University head says free speech does not override transgender safety

[Loren Pechtel]

Something to take note of that is in the documents they link--the same group of people has previously made requests for specific names. This is obviously a watered-down version of the previous requests and should thus be evaluated with extreme skepticism.

WoLF is one of the only legal groups out there that is actually willing to fight for women's rights. But go ahead and be "skeptical". It doesn't conform to your preexisting beliefs, so obviously it's not trustworthy.

No. I'm saying their motives are not trustworthy because they sought to expose the identities of the transwomen knowing it would put them in danger.

 

[Emily Lake]

Something to take note of that is in the documents they link--the same group of people has previously made requests for specific names. This is obviously a watered-down version of the previous requests and should thus be evaluated with extreme skepticism.

WoLF is one of the only legal groups out there that is actually willing to fight for women's rights. But go ahead and be "skeptical". It doesn't conform to your preexisting beliefs, so obviously it's not trustworthy.

No. I'm saying their motives are not trustworthy because they sought to expose the identities of the transwomen knowing it would put them in danger.

What danger does it put them in? Are you somehow under the impression that the female prisoners are somehow unaware of the males in their presence? Or the guards? Or are you assuming that some pack of rabid citizens is going to break into the prison and harm them?

The imagined 'harm' that these poor put-upon males might hypothetically face seems to be far more important to you than that actual danger faced by the females who are being forcibly housed with them without their consent.

 

[Jarhyn]

For 99.9999997% +/- .0000003% of all the people on earth, the actual shape of their genitals is pure trivia.

You are the one whose premise relies on "it matters" as if genitals == sex in the first place. And for that .0000003%, is it that hard to just fucking ask?

You don't see my genitals, you see my gender.

Determining a person's GENDER never involves their genitals. In many cases even determining a person's "sex" cannot rely on actually looking at their genitals. Not even genitals gets you to "sex" as if that's even a useful determination at the level of biology we are discussing

The problem that you can't seem to process is that you have no such natural right, no matter how much you wish you did.

You see gender, not sex.

I don't see "gender" at all. It's a feeling inside someone's head, and neither I nor you have shown any evidence of ESP.

Are you under the impression that a person's "gender" is defined by their clothing choices? Does that mean that a female who likes wearing jeans and t-shirts is a man in your eyes, because you can only see clothing and somehow, magically, you are completely blind to all of the secondary and tertiary sex characteristics of the human species?

And it's not a matter of "natural rights" in any fashion. There's no aspect of "rights" to this at all. It's a matter of being capable of observing the real world, not the imaginary androgynous landscape that you seem to wish existed.

That's your problem right there. You refuse to accept that the thing people show you IS their gender. It's a social mechanism. It's the shape of the way they present themselves to the world. More properly than "male" or "female" my gender is "wizard". Because that's how I advertise. Beard, staff, had, bags, sometimes a leather robe (but not in this weather!).

I perceive a giant cloud of "not my fucking business" around pretty much everyone else everywhere because around me is a giant cloud of "not anyone's and certainly not Emily Lake's fucking business".

When I go into a bar, make eye contact (assuming you know the eye contact I'm talking about), and sidle up to someone I say "hello, I'm ___. Only ever ___. And who might you be?" And they say "_____, (hopefully insert pronouns here)", and then they've successfully invoked a set of cultural expectations on behavior and experience that gives me a general idea of whether I'm going to like where it'll take me.

That is not imaginary. That is real. Now, when someone asks me, "they/them, but I can do masculine pronouns if that's easier for you". That's also not imaginary. I being the one doing the preferring know what is I prefer after all.

You are the one who is imagining it matters. That any of that shit you cling to about insisting on calling people you will never know or talk to let alone be even remotely at risk of seeing so much as a pixel of the genital thereof, by what you assume their genital to be.

I have been through whole conversations with people, had whole relationships while never once clearly identifying them, as they never clearly identify themselves, by any pronouns at all.

Somehow, I manage to live this very real existence where it doesn't have to matter in the way you insist that it does.

It is not that I imagine the landscape to be androgenous, I just don't see any point in genderizing or ascribing genitals to it, and somehow I manage to still live a pretty decent life.

It's not that I see the landscape as androgenous. I just don't come to it with expectations the way you want to. I fear large people with breasts and long hair and dresses who are striking and assaulting smaller people with beards and a decided lack of breasts. I don't see a "man" or "woman" I see "230 lb ape, with arm muscles that swing around 10-15 lb weights all day, and leg muscles that bear 130 lbs of torso minimum", I see "150 lb ape who is quite likely sedentary and from his body language, thinks she's going to beat him worse later if he says no now."

That's the relevant calculus there. The breasts and beard are confounding factors.

I see a landscape of relevancies. The fact is, almost always genitals are not actually relevant to the social reality of a situation. Instead, it's the gender that matters, or even perhaps something not gendered at all depending on the context and it's very laughably easy to withhold assumptions of genitals you don't have permission to touch or see anyway, and easier still to withhold assumptions of gender until they tell you.

 

[Metaphor]

That's your problem right there. You refuse to accept that the thing people show you IS their gender. It's a social mechanism. It's the shape of the way they present themselves to the world. More properly than "male" or "female" my gender is "wizard". Because that's how I advertise. Beard, staff, had, bags, sometimes a leather robe (but not in this weather!).

I would like to point out that "wizard gender" is what somebody lampooning gender ideologists might invent, and what Jarhyn is presumably basing his "not cis" status on. Thanks for playing, Jarhyn.

 

[Emily Lake]

For 99.9999997% +/- .0000003% of all the people on earth, the actual shape of their genitals is pure trivia.

You are the one whose premise relies on "it matters" as if genitals == sex in the first place. And for that .0000003%, is it that hard to just fucking ask?

You don't see my genitals, you see my gender.

Determining a person's GENDER never involves their genitals. In many cases even determining a person's "sex" cannot rely on actually looking at their genitals. Not even genitals gets you to "sex" as if that's even a useful determination at the level of biology we are discussing

The problem that you can't seem to process is that you have no such natural right, no matter how much you wish you did.

You see gender, not sex.

I don't see "gender" at all. It's a feeling inside someone's head, and neither I nor you have shown any evidence of ESP.

Are you under the impression that a person's "gender" is defined by their clothing choices? Does that mean that a female who likes wearing jeans and t-shirts is a man in your eyes, because you can only see clothing and somehow, magically, you are completely blind to all of the secondary and tertiary sex characteristics of the human species?

And it's not a matter of "natural rights" in any fashion. There's no aspect of "rights" to this at all. It's a matter of being capable of observing the real world, not the imaginary androgynous landscape that you seem to wish existed.

That's your problem right there. You refuse to accept that the thing people show you IS their gender. It's a social mechanism. It's the shape of the way they present themselves to the world. More properly than "male" or "female" my gender is "wizard". Because that's how I advertise. Beard, staff, had, bags, sometimes a leather robe (but not in this weather!).

I perceive a giant cloud of "not my fucking business" around pretty much everyone else everywhere because around me is a giant cloud of "not anyone's and certainly not Emily Lake's fucking business".

When I go into a bar, make eye contact (assuming you know the eye contact I'm talking about), and sidle up to someone I say "hello, I'm ___. Only ever ___. And who might you be?" And they say "_____, (hopefully insert pronouns here)", and then they've successfully invoked a set of cultural expectations on behavior and experience that gives me a general idea of whether I'm going to like where it'll take me.

That is not imaginary. That is real. Now, when someone asks me, "they/them, but I can do masculine pronouns if that's easier for you". That's also not imaginary. I being the one doing the preferring know what is I prefer after all.

You are the one who is imagining it matters. That any of that shit you cling to about insisting on calling people you will never know or talk to let alone be even remotely at risk of seeing so much as a pixel of the genital thereof, by what you assume their genital to be.

I have been through whole conversations with people, had whole relationships while never once clearly identifying them, as they never clearly identify themselves, by any pronouns at all.

Somehow, I manage to live this very real existence where it doesn't have to matter in the way you insist that it does.

It is not that I imagine the landscape to be androgenous, I just don't see any point in genderizing or ascribing genitals to it, and somehow I manage to still live a pretty decent life.

It's not that I see the landscape as androgenous. I just don't come to it with expectations the way you want to. I fear large people with breasts and long hair and dresses who are striking and assaulting smaller people with beards and a decided lack of breasts. I don't see a "man" or "woman" I see "230 lb ape, with arm muscles that swing around 10-15 lb weights all day, and leg muscles that bear 130 lbs of torso minimum", I see "150 lb ape who is quite likely sedentary and from his body language, thinks she's going to beat him worse later if he says no now."

That's the relevant calculus there. The breasts and beard are confounding factors.

I see a landscape of relevancies. The fact is, almost always genitals are not actually relevant to the social reality of a situation. Instead, it's the gender that matters, or even perhaps something not gendered at all depending on the context and it's very laughably easy to withhold assumptions of genitals you don't have permission to touch or see anyway, and easier still to withhold assumptions of gender until they tell you.

First off... given that you are a male of the human species... there's a whole lot of stuff related to sex that is very easy for you to dismiss out of hand. It doesn't affect you, therefore it's not important to you.

Secondly... Your entire post is irrational and based on fantasy and belief. Honestly, if you show up in a dog costume, are other people supposed to assume that you are actually for realsies a canine? Take you for a walk and let you shit in public?

For that matter, if a person puts on blackface, are other people supposed to accept them as actually being black rather than seeing them for the perpetrator of a vile caricature?

COSTUMES ARE NOT REALITY. PUTTING ON A WIZARD COSTUME DOESN'T MEAN YOU CAN DO MAGIC.

I'm a lifelong atheist, and prior to the last few years, I've wholeheartedly supported the secularization of the world. But I'm starting to change my mind. I'm starting to think that some people simply cannot function without a guiding fantasy around which to base their lives. In short, some people need some jesus in their lives.

 

[Jarhyn]

<more ignorant screed>

1 You don't know what I am, and what binary or N-nary morphisms my body has acquired (edit: or which ones it has not; or which ones I have had removed; not even I know whether I am XX or XY, and what is in my pants is for ME to talk about, not you; nobody tells my story but me). I am going to report the next time you proclaim what I am, what I am not.

2 your inability to understand what is meant by "magic", and "wizard" is part and parcel with the rest of your ignorant screed. When someone designs a system that leverages obscure and oft arcane principles of universal behavior along long-studied vectors of behavior, I call that a wizard. Currently, I'm making a fair bit of magic happ n with regards to remote manipulation. It just happens that Magic takes a lot of work.

Now, a costume does not make me capable of magic. The costume is merely a tool to proclaim the very real magic I am capable of. A long, painful education at university and then a mind capable of actually understanding the systems I'm looking at. And building them out further... That makes me a wizard.

You also completely missed the point.

Edit again: magic, used in a really badly constructed sentence: "To you, that phone of yours is fucking magic; I could, given enough time and material, forge the entire thing myself... ergo that means I know fucking magic."

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No. I'm saying their motives are not trustworthy because they sought to expose the identities of the transwomen knowing it would put them in danger.

What danger does it put them in? Are you somehow under the impression that the female prisoners are somehow unaware of the males in their presence? Or the guards? Or are you assuming that some pack of rabid citizens is going to break into the prison and harm them?

The imagined 'harm' that these poor put-upon males might hypothetically face seems to be far more important to you than that actual danger faced by the females who are being forcibly housed with them without their consent.

Are you in that Egyptian river?

I wasn't having much luck in finding overall risks to the transgendered but very high in the search criteria was a transwoman who was quite openly murdered by her cellmate for being trans.

 

[Jarhyn]

No. I'm saying their motives are not trustworthy because they sought to expose the identities of the transwomen knowing it would put them in danger.

What danger does it put them in? Are you somehow under the impression that the female prisoners are somehow unaware of the males in their presence? Or the guards? Or are you assuming that some pack of rabid citizens is going to break into the prison and harm them?

The imagined 'harm' that these poor put-upon males might hypothetically face seems to be far more important to you than that actual danger faced by the females who are being forcibly housed with them without their consent.

Are you in that Egyptian river?

I wasn't having much luck in finding overall risks to the transgendered but very high in the search criteria was a transwoman who was quite openly murdered by her cellmate for being trans.

The very Lake from which it flows, I expect.

It reveals who they are, where they are held, and so how to target them.

The fact is, some number of them are indistinguishable from the rest of the inmates, and were it to be known, life would be significantly worse for them. It would be an outing.

 

[Emily Lake]

<more ignorant screed>

1 You don't know what I am, and what binary or N-nary morphisms my body has acquired (edit: or which ones it has not; or which ones I have had removed; not even I know whether I am XX or XY, and what is in my pants is for ME to talk about, not you; nobody tells my story but me). I am going to report the next time you proclaim what I am, what I am not.

Report away. For years you were quite open about being male. Now, somehow, you're magically "not sure" and "can't tell" and you expect everyone else to just forget your entire posting history? That's nuts.

2 your inability to understand what is meant by "magic", and "wizard" is part and parcel with the rest of your ignorant screed. When someone designs a system that leverages obscure and oft arcane principles of universal behavior along long-studied vectors of behavior, I call that a wizard. Currently, I'm making a fair bit of magic happ n with regards to remote manipulation. It just happens that Magic takes a lot of work.

Now, a costume does not make me capable of magic. The costume is merely a tool to proclaim the very real magic I am capable of. A long, painful education at university and then a mind capable of actually understanding the systems I'm looking at. And building them out further... That makes me a wizard.

You also completely missed the point.

Edit again: magic, used in a really badly constructed sentence: "To you, that phone of yours is fucking magic; I could, given enough time and material, forge the entire thing myself... ergo that means I know fucking magic."

I'll take the hit if that's what this comes down to.

This is insane. It's complete wishful thinking, anti-science. Religious fundamentalists make more sense than you. This is complete and utter hogwash and woo. Smoke less pot, do fewer drugs, or maybe get professional help.

If you genuinely believe that you're a wizard who can manipulate things remotely... then you are delusional.

 

[Emily Lake]

No. I'm saying their motives are not trustworthy because they sought to expose the identities of the transwomen knowing it would put them in danger.

What danger does it put them in? Are you somehow under the impression that the female prisoners are somehow unaware of the males in their presence? Or the guards? Or are you assuming that some pack of rabid citizens is going to break into the prison and harm them?

The imagined 'harm' that these poor put-upon males might hypothetically face seems to be far more important to you than that actual danger faced by the females who are being forcibly housed with them without their consent.

Are you in that Egyptian river?

I wasn't having much luck in finding overall risks to the transgendered but very high in the search criteria was a transwoman who was quite openly murdered by her cellmate for being trans.

Was her cellmate female? I rather suspect not.

These are male criminals who were already in a male prison, and who voluntarily made a request to be moved to a female prison on the basis of their newly found identity as "women". Who the hell do you think they're being "outed" to? Do you think the females that they're being housed with are blind, deaf, and complete idiots who are totally unable to tell that they're male?

This is kool-aid.

There are many rights that transgender people need and absolutely should have.

Expecting the entire world to pretend that objective reality doesn't exist, and that biology isn't real... that's not a right.

 

[Jarhyn]

Report away. For years you were quite open about being male. Now, somehow, you're magically "not sure" and "can't tell" and you expect everyone else to just forget your entire posting history? That's nuts.

2 your inability to understand what is meant by "magic", and "wizard" is part and parcel with the rest of your ignorant screed. When someone designs a system that leverages obscure and oft arcane principles of universal behavior along long-studied vectors of behavior, I call that a wizard. Currently, I'm making a fair bit of magic happ n with regards to remote manipulation. It just happens that Magic takes a lot of work.

Now, a costume does not make me capable of magic. The costume is merely a tool to proclaim the very real magic I am capable of. A long, painful education at university and then a mind capable of actually understanding the systems I'm looking at. And building them out further... That makes me a wizard.

You also completely missed the point.

Edit again: magic, used in a really badly constructed sentence: "To you, that phone of yours is fucking magic; I could, given enough time and material, forge the entire thing myself... ergo that means I know fucking magic."

I'll take the hit if that's what this comes down to.

This is insane. It's complete wishful thinking, anti-science. Religious fundamentalists make more sense than you. This is complete and utter hogwash and woo. Smoke less pot, do fewer drugs, or maybe get professional help.

If you genuinely believe that you're a wizard who can manipulate things remotely... then you are delusional.

I mean, say what you want, but SOMEONE is paying me 115k a year for me to do what I do. In this case, making something move from an arbitrary location within ~60 meters.

As i said, used in a sentence: "to you, that phone of yours is fucking magic."

You haven't actually answered any of my actual arguments either. Just whinged because I applied language to describe a thing in a way you, Emily lake, hate. I'm going to keep doing it, just so I can laugh at your posts some more whenever you claim believing in the existence of WIFI is "delusional" again. It's quite amusing

 

[Emily Lake]

Report away. For years you were quite open about being male. Now, somehow, you're magically "not sure" and "can't tell" and you expect everyone else to just forget your entire posting history? That's nuts.

2 your inability to understand what is meant by "magic", and "wizard" is part and parcel with the rest of your ignorant screed. When someone designs a system that leverages obscure and oft arcane principles of universal behavior along long-studied vectors of behavior, I call that a wizard. Currently, I'm making a fair bit of magic happ n with regards to remote manipulation. It just happens that Magic takes a lot of work.

Now, a costume does not make me capable of magic. The costume is merely a tool to proclaim the very real magic I am capable of. A long, painful education at university and then a mind capable of actually understanding the systems I'm looking at. And building them out further... That makes me a wizard.

You also completely missed the point.

Edit again: magic, used in a really badly constructed sentence: "To you, that phone of yours is fucking magic; I could, given enough time and material, forge the entire thing myself... ergo that means I know fucking magic."

I'll take the hit if that's what this comes down to.

This is insane. It's complete wishful thinking, anti-science. Religious fundamentalists make more sense than you. This is complete and utter hogwash and woo. Smoke less pot, do fewer drugs, or maybe get professional help.

If you genuinely believe that you're a wizard who can manipulate things remotely... then you are delusional.

I mean, say what you want, but SOMEONE is paying me 115k a year for me to do what I do. In this case, making something move from an arbitrary location within ~60 meters.

As i said, used in a sentence: "to you, that phone of yours is fucking magic."

You haven't actually answered any of my actual arguments either. Just whinged because I applied language to describe a thing in a way you, Emily lake, hate. I'm going to keep doing it, just so I can laugh at your posts some more whenever you claim believing in the existence of WIFI is "delusional" again. It's quite amusing

Feel free to keep making up your own definitions Mr. Dumpty. That's fine. It doesn't give you a leg to stand on though, and your own bespoke redefinitions of common language doesn't impose any obligation on anyone else to accept your hair-brained crack-pot meanings in any way.

My phone isn't magic, nor do I think it is. Wifi isn't "remote manipulation" either. You're not a wizard. [removed]

 

[Jarhyn]

I mean, say what you want, but SOMEONE is paying me 115k a year for me to do what I do. In this case, making something move from an arbitrary location within ~60 meters.

As i said, used in a sentence: "to you, that phone of yours is fucking magic."

You haven't actually answered any of my actual arguments either. Just whinged because I applied language to describe a thing in a way you, Emily lake, hate. I'm going to keep doing it, just so I can laugh at your posts some more whenever you claim believing in the existence of WIFI is "delusional" again. It's quite amusing

Feel free to keep making up your own definitions Mr. Dumpty. That's fine. It doesn't give you a leg to stand on though, and your own bespoke redefinitions of common language doesn't impose any obligation on anyone else to accept your hair-brained crack-pot meanings in any way.

My phone isn't magic, nor do I think it is. Wifi isn't "remote manipulation" either. You're not a wizard. [removed]

1: wifi is characteristically "remote"
2: the system I assembled is manipulated.

Pretty sure that's "remote manipulation".

Cue Kicking and screaming...

 

[Emily Lake]

I mean, say what you want, but SOMEONE is paying me 115k a year for me to do what I do. In this case, making something move from an arbitrary location within ~60 meters.

As i said, used in a sentence: "to you, that phone of yours is fucking magic."

You haven't actually answered any of my actual arguments either. Just whinged because I applied language to describe a thing in a way you, Emily lake, hate. I'm going to keep doing it, just so I can laugh at your posts some more whenever you claim believing in the existence of WIFI is "delusional" again. It's quite amusing

Feel free to keep making up your own definitions Mr. Dumpty. That's fine. It doesn't give you a leg to stand on though, and your own bespoke redefinitions of common language doesn't impose any obligation on anyone else to accept your hair-brained crack-pot meanings in any way.

My phone isn't magic, nor do I think it is. Wifi isn't "remote manipulation" either. [removed]

1: wifi is characteristically "remote"
2: the system I assembled is manipulated.

Pretty sure that's "remote manipulation".

Cue Kicking and screaming...

No kicking and screaming. Just laughter, albeit kind of sad laughter, because you're clearly going through something.

 

[J842P]

I mean, say what you want, but SOMEONE is paying me 115k a year for me to do what I do. In this case, making something move from an arbitrary location within ~60 meters.

As i said, used in a sentence: "to you, that phone of yours is fucking magic."

You haven't actually answered any of my actual arguments either. Just whinged because I applied language to describe a thing in a way you, Emily lake, hate. I'm going to keep doing it, just so I can laugh at your posts some more whenever you claim believing in the existence of WIFI is "delusional" again. It's quite amusing

Feel free to keep making up your own definitions Mr. Dumpty. That's fine. It doesn't give you a leg to stand on though, and your own bespoke redefinitions of common language doesn't impose any obligation on anyone else to accept your hair-brained crack-pot meanings in any way.

My phone isn't magic, nor do I think it is. Wifi isn't "remote manipulation" either. You're not a wizard. [removed]

1: wifi is characteristically "remote"
2: the system I assembled is manipulated.

Pretty sure that's "remote manipulation".

Cue Kicking and screaming...

Yeah, I mean, you can call that magic if you want, I suppose, no one can stop you. But you won't be communicating effectively with other people. If that doesn't bother you, well, that's your prerogative.

 

[Jarhyn]

1: wifi is characteristically "remote"
2: the system I assembled is manipulated.

Pretty sure that's "remote manipulation".

Cue Kicking and screaming...

Yeah, I mean, you can call that magic if you want, I suppose, no one can stop you. But you won't be communicating effectively with other people. If that doesn't bother you, well, that's your prerogative.

Honestly, I find it a clearer, more accessible communication than many others. The point is to execute an exercise in perspective. Perhaps it's an "unfair game" even: I am doing my best to test Emily into new perspectives, and generally am failing miserably at it.

But the point is in exploring the exploration of perspective. Yes, meta intended. Emily has frequently rendered an inability to reposition her perspective to actually understand what I am saying. You, on the other hand, can ostensibly do at least this much, at least when led there by the nose.

I am a human being who hears a term "magic" and instead of going along with whatever incomplete, useless, deprecated and/or obsolete application people drive towards it, I expect the reason the term fell out of vogue is that this new form of magic delivers on the promises the older imaginings didn't.

I just find it kind of funny that we discovered a working system of "magic", and then went to such radical lengths to pretend that wasn't what we did, probably so those church ass motherfuckers wouldn't just burn us all at the stake.

So now that I'm done justifying my own gender, as if that's something anyone should be expected to do, we can get on to the meat of my arguments perhaps? Namely that whole part about how my own life disproves the notion that one must care about the genitals of others, and the histories of those genitals, to successfully operate in the world.

 

[Metaphor]

I mean, say what you want, but SOMEONE is paying me 115k a year for me to do what I do. In this case, making something move from an arbitrary location within ~60 meters.

Jarhyn, please flex more on how brilliant and clever and special you are to the board. We all love hearing your tortured analogies shoehorned in to posts, engineered to reveal you have a Big Brain job, and it isn't at all obnoxious.

 

[Emily Lake]

Honestly, I find it a clearer, more accessible communication than many others. The point is to execute an exercise in perspective. Perhaps it's an "unfair game" even: I am doing my best to test Emily into new perspectives, and generally am failing miserably at it.

But the point is in exploring the exploration of perspective. Yes, meta intended. Emily has frequently rendered an inability to reposition her perspective to actually understand what I am saying. You, on the other hand, can ostensibly do at least this much, at least when led there by the nose.

I am a human being who hears a term "magic" and instead of going along with whatever incomplete, useless, deprecated and/or obsolete application people drive towards it, I expect the reason the term fell out of vogue is that this new form of magic delivers on the promises the older imaginings didn't.

I just find it kind of funny that we discovered a working system of "magic", and then went to such radical lengths to pretend that wasn't what we did, probably so those church ass motherfuckers wouldn't just burn us all at the stake.

So now that I'm done justifying my own gender, as if that's something anyone should be expected to do, we can get on to the meat of my arguments perhaps?

Great googlymoogly, you're an odd duck.

You're just redefining words so you can play some strange game of "leading people by the nose"? And your "gender" is "wizard"? And somehow you feel like the above blather about "wifi is magic" actually serves as a "justification" of your "gender" of "wizard"? I keep thinking you can't possibly be serious, but you always double down on the absurdity.

I'm quite capable of considering other perspectives. I'm also fully capable of outright rejecting perspectives that are indistinguishable from a drug-fueled fantasy.

Namely that whole part about how my own life disproves the notion that one must care about the genitals of others, and the histories of those genitals, to successfully operate in the world.

Lol. "I haven't had a problem with this so nobody else should either!"

So, yeah. Okay, let's take your premise that nobody should ever care about the genitals of others. Does that apply to... say... parents with young children who live next door to a registered child molester? Is there any reason that they might care about the genitals of their neighbor? Or is it totally irrelevant?

What about... say... a college woman going to a frat party. Any reason that the genitals of the "assumed" males at that party might be something that young woman might give thought to? Any reason that it might be of concern to her that some of those frat "boys" (quotes because, in your imagined world nobody can tell their sex, it's all a mystery of downright religious magnitude) might use their genitals in a way she doesn't want them to?

Or... oh I dunno... What about the incarcerated female prisoner whose new roommate just transferred over from the men's prison, but who has recently declared to the world that he is a "she" even though "she" hasn't had any hormone treatment, diagnosis, or surgery? Can you think of any reason at all that the female (assuming she's female, since there's no possible way to tell, of course) prisoner might give a crap about her roommate having a penis?

 

[Jarhyn]

Honestly, I find it a clearer, more accessible communication than many others. The point is to execute an exercise in perspective. Perhaps it's an "unfair game" even: I am doing my best to test Emily into new perspectives, and generally am failing miserably at it.

But the point is in exploring the exploration of perspective. Yes, meta intended. Emily has frequently rendered an inability to reposition her perspective to actually understand what I am saying. You, on the other hand, can ostensibly do at least this much, at least when led there by the nose.

I am a human being who hears a term "magic" and instead of going along with whatever incomplete, useless, deprecated and/or obsolete application people drive towards it, I expect the reason the term fell out of vogue is that this new form of magic delivers on the promises the older imaginings didn't.

I just find it kind of funny that we discovered a working system of "magic", and then went to such radical lengths to pretend that wasn't what we did, probably so those church ass motherfuckers wouldn't just burn us all at the stake.

So now that I'm done justifying my own gender, as if that's something anyone should be expected to do, we can get on to the meat of my arguments perhaps?

Great googlymoogly, you're an odd duck.

You're just redefining words so you can play some strange game of "leading people by the nose"? And your "gender" is "wizard"? And somehow you feel like the above blather about "wifi is magic" actually serves as a "justification" of your "gender" of "wizard"? I keep thinking you can't possibly be serious, but you always double down on the absurdity.

I'm quite capable of considering other perspectives. I'm also fully capable of outright rejecting perspectives that are indistinguishable from a drug-fueled fantasy.

Namely that whole part about how my own life disproves the notion that one must care about the genitals of others, and the histories of those genitals, to successfully operate in the world.

Lol. "I haven't had a problem with this so nobody else should either!"

So, yeah. Okay, let's take your premise that nobody should ever care about the genitals of others. Does that apply to... say... parents with young children who live next door to a registered child molester? Is there any reason that they might care about the genitals of their neighbor? Or is it totally irrelevant?

What about... say... a college woman going to a frat party. Any reason that the genitals of the "assumed" males at that party might be something that young woman might give thought to? Any reason that it might be of concern to her that some of those frat "boys" (quotes because, in your imagined world nobody can tell their sex, it's all a mystery of downright religious magnitude) might use their genitals in a way she doesn't want them to?

Or... oh I dunno... What about the incarcerated female prisoner whose new roommate just transferred over from the men's prison, but who has recently declared to the world that he is a "she" even though "she" hasn't had any hormone treatment, diagnosis, or surgery? Can you think of any reason at all that the female (assuming she's female, since there's no possible way to tell, of course) prisoner might give a crap about her roommate having a penis?

Ah, straw-manning. The good old fashioned go-to of those who can't address an argument. And also apparently of Emily Lake.

The fact is that if someone wants to know, it's not hard asking "I like what you're advertising. Got Cock?"

Or if it's *fear*, don't go to a place full of drunken testosterone addicts? People don't need dicks to hurt you that way. Edit: not to mention, Wizards have as much to fear in such a place, and many of us ostensibly have penises too...

Second, your framing of the issue is so broken you might need to take that picture to Michaels. Again, you completely ignore the entire thrust of my prior description about the domestic abuse I observed. Nobody here would be for housing a large, burly, angry person up to the neck on testosterone with a rape problem with a... Oh, wait, you are ignoring the fact that nobody wants to be housed with a burly rapist. But you don't seem to have a problem with the men who do not want that...

So no, if they aren't a burly rapist likely to rape them, I can think of every reason that "female" should be told to shut it.

Nobody deserves to be housed with someone who would hurt them that way. I don't even agree with the concept of American prisons in the first place.

I say, quit judging people on the basis of whether they have a penis and judge them on all the geometry of their personhood that actually matters.

I would sooner spend my days in prison with the 6 foot 150 lbs wet computer criminal with a penis than the 200 lb vulva-haver rapist.

More, I would be worried about any so capable person having any kind of relationship (you are so ready to jump right to RAPE) and getting inmates pregnant. That's a good argument for segregation. But as my husband points out, it's way easier to dig a hole than build a pole, and so quite unlikely that they are "intact". It also takes a while on the path to get a diagnosis.

If you can't supply geometry past "they have a penis" that doesn't get your argument anywhere. The penis itself is entirely irrelevant.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Are you in that Egyptian river?

I wasn't having much luck in finding overall risks to the transgendered but very high in the search criteria was a transwoman who was quite openly murdered by her cellmate for being trans.

Was her cellmate female? I rather suspect not.

These are male criminals who were already in a male prison, and who voluntarily made a request to be moved to a female prison on the basis of their newly found identity as "women". Who the hell do you think they're being "outed" to? Do you think the females that they're being housed with are blind, deaf, and complete idiots who are totally unable to tell that they're male?

This is kool-aid.

There are many rights that transgender people need and absolutely should have.

Expecting the entire world to pretend that objective reality doesn't exist, and that biology isn't real... that's not a right.

The cellmate was biologically male but presenting as female.

The cellmate told the guards he would kill said person if they were placed in his cell. They were placed in his cell. He killed them, then he told the guards what he had done.