UK Labour party can't say what a woman is.

[Jarhyn]

Of course there are almost certainly serial killers whose prey is "women" who I am sure Emily would acknowledge as "women" yet she has no apparent problem throwing those people in with their victims. I don't see her arguing, for instance, against housing XXY folks in the female estate.

The same happens among people who are entirely acknowledged by her as "men": people are thrown into a bin full of their preferred victims.

Then she goes into apologetics for prejudicial discrimination.

I don't think she would be very happy if some guy started talking about how "women tend to be less/more °°° so we shouldn't let them •••", so I don't know have a pretty good guess why she is in here saying "men tend to be less/more °°° so we shouldn't let them •••".

It is sexism plain and simple.

Dude, seriously. Take this shit up with your fellow men, as they're the ones doing a MASSIVELY disproportionate amount of the sex crimes and the domestic abuse. Take it up with fucking biology, which has evolved males to be more aggressive and violent than women.

Take your borderline incel talking points elsewhere.

I don't think she would be very happy if some guy started talking about how "women tend to be less/more °°° so we shouldn't let them •••", so I don't know have a pretty good guess why she is in here saying "men tend to be less/more °°° so we shouldn't let them •••".

It is sexism plain and simple.

 

[Emily Lake]

Nothing I said implies I don't care about her victims. Then, you are the ones using her victims as a fucking prop, for the sake of excusing your abuses of her. She still has dignity as a human being, even if she's been a really shitty human being.

You express not a whit of care that there are hundreds or even thousands of others who ruthlessly and brutally murder folks as prey because of what they are outside of this case.

But you sure do care that THIS one is. Personally...

This MAN magically transformed into a WOMAN in your eyes, because they said so WHEN THEY GOT ARRESTED.

Why on earth do you believe him? Why do you think that giving a man who is OBVIOUSLY gaming the system "dignity" is more important than acknowledging the reality of them being a male who preyed upon and murdered females?

What do you get out of obscuring facts in a way that makes it easier for males to harm and abuse females?

 

[Jarhyn]

How do you know what Thomas is or is not

I don't really assume anything about what people are or not beyond what they tell me, and beyond my knowledge that some have had massive affect from testosterone over the course of their life.

The testosterone affect is enough to make decisions, without needing to look into her pants and make those decisions based on unthinking flesh that has no direct impact on anything else (the effect is SECONDARY).

You base your judgement on fuzzy, subjective declarations of definition, not objective facts.

The fact that you cannot see how you are standing on normals of a distribution rather than on fixed geometries of nature is sad.

 

[Emily Lake]

Yet we still live in a country where discrimination on the basis of "sex" is illegal and every human has every right to be judged purely on the basis of who they are and how they themselves act.

Your statistics still don't justify your sexism.

Actually, it's NOT illegal. It's generally illegal in terms of EMPLOYMENT... but women still do not have constitutionally enshrined equal rights. We have the right to vote, and that's it. Everything else is haphazard state laws (which aren't universal) and social convention.

But we also have a legal system that disregards domestic abuse, sexual assault, and rape charges. Only about a third of rapes get reported - and in many cases, the victim of those rapes ends up being scrutinized, challenged, and told she deserved it or otherwise implied that it's HER fault for getting fucking raped in the first place (where's your call for dignity on that topic?). Of those that get reported, only 15% even result in an arrest! Of those that get arrested, only 20% even get referred for prosecution. And of those that go to prosecution, about half of them get convicted, and of those, 1 in 7 doesn't even serve jail time.

So... think about that. Of all the people who get raped (98% of whom are female)... less than 1% result in the rapist being convicted.

And that's in a developed country, where we hypothetically have the right to not get raped. If you look at it globally, it's sooooo much worse.

Where's your call for dignity and respect and compassion here? Somehow, it's magically absent. You have a whole lot to say about the respect and dignity that are due to males who are willfully crossing female boundaries, ignoring female consent with respect to voyeurism and exhibitionism, excluding females from their own sports, and putting females at risk. You have a TON to say about how much compassion and care women are expected to provide toward those males... but you've consistently and repeatedly got fuck-all to say about any compassion, dignity, or respect toward females.

Your gender religion places the feelings of males above the rights, safety, and dignity of females.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yet we still live in a country where discrimination on the basis of "sex" is illegal and every human has every right to be judged purely on the basis of who they are and how they themselves act.

Your statistics still don't justify your sexism.

Actually, it's NOT illegal. It's generally illegal in terms of EMPLOYMENT... but women still do not have constitutionally enshrined equal rights. We have the right to vote, and that's it. Everything else is haphazard state laws (which aren't universal) and social convention.

But we also have a legal system that disregards domestic abuse, sexual assault, and rape charges. Only about a third of rapes get reported - and in many cases, the victim of those rapes ends up being scrutinized, challenged, and told she deserved it or otherwise implied that it's HER fault for getting fucking raped in the first place (where's your call for dignity on that topic?). Of those that get reported, only 15% even result in an arrest! Of those that get arrested, only 20% even get referred for prosecution. And of those that go to prosecution, about half of them get convicted, and of those, 1 in 7 doesn't even serve jail time.

So... think about that. Of all the people who get raped (98% of whom are female)... less than 1% result in the rapist being convicted.

And that's in a developed country, where we hypothetically have the right to not get raped. If you look at it globally, it's sooooo much worse.

Where's your call for dignity and respect and compassion here? Somehow, it's magically absent. You have a whole lot to say about the respect and dignity that are due to males who are willfully crossing female boundaries, ignoring female consent with respect to voyeurism and exhibitionism, excluding females from their own sports, and putting females at risk. You have a TON to say about how much compassion and care women are expected to provide toward those males... but you've consistently and repeatedly got fuck-all to say about any compassion, dignity, or respect toward females.

Your gender religion places the feelings of males above the rights, safety, and dignity of females.

I say a lot about the dignity and respect owed to all people regardless of sex.

It's terrible that people do bad things to each other.

It's terrible that the police have any leeway at all to not investigate that which they ought.

Your answer appears to be answering widespread discrimination on account of vague notions of sex or gender as the case may be... With more enshrined discrimination.

I have no interest nor should anyone else have, in enshrining definitions of vague shit that only contribute to prejudice and widen divides of both cultural separation and behavioral loading that lead to the outcomes you decry.

 

[thebeave]

How does a persons gender choice "pick your pocket or break you bones"

TJ

That's really not a simple question.

Under the large majority of circumstances someone else's sex or gender are extremely unimportant. And most of the time people will range from minimally polite to supportive. But this isn't always true.
Sometimes, a person's sex matters more than their gender. Examples would be competitive sports divisions and public spaces where women feel vulnerable (such as public restrooms and changing facilities). Pushing boundaries in those circumstances really does harm women.

And notice I specified "women". For reasons that are both psychological and physical, men (as a group) just aren't as vulnerable to women. I'm a dude, over 6 foot and 200 pounds. There are still women who could kick my ass. But if one joined me in the shower at the city pool I'd be more amused than threatened. I've just never worried about that. My sisters are different. I'm confident that the large majority of women are similarly different. Any male is a big problem, and a penis is the usual way of distinguishing a male.
Tom

Saw this in my news feed today.

Swimmer Lia Thomas becomes first transgender athlete to win an NCAA D-I title

Must especially suck to be the second place winner here, though the third place winner doesn't seem to phased. TomC's great comment had me thinking about the locker room arrangements for Lia's swim team. Is Lia in the same locker room (group shower?) as the other female swimmers?

Not sure I know what's going on in this picture. Is the woman in the white cap the second place swimmer, and she doesn't want to stand to close to Lia? Who are the other two? The third and fourth place swimmers? What's up with the cowboy hat?

 

[Trausti]

How does a persons gender choice "pick your pocket or break you bones"

TJ

That's really not a simple question.

Under the large majority of circumstances someone else's sex or gender are extremely unimportant. And most of the time people will range from minimally polite to supportive. But this isn't always true.
Sometimes, a person's sex matters more than their gender. Examples would be competitive sports divisions and public spaces where women feel vulnerable (such as public restrooms and changing facilities). Pushing boundaries in those circumstances really does harm women.

And notice I specified "women". For reasons that are both psychological and physical, men (as a group) just aren't as vulnerable to women. I'm a dude, over 6 foot and 200 pounds. There are still women who could kick my ass. But if one joined me in the shower at the city pool I'd be more amused than threatened. I've just never worried about that. My sisters are different. I'm confident that the large majority of women are similarly different. Any male is a big problem, and a penis is the usual way of distinguishing a male.
Tom

Saw this in my news feed today.

Swimmer Lia Thomas becomes first transgender athlete to win an NCAA D-I title

Must especially suck to be the second place winner here, though the third place winner doesn't seem to phased. TomC's great comment had me thinking about the locker room arrangements for Lia's swim team. Is Lia in the same locker room (group shower?) as the other female swimmers?

Not sure I know what's going on in this picture. Is the woman in the white cap the second place swimmer, and she doesn't want to stand to close to Lia? Who are the other two? The third and fourth place swimmers? What's up with the cowboy hat?

It’s the top three women - 2, 3, and 4. And some jerk on the far end.

 

[TomC]

It’s the top three women - 2, 3, and 4. And some jerk on the far end.

I love South Park.

I also remember an episode where Cartman went to Texas to help build The Wall. Mexicans were leaving. There wasn't going to be anybody to pick vegetables or pump gas! He had to build The Wall to protect the American Way of Life. Had to keep the Mexicans from leaving. If all the Mexicans left, USA was screwed.
Tom

 

[Metaphor]

The fact is, Harvey Marcelin is a man, a serial killer it seems who has recently declared himself a woman. He was convicted as a man for previous murders of actual women. But here we are, a once respected news source going along with the charade, only once mentioning that we are in fact dealing with a male serial killer. No pockets picked, no bones broken I suppose but the BBC cannot be trusted.

So BBC can't be trusted to follow your preferred pronoun protocols. Who cares?

Unless there's something about this I don't know, your post looks very gratuitous. Maybe the murderer's gender matters in some way. Maybe they used their trans to gain access to vulnerable women. Then it would matter. Otherwise, it doesn't.
Tom

Of course, the issue of accurate description in reporting is apparently irrelevant to these gender cultists.

You are correct: accurate reporting is irrelevant to the gender cultists, which is why you are happy to have a man's crimes reported as if they'd been committed by a woman.

 

[Metaphor]

Maybe the murderer's gender matters in some way. Maybe they used their trans to gain access to vulnerable women. Then it would matter. Otherwise, it doesn't.

Of course it matters. Marcelin is a man whose chosen victim class was women. It would be like failing to report either Jeffrey Dahmer's sex or the sex of his chosen victim class.

 

[TomC]

Maybe the murderer's gender matters in some way. Maybe they used their trans to gain access to vulnerable women. Then it would matter. Otherwise, it doesn't.

Of course it matters. Marcelin is a man whose chosen victim class was women. It would be like failing to report either Jeffrey Dahmer's sex or the sex of his chosen victim class.

I don't think it does matter. You cannot explain why you think it does.
Dahmer is completely irrelevant.
Tom

ETA ~This particular murderer is male sex. BBC pronoun protocols aren't about sex. You might want that for some reason, but neither BBC nor I care about your preferred pronoun protocols. ~

 

[Metaphor]

Maybe the murderer's gender matters in some way. Maybe they used their trans to gain access to vulnerable women. Then it would matter. Otherwise, it doesn't.

Of course it matters. Marcelin is a man whose chosen victim class was women. It would be like failing to report either Jeffrey Dahmer's sex or the sex of his chosen victim class.

I don't think it does matter. You cannot explain why you think it does.
Dahmer is completely irrelevant.
Tom

Yes, you made clear you don't think it matters. You did not make clear why you think it doesn't matter.

Having the correct sex class reported of murderers and their victims allows people to better understand the psychology of their actions. Dahmer is relevant because his actions must be taken in the context of his being a gay man in the 1970s in America. Indeed, Marcelin's self-declared gender is interesting to note (probably as an indicator of the new phenomenon of the sudden surge in trans criminals), though nothing changes the fact that he is a male who murdered females.

 

[Jarhyn]

Maybe the murderer's gender matters in some way. Maybe they used their trans to gain access to vulnerable women. Then it would matter. Otherwise, it doesn't.

Of course it matters. Marcelin is a man whose chosen victim class was women. It would be like failing to report either Jeffrey Dahmer's sex or the sex of his chosen victim class.

I don't think it does matter. You cannot explain why you think it does.
Dahmer is completely irrelevant.
Tom

Yes, you made clear you don't think it matters. You did not make clear why you think it doesn't matter.

Having the correct sex class reported of murderers and their victims allows people to better understand the psychology of their actions. Dahmer is relevant because his actions must be taken in the context of his being a gay man in the 1970s in America. Indeed, Marcelin's self-declared gender is interesting to note (probably as an indicator of the new phenomenon of the sudden surge in trans criminals), though nothing changes the fact that he is a male who murdered females.

Yet you nor Emily nor anyone else who cares So Much™ about this seems to care at all when someone whose chosen victims are °°° and they also happen to be °°°.

It doesn't even seem a concern in your minds.

This indicates it's more about something else rather then whether they are a °°° who victimized °°° versus a ••• who victimized °°°.

What matters is "they are with °°° and victimize °°°." Whether they are ••• or °°° does not matter

 

[laughing dog]

The fact is, Harvey Marcelin is a man, a serial killer it seems who has recently declared himself a woman. He was convicted as a man for previous murders of actual women. But here we are, a once respected news source going along with the charade, only once mentioning that we are in fact dealing with a male serial killer. No pockets picked, no bones broken I suppose but the BBC cannot be trusted.

So BBC can't be trusted to follow your preferred pronoun protocols. Who cares?

Unless there's something about this I don't know, your post looks very gratuitous. Maybe the murderer's gender matters in some way. Maybe they used their trans to gain access to vulnerable women. Then it would matter. Otherwise, it doesn't.
Tom

Of course, the issue of accurate description in reporting is apparently irrelevant to these gender cultists.

You are correct: accurate reporting is irrelevant to the gender cultists, which is why you are happy to have a man's crimes reported as if they'd been committed by a woman.

. The article mentioned the serial killer was a man. So your statement is false. I gave no indication about my happiness with the report.

So your response supports my observation accuracy in reporting is irrelevant to gender cultists.

 

[Metaphor]

The fact is, Harvey Marcelin is a man, a serial killer it seems who has recently declared himself a woman. He was convicted as a man for previous murders of actual women. But here we are, a once respected news source going along with the charade, only once mentioning that we are in fact dealing with a male serial killer. No pockets picked, no bones broken I suppose but the BBC cannot be trusted.

So BBC can't be trusted to follow your preferred pronoun protocols. Who cares?

Unless there's something about this I don't know, your post looks very gratuitous. Maybe the murderer's gender matters in some way. Maybe they used their trans to gain access to vulnerable women. Then it would matter. Otherwise, it doesn't.
Tom

Of course, the issue of accurate description in reporting is apparently irrelevant to these gender cultists.

You are correct: accurate reporting is irrelevant to the gender cultists, which is why you are happy to have a man's crimes reported as if they'd been committed by a woman.

. The article mentioned the serial killer was a man. So your statement is false. I gave no indication about my happiness with the report.

So your response supports my observation accuracy in reporting is irrelevant to gender cultists.

No, the article reported this man's crimes as if they'd been committed by a woman. You can tell, because the BBC uses words like 'she' and 'woman' when referring to Marcelin, which are lies. We know they are lies because of a single paragraph the BBC publishes three-quarters of the way through the article, -

In 1963, a jury found Marcelin - who recently identified as a woman - guilty of murdering Jacqueline Bonds.

Were it not for that, somebody reading the first few paragraphs of the article (as many people do) would walk away believing Marcelin to be a woman.

I could re-write the BBC's article to make it accurate and coherent, but my rewriting, though according with reality, would foment gender cultists to apoplexies of rage.

 

[Jarhyn]

I think that prisoners, within prisons, should be separated by target class. Generally they are separated currently within the estates by "had a target class vs had no target class". Violent offenders tend to go elsewhere than the nonviolent offenders.

This would generally indicate that this person go to max security, given that they killed two people, and be kept separate from those they would rape or kill, which I assume would be anyone regardless of the estate they end up in. Which is described thus:

This one has a lot of testosterone affect and killed some folks, so I would think it be prudent to house her with folks who have a lot of testosterone in their history and possibly only those so violent in their dispositions of the moment as to kill folks, regardless of what fuzzy labels folks attach to each other or themselves

 

[IIDB Staff]

Thread locked for wet clean-up in aisle 6. We’ll re-open when done.

All the ad homs and personal sniping are being relegated to ~Elsewhere.
They are ad homs, unproductive and against the TOU.

Note to all those who think they are good citizens of the II: stop quoting the violations of others!

NOTE: many points that would be interesting or useful are so contaminated by ad homs that no mod is going to take the time to separate and edit every quote in every post in here. So it’s all going to ~E. In the future, if you have something interesting and insightful too say, don’t stir it in with violations of the TOU.

 

[Metaphor]

I think that prisoners, within prisons, should be separated by target class. Generally they are separated currently within the estates by "had a target class vs had no target class".

No they are not. They are separated by sex and age. The 'target class' of their victims is not relevant. Also, some crimes have no particular 'target class'.

Violent offenders tend to go elsewhere than the nonviolent offenders.

Some people go to maximum security and/or isolation, but the highest maximum security level in the male estate is higher than the highest maximum security level in the female estate.

 

[Jarhyn]

So, aside from the fact that nobody cared about this thread enough to make a single post in it since yesterday about this time...

Prisons in america, whole prisons, are separated by the violence of the offense. Nonviolent offenders, which is to say offenders with no victim class, go to a place separate from those who do have a victim class. This is separation by victim class. In addition they are often separated by specific violence level.

Any objection to putting this person in with "women" because they attacked "women" is in fact an argument to separate by target class. Such arguments ring hollow on account of the special pleading used in the form here in this thread. It is special pleading because women who attack women are not so treated, and those who made the argument do not insist that they be treated so.

I will be clear that I don't specifically think the estates should be divided this way at the top level; rather there is room to divide this way within the prisons:

I think that prisoners, within prisons, should be separated by target class. Generally they are separated currently within the estates by "had a target class vs had no target class". Violent offenders tend to go elsewhere than the nonviolent offenders.

This would generally indicate that this person go to max security, given that they killed two people, and be kept separate from those they would rape or kill, which I assume would be anyone regardless of the estate they end up in. Which is described thus:

This one has a lot of testosterone affect and killed some folks, so I would think it be prudent to house her with folks who have a lot of testosterone in their history and possibly only those so violent in their dispositions of the moment as to kill folks, regardless of what fuzzy labels folks attach to each other or themselves

It is quite interesting the lengths folks will go to so they can preserve some shred of power over others through leverage of legal terms so as to unnecessarily call people something they don't want to be called. You can throw this fucker into the pokey with the rest of those who grew up hitting the T, and still not use language to rob her of any more dignity that she may be robbing herself of by telling the world she is a woman in the chance she is lying about who she feels she is for some other reason.

The issue here is using the fuzzy cluster concept "woman" rather than the biological fact of "meaningfully impacted by testosterone".

It seems to me the entire problem is manufactured by people who are adamant against bending towards a compromise that gets them most of what they want (the ability to separate the estate in a particular way).

 

[Metaphor]

So, aside from the fact that nobody cared about this thread enough to make a single post in it since yesterday about this time...

The thread was locked.

Prisons in america, whole prisons, are separated by the violence of the offense.

No. They are separated by sex and age.

Any objection to putting this person in with "women" because they attacked "women" is in fact an argument to separate by target class.

I object to putting men in with women and pretending that's not what you are doing.

by telling the world she is a woman in the chance she is lying about who she feels she is for some other reason.

He might be lying. His 'gender identity' might be 'woman'. However, his sex is male and males belong on the male estate.

It seems to me the entire problem is manufactured by people who are adamant against bending towards a compromise that gets them most of what they want (the ability to separate the estate in a particular way).

The entire problem is gender cultists and their enablers who believe 'gender identity' should supplant sex in a world that has certain divisions along sex lines.