simply distressed.
You are too big an asshole to recognize that the fear and vigilance and the loss of any safe space is a genuine harm to people you don’t care about: those without a penis.
Note to Loren: you can have a dick without being a dick.
I find it... interesting I guess... that the many proponents of trans rights, who insist that there is no risk at all to women by allowing men into female spaces if those men say they're women... have nothing at all to say about these two cases.
Mr Merager was found not guilty by a jury according to your link because intent to sexually arouse was not established. Sounds to me that the law is poorly written.
Mr Cox should be in prison. But charges were dropped because of a vague law.
It seems to me that once someone is convicted of a sex crime, gender identity should not be a defense in subsequent sex crime charges.
This page summarizes the law in California regarding public nudity. The Southern California Naturist Association is a nudist travel club. Our activities include meetings with potential members and the public to educate about the joy of social nudism; parties in backyards and at regional clubs...
socalnaturist.org
Key words "..and lewdly..." This isn't vague, this is by intent. The law is not meant to ban simple nudity.
At the end of the day, males are males Jimmy. Males aren't females, nor can they become females. Gender identity is completely, 100%, unequivally an internal subjective thing. There is absolutely no possible way to determine whether a person's actual gender identity is what they say it is, or if they even have one. It's taken entirely on faith, and faith alone. There is no way to verify it.
Sexuality is 100% in the head, also, with no external way to verify it. Do we conclude homosexuality doesn't exist?
And the bad results from attempting to surgically correct intersex babies very strongly suggests there's something that's set before birth that determines gender.
I also think that anyone who says ANY thing with consistent presentation of experience is "subjective" as if it's like a microcode update on a processor, a meme that can be "caught" like a religion.
That's what this really is: an accusation that being trans is memetic/grooming rather than being something to do with these consistent presentations of experience that are deep enough in many cases to make even individuals who were born 60 years ago before this blew up capable of rendering descriptions that people today still recognize from long description.
It is completely and equivocally something that gets pushback, disregarded, disbelieved, discouraged from the first moment it's spoken of to the moment that someone is old enough to walk away from that.
I also feel like the only way someone could justify this position is if they had some of these feelings secretly in common with trans people.
The only people among Christianity who think being gay is a "sin" that you can "catch", after all, are almost 100% guaranteed to be at least a bit attracted to their own gender. How else could they claim it's a "temptation" to be "resisted"?
Given how obsessed that Emily, and ONLY Emily has been about trans people, well, I don't think MOST women wish they had dicks, and I don't think most women think about women with dicks or being men, and I have NEVER had anyone else EVER go off on preemptively accusing trans people of thinking all women should become men or whatever the fuck that was a few years ago, or presenting some bullshit like the opinion that women are men with something missing (seriously WTF?!?)
Two parts to this: some will. Some people really are that "committed" to a "bad-faith" bit.
Look at how committed Jason is to that whole "Democrats are the KKK" thing: nobody takes it seriously, it damages his reputation, it's plainly wrong and makes no sense, and has been debunked many MANY times... but for as long as either of us has been here, Jason sticks with it like a religion.
That will happen, albeit rarely. The fact that across the entire country of 300m people, the fear is not even as well-founded as the fear of flying on a commercial plane or of being struck by lightning.
You have more likelihood of being mauled by a random dog walking past you on the street.
The fact that we can count these incidents on one hand even amid a Zeitgeist of Republican messaging that actually encourages these attacks.
so, the mere false claim being made so often by so many that "men" can get easy access to "women" by wearing a skirt and saying words is one of those "Tinkerbell effect" things that isn't broadly true, but gives folks the idea that it might work, and in saying that there's an effect, the effect actually happens, but only adjacent to the saying of it.
I had some inkling back then that this was the case, but this actually encourages attempts to do exactly this thing.
Of course, this could have been cut off VERY early with the simple expectation that those who make such claims are filtered on the very important question of whether they have expended thousands of dollars of their own money or benefits on the therapy to discuss the feelings caused by their brain configuration.
I feel like it could be decelerated and reversed by leaning into whatever affect: I recall as a younger child disliking how much my joints hurt all the GD time. The expectation was that I had some manner of arthritis (and I still might) but the correction for it was surgical and I NOPED away from that because I had no guarantee that it would improve anything. I think I just got used to being a bit sore all the time?
So to get to the point of the above paragraph: you can tell the difference largely by who is interested in or who is taking HRT or bottom surgery.
If, attached to this whole stupid "if I pretend I'm a woman, I can get a peek at women's spaces" misconception that leads the most gullible of creeps to throw a dress on was also "but if you get caught, you get medically transitioned castrated and put on estrogen and labeled a sex offender", far fewer instances of an already rare mindset would arise.. and if they don't want medical transition, they're getting housed with others of a similar hormonal situation as them.
But the meme itself spread specifically because bad-faith idiots manufactured a problem, saying loudly and repeatedly against all good sense that it's "magic words" that gain them "access to a lookie-loo" and that this is a thing that "can work".
What you are missing is that if there is nobody around none of your security is worth anything, and if there are others around the alarm will be sounded. The safety is an illusion.
A "women" sign isn't magical. If there's nobody else around it provides no protection. If there are others around a scream is going to bring help so attacks are effectively nonexistent.
I find it... interesting I guess... that the many proponents of trans rights, who insist that there is no risk at all to women by allowing men into female spaces if those men say they're women... have nothing at all to say about these two cases.
Mr Merager was found not guilty by a jury according to your link because intent to sexually arouse was not established. Sounds to me that the law is poorly written.
Mr Cox should be in prison. But charges were dropped because of a vague law.
It seems to me that once someone is convicted of a sex crime, gender identity should not be a defense in subsequent sex crime charges.
This page summarizes the law in California regarding public nudity. The Southern California Naturist Association is a nudist travel club. Our activities include meetings with potential members and the public to educate about the joy of social nudism; parties in backyards and at regional clubs...
socalnaturist.org
Key words "..and lewdly..." This isn't vague, this is by intent. The law is not meant to ban simple nudity.
What you are missing is that if there is nobody around none of your security is worth anything, and if there are others around the alarm will be sounded. The safety is an illusion.
A "women" sign isn't magical. If there's nobody else around it provides no protection. If there are others around a scream is going to bring help so attacks are effectively nonexistent.
I mean seriously, the guy throws a GD tantrum every time anyone tries to use "gender" as a concept distinct from sex, and then accuses all the other people of preventing conversations through the control of language on account that they use words that allow accessing meanings that Bomb doesn't think should be capable of being discussed.
That, in contrast, is a verifiably false claim. It never happened. Jarhyn made it up. I have consistently distinguished gender from sex and when I've corrected people who used "gender" incorrectly it wasn't for using it as a concept distinct from sex, but for using it to mean some other concept distinct from gender -- usually "gender identity"
No, it is unquestionable that there can be a gender identity to the mind. Gender and gender identity are not the same concept. An awful lot of trans ideology's arguments rely on equivocating them.
"Gender refers to the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed. This includes norms, behaviours and roles associated with being a woman, man, girl or boy, as well as relationships with each other. As a social construct, gender varies from society to society and can change over time.
...
Gender and sex are related to but different from gender identity. Gender identity refers to a person’s deeply felt, internal and individual experience of gender, which may or may not correspond to the person’s physiology or designated sex at birth".
- World Health Organization
To oversimplify: your gender identity is the sex-linked category you think of yourself as being in; your gender is the sex-linked category other people typically think of you as being in. That's what "socially constructed" involves.
Jarhyn will not be able to produce any quotes of me equating gender and sex, nor any reason to think "the characteristics of women, men, girls and boys that are socially constructed" means "sex", nor any quotes indicating I think that definition means "sex". People like Jarhyn claim their opponents are "pretending" as an ad hominem, to relieve themselves of the burden of refuting their opponents' actual arguments; and they set up strawmen like "equates gender and sex" for the same purpose.
Gender is specifically here the set of behaviors driven by the structure of the brain as distinctly formed by specific biological processes.
Gender identity is the behavioral manifestation of that inner gender, and pretending that it's inappropriate to identify the gender through its expression on identity, when that's literally what the function of gender is there to create, is excessive policing of language with the intent to prevent the discussion of concepts you don't want to acknowledge.
Jarhyn's definitions might be Newspeak; at any rate they're certainly Humpty Dumpty language. I'm not grasping whatever distinction Jarhyn is making between "the set of behaviors" and "the behavioral manifestation" -- both of those sound to me like what's normally called "gender expression". I don't know why Jarhyn feels the need to make up Humpty Dumpty meanings for old terms when there's already a widely recognized term for the desired meanings. The lack of any offer of alternate terms for the existing meanings of "gender" and "gender identity" does suggest an intent to prevent access to meanings that someone doesn't think should be capable of being discussed, through the policing of meanings; but I think it's more likely Jarhyn is just committing equivocation fallacies.
And no, you aren't being silenced by "abti-blashemy practices",
Nonsense -- somebody was trying to do it to Emily so I called him on it. Perhaps Jarhyn doesn't mind wrongs done to other people, and is projecting that self-absorption.
You have been anything but silent for decades, and mostly on behalf of fascist interests, and loudest when it allows you to silence by sheer volume of your screeching and disagreement with the very nature of the conversation any real discussion on the topic.
I replied to three posts because they were addressed to me, one because it was a personal attack on me, and one because someone claimed an event never happened that I was an eyewitness to. I guess that's sea-lioning now.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
. Due to policy and law changes that the trans lobby have pushed through - often without the public even being aware of it - what constitutes "trans" has become an ever-expanding umbrella. At this point, a rather large portion of the self-proclaimed transwomen out there are heterosexual men with a cross-dressing fetish. Many of them get sexual arousal out of fantasizing of themselves as women, being treated the way they think women should be treated - and the way they think women should be treated is degrading, because they view women as inherently degrading. They get off on invading women's spaces and making women uncomfortable, they get arousal from overriding women's boundaries.
I replied to three posts because they were addressed to me, one because it was a personal attack on me, and one because someone claimed an event never happened that I was an eyewitness to. I guess that's sea-lioning now.