|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 05 2023 12:43 Taelshin wrote:
@Salazarz , I'm Canadian, What guns?
I didn't realize we were posting in the Canadian politics thread, my bad.
|
@Kwark, Yeah dude dodge it, Why deal with the obvious truth of the statement. It's nice to live in 2023.
|
On July 05 2023 12:58 BlackJack wrote:You’re allowed to make these kind of tangential posts as long as you’re doing it to call conservatives bigots or hypocrites. Don’t feel safe around penises, what about guns?!?! These are called good faith arguments. Just don’t try to make posts like that about liberals. Take my word for it
You're welcome to bring up any inconsistencies you find in the statements I make or stances I hold. I couldn't care less about some fairytale liberals somewhere out there who believe in whatever you think they believe in; my comment about hypocrisy and lack of consistency is aimed squarely at posters who are active in this thread, such as yourself. But of course, you'd rather deflect and bullshit away rather than explain how your stance is logical and consistent, I didn't really expect anything else from you.
|
Salazarz
I didn't realize we were posting in the Canadian politics thread, my bad.
@Salazarz I guess you one of the ones Mohdoo was referring to then. Sorry my brother.
|
On July 05 2023 12:08 Fleetfeet wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 11:30 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 11:14 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 05 2023 11:02 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 07:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 05 2023 02:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 15:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 14:34 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 11:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 11:10 gobbledydook wrote:
[quote]
The main problem with this solution is space.
If you have a lot of floor space, you can afford to build individual unisex toilets and changing rooms.
If you operate on a small property, for example in the inner city, then you have to choose between inclusiveness and a long queue at the toilet. I think having enough space might be a valid practical concern in some areas. That being said, penises being scary is not a valid ethical concern imo. I don’t know what ethical concern means in this context but penises being scary probably is a valid concern for many women. People with penises commit the vast majority of murders, rapes, sexual assaults, voyeurism, etc. The cavalier attitude of “just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean they are going to assault you” comes off as tone-deaf to very real issues that women have to deal with. If only I had suggested safe, private, single-person stalls, and preemptively underlined it because I had a feeling you'd ignore it. Anyone can use them, from sexists to sexual assault victims. No explanation needed. You suggested single-person stalls, which may or may not be practical, while also being generally dismissive of whether women should be concerned with penises in their spaces. The stalls themselves have nothing to do with whether women should or shouldn’t be concerned with penises. Can you please elaborate on why you believe that having single-person changing room stalls "has nothing to do with" women's feelings / everyone's perceived or real vulnerabilities? The single-person stalls were suggested as a way to directly address those very issues, and so far there doesn't seem to be a significant counterpoint as to why they wouldn't work in practice (especially given the fact that they currently work just fine in any department stores or other areas that use them). Do you mean that single-person stalls don't address the underlying systemic issues against women and other demographics that need to be fixed? Because sure, I agree that it doesn't, but neither does keeping men and women separate. I was addressing your dismissive attitude towards women who might not want penises in their spaces. Giving them private stalls does nothing for the dismissiveness. I don’t think I can clarify it any more than that so maybe we should just move on. You made up this dismissive attitude. It is not real. No women here have presented the idea to DPB that they do not want penises in their spaces. If they had, I'm certain DPB would respond charitably and include them in the conversation while pointing out that their spaces would still be protected within the shared space of a unisex room. From there, a conversation could be had. Yes, were this a real board producing a real decision, it would be important to have a few less dicks on the board. However, you're still a dick and while you're welcome to point out that there are too many dicks on the board, you can't appoint yourself a non-dick and say words for them. I, for one, encourage people to be dismissive towards people presenting themselves as the authority for a group they are not part of. He said “women being scared of penises is not a valid ethical concern.” Im other words women being afraid of people with penises should have no bearing on whether they should be allowed in women’s spaces. On July 05 2023 11:04 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 11:02 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 07:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 05 2023 02:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 15:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 14:34 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 11:56 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 11:10 gobbledydook wrote:
[quote]
The main problem with this solution is space.
If you have a lot of floor space, you can afford to build individual unisex toilets and changing rooms.
If you operate on a small property, for example in the inner city, then you have to choose between inclusiveness and a long queue at the toilet. I think having enough space might be a valid practical concern in some areas. That being said, penises being scary is not a valid ethical concern imo. I don’t know what ethical concern means in this context but penises being scary probably is a valid concern for many women. People with penises commit the vast majority of murders, rapes, sexual assaults, voyeurism, etc. The cavalier attitude of “just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean they are going to assault you” comes off as tone-deaf to very real issues that women have to deal with. If only I had suggested safe, private, single-person stalls, and preemptively underlined it because I had a feeling you'd ignore it. Anyone can use them, from sexists to sexual assault victims. No explanation needed. You suggested single-person stalls, which may or may not be practical, while also being generally dismissive of whether women should be concerned with penises in their spaces. The stalls themselves have nothing to do with whether women should or shouldn’t be concerned with penises. Can you please elaborate on why you believe that having single-person changing room stalls "has nothing to do with" women's feelings / everyone's perceived or real vulnerabilities? The single-person stalls were suggested as a way to directly address those very issues, and so far there doesn't seem to be a significant counterpoint as to why they wouldn't work in practice (especially given the fact that they currently work just fine in any department stores or other areas that use them). Do you mean that single-person stalls don't address the underlying systemic issues against women and other demographics that need to be fixed? Because sure, I agree that it doesn't, but neither does keeping men and women separate. I was addressing your dismissive attitude towards women who might not want penises in their spaces. Giving them private stalls does nothing for the dismissiveness. I don’t think I can clarify it any more than that so maybe we should just move on. The space women are entitled not to have penises in is their bodies. They're not entitled to legislate that no penises be allowed in communal spaces intended for other people, some of whom have penises. Obviously. Is this not a dismissive attitude to what women may think on the matter? Edit: also there’s congressional testimony from one of Lia Thomases former teammates that some of the girls changed in the janitors closet because they felt uncomfortable. The idea that anyone is “inventing” women that are uncomfortable is off the mark. You're inventing it. Kwark clearly states that they are not entitled to legislate. That means what those words mean, not "they are not entitled to participate in the legislation". I am sure there are women who are uncomfortable and those concerns are valid. You mentioning that there are women that might be uncomfortable and people dismissing YOU should not be conflated with people dismissing these hypothetical women. For clarity, if you'd like to present a non-imaginary argument, I'd encourage you to find and present a non-imaginary argument. An anecdote about a woman being uncomfortable is a step in the right direction, because then people can actually discuss that instead of your imaginary argument. Further, I'd like to point out that the anecdote you presented may have been avoided if the space were unisex to begin with, and the solution they came up with was essentially a private, unisex stall. Perhaps DPB is on to something.
BlackJack's accusation of my attitude being dismissive is entirely predicated on the idea that I would force women to change in front of penises, as opposed to offering them (and everyone else) an objectively safe, private, single room if they wanted. Fortunately, I had the foresight to underline the exact part where I knew my position would be misrepresented. BlackJack is not the only person to ignore / forget about the single room part, and I'm not interested in defending it by repeating my original post. I acknowledge that small spaces may restrict the number of single rooms available and that could be problematic, and I'm personally finished with this topic. Cheers, everyone 
|
On July 05 2023 14:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 12:53 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 12:13 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 11:30 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 11:14 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 05 2023 11:02 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 07:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 05 2023 02:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 15:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 14:34 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
I don’t know what ethical concern means in this context but penises being scary probably is a valid concern for many women. People with penises commit the vast majority of murders, rapes, sexual assaults, voyeurism, etc. The cavalier attitude of “just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean they are going to assault you” comes off as tone-deaf to very real issues that women have to deal with.
If only I had suggested safe, private, single-person stalls, and preemptively underlined it because I had a feeling you'd ignore it. Anyone can use them, from sexists to sexual assault victims. No explanation needed. You suggested single-person stalls, which may or may not be practical, while also being generally dismissive of whether women should be concerned with penises in their spaces. The stalls themselves have nothing to do with whether women should or shouldn’t be concerned with penises. Can you please elaborate on why you believe that having single-person changing room stalls "has nothing to do with" women's feelings / everyone's perceived or real vulnerabilities? The single-person stalls were suggested as a way to directly address those very issues, and so far there doesn't seem to be a significant counterpoint as to why they wouldn't work in practice (especially given the fact that they currently work just fine in any department stores or other areas that use them). Do you mean that single-person stalls don't address the underlying systemic issues against women and other demographics that need to be fixed? Because sure, I agree that it doesn't, but neither does keeping men and women separate. I was addressing your dismissive attitude towards women who might not want penises in their spaces. Giving them private stalls does nothing for the dismissiveness. I don’t think I can clarify it any more than that so maybe we should just move on. You made up this dismissive attitude. It is not real. No women here have presented the idea to DPB that they do not want penises in their spaces. If they had, I'm certain DPB would respond charitably and include them in the conversation while pointing out that their spaces would still be protected within the shared space of a unisex room. From there, a conversation could be had. Yes, were this a real board producing a real decision, it would be important to have a few less dicks on the board. However, you're still a dick and while you're welcome to point out that there are too many dicks on the board, you can't appoint yourself a non-dick and say words for them. I, for one, encourage people to be dismissive towards people presenting themselves as the authority for a group they are not part of. He said “women being scared of penises is not a valid ethical concern.” Im other words women being afraid of people with penises should have no bearing on whether they should be allowed in women’s spaces. On July 05 2023 11:04 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 11:02 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 07:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 05 2023 02:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 15:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 04 2023 14:34 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
I don’t know what ethical concern means in this context but penises being scary probably is a valid concern for many women. People with penises commit the vast majority of murders, rapes, sexual assaults, voyeurism, etc. The cavalier attitude of “just because someone has a penis doesn’t mean they are going to assault you” comes off as tone-deaf to very real issues that women have to deal with.
If only I had suggested safe, private, single-person stalls, and preemptively underlined it because I had a feeling you'd ignore it. Anyone can use them, from sexists to sexual assault victims. No explanation needed. You suggested single-person stalls, which may or may not be practical, while also being generally dismissive of whether women should be concerned with penises in their spaces. The stalls themselves have nothing to do with whether women should or shouldn’t be concerned with penises. Can you please elaborate on why you believe that having single-person changing room stalls "has nothing to do with" women's feelings / everyone's perceived or real vulnerabilities? The single-person stalls were suggested as a way to directly address those very issues, and so far there doesn't seem to be a significant counterpoint as to why they wouldn't work in practice (especially given the fact that they currently work just fine in any department stores or other areas that use them). Do you mean that single-person stalls don't address the underlying systemic issues against women and other demographics that need to be fixed? Because sure, I agree that it doesn't, but neither does keeping men and women separate. I was addressing your dismissive attitude towards women who might not want penises in their spaces. Giving them private stalls does nothing for the dismissiveness. I don’t think I can clarify it any more than that so maybe we should just move on. The space women are entitled not to have penises in is their bodies. They're not entitled to legislate that no penises be allowed in communal spaces intended for other people, some of whom have penises. Obviously. Is this not a dismissive attitude to what women may think on the matter? Edit: also there’s congressional testimony from one of Lia Thomases former teammates that some of the girls changed in the janitors closet because they felt uncomfortable. The idea that anyone is “inventing” women that are uncomfortable is off the mark. It’s not unfairly dismissive and women are coming out ahead in my “you don’t get to decide which shared public spaces are reserved for which sex” stance. For most of history people without penises haven’t been allowed in positions of power. I’m dismissive of the people wishing to continue that oppression and their desire to restrict access based on penises. If there’s a space that is intended for everyone and someone comes along and says “letting people with/without penises in makes me feel uncomfortable” then that’s their feeling but it’s not public policy. I mean come the fuck on, this is coloured water fountains all over again. You can feel uncomfortable if you like, as long as you accept that that’s your problem and don’t make it everyone else’s. I don’t disagree, I think this is logically consistent. I think a lot of times people want to have their cake and eat it too by saying it’s okay to banish cis people with penises but not trans people with penises from women spaces. It’s is okay to ban men from women’s spaces but not okay to ban trans women from women’s spaces because trans women are women. A bathroom is not a cis woman exclusionary zone. It’s for all women.
Huh? Didn’t you just say it’s not okay to ban men from women’s spaces? You just compared it to coloured fountains.
|
United States43355 Posts
On July 05 2023 14:32 Taelshin wrote:
@Kwark, Yeah dude dodge it, Why deal with the obvious truth of the statement. It's nice to live in 2023.
I’m not dodging, you’re just shooting yourself in the foot and claiming that it counts as a hit.
I’ll respond to a decent argument once you make one.
|
United States43355 Posts
On July 05 2023 14:49 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 14:15 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 12:53 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 12:13 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 11:30 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 11:14 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 05 2023 11:02 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 07:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 05 2023 02:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 15:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
If only I had suggested safe, private, single-person stalls, and preemptively underlined it because I had a feeling you'd ignore it. Anyone can use them, from sexists to sexual assault victims. No explanation needed. You suggested single-person stalls, which may or may not be practical, while also being generally dismissive of whether women should be concerned with penises in their spaces. The stalls themselves have nothing to do with whether women should or shouldn’t be concerned with penises. Can you please elaborate on why you believe that having single-person changing room stalls "has nothing to do with" women's feelings / everyone's perceived or real vulnerabilities? The single-person stalls were suggested as a way to directly address those very issues, and so far there doesn't seem to be a significant counterpoint as to why they wouldn't work in practice (especially given the fact that they currently work just fine in any department stores or other areas that use them). Do you mean that single-person stalls don't address the underlying systemic issues against women and other demographics that need to be fixed? Because sure, I agree that it doesn't, but neither does keeping men and women separate. I was addressing your dismissive attitude towards women who might not want penises in their spaces. Giving them private stalls does nothing for the dismissiveness. I don’t think I can clarify it any more than that so maybe we should just move on. You made up this dismissive attitude. It is not real. No women here have presented the idea to DPB that they do not want penises in their spaces. If they had, I'm certain DPB would respond charitably and include them in the conversation while pointing out that their spaces would still be protected within the shared space of a unisex room. From there, a conversation could be had. Yes, were this a real board producing a real decision, it would be important to have a few less dicks on the board. However, you're still a dick and while you're welcome to point out that there are too many dicks on the board, you can't appoint yourself a non-dick and say words for them. I, for one, encourage people to be dismissive towards people presenting themselves as the authority for a group they are not part of. He said “women being scared of penises is not a valid ethical concern.” Im other words women being afraid of people with penises should have no bearing on whether they should be allowed in women’s spaces. On July 05 2023 11:04 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 11:02 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 07:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 05 2023 02:21 BlackJack wrote:On July 04 2023 15:36 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
If only I had suggested safe, private, single-person stalls, and preemptively underlined it because I had a feeling you'd ignore it. Anyone can use them, from sexists to sexual assault victims. No explanation needed. You suggested single-person stalls, which may or may not be practical, while also being generally dismissive of whether women should be concerned with penises in their spaces. The stalls themselves have nothing to do with whether women should or shouldn’t be concerned with penises. Can you please elaborate on why you believe that having single-person changing room stalls "has nothing to do with" women's feelings / everyone's perceived or real vulnerabilities? The single-person stalls were suggested as a way to directly address those very issues, and so far there doesn't seem to be a significant counterpoint as to why they wouldn't work in practice (especially given the fact that they currently work just fine in any department stores or other areas that use them). Do you mean that single-person stalls don't address the underlying systemic issues against women and other demographics that need to be fixed? Because sure, I agree that it doesn't, but neither does keeping men and women separate. I was addressing your dismissive attitude towards women who might not want penises in their spaces. Giving them private stalls does nothing for the dismissiveness. I don’t think I can clarify it any more than that so maybe we should just move on. The space women are entitled not to have penises in is their bodies. They're not entitled to legislate that no penises be allowed in communal spaces intended for other people, some of whom have penises. Obviously. Is this not a dismissive attitude to what women may think on the matter? Edit: also there’s congressional testimony from one of Lia Thomases former teammates that some of the girls changed in the janitors closet because they felt uncomfortable. The idea that anyone is “inventing” women that are uncomfortable is off the mark. It’s not unfairly dismissive and women are coming out ahead in my “you don’t get to decide which shared public spaces are reserved for which sex” stance. For most of history people without penises haven’t been allowed in positions of power. I’m dismissive of the people wishing to continue that oppression and their desire to restrict access based on penises. If there’s a space that is intended for everyone and someone comes along and says “letting people with/without penises in makes me feel uncomfortable” then that’s their feeling but it’s not public policy. I mean come the fuck on, this is coloured water fountains all over again. You can feel uncomfortable if you like, as long as you accept that that’s your problem and don’t make it everyone else’s. I don’t disagree, I think this is logically consistent. I think a lot of times people want to have their cake and eat it too by saying it’s okay to banish cis people with penises but not trans people with penises from women spaces. It’s is okay to ban men from women’s spaces but not okay to ban trans women from women’s spaces because trans women are women. A bathroom is not a cis woman exclusionary zone. It’s for all women. Huh? Didn’t you just say it’s not okay to ban men from women’s spaces? You just compared it to coloured fountains.
No. Read my posts again and let me know if you’re still confused by my stance once you’re done.
|
@DPB
Oh, I know. That's why I practically immediately asked BJ to clarify their position but was either ignored or missed.
I certainly don't mind actual cogent argument being presented, but the amount of fucking garbage argumentation that happens in this thread (Taelshin going off atm is accenting that point nicely) is kind of astounding. It was nice to see BJ have one actual good post and be appropriately congratulated for that, but it doesn't look like that was a new leaf turned.
|
@blackjack Of course he did because he thinks trans women are women. Which is why the P and V distinction(at birth) is an issue for him. He think's a Trans woman is a woman. Bless em.
|
United States43355 Posts
On July 05 2023 14:54 Taelshin wrote:
@blackjack Of course he did because he thinks trans women are women. Which is why the P and V distinction(at birth) is an issue for him. He think's a Trans woman is a woman. Bless em.
Sex at birth isn't a working system for anyone. Conservatives get really upset when burly trans men use the bathrooms of their birth sex as has already been explained to you. Right now if a bearded muscled man goes into the women's changing rooms then the women there can reasonably assume that he's probably in the wrong room and can get a member of staff to address that issue. Under your proposed system the bearded man can state that he was actually assigned female at birth but has subsequently transitioned and, lacking any medical history or DNA testing equipment, the staff will have to take him at his word. This is not a good system.
The fact that you're still not getting the basics of the issue at hand reflects really poorly on you. Everyone else has already thought of the birth sex system but it addresses absolutely none of the problems and exists only as a cruel gotcha for trans folks to remind them every time they need a shit that society doesn't recognize their gender. All the making women feel uncomfortable in their spaces but with a bonus of legally enshrining that trans people will always be burdened with their assigned birth gender.
You really need to try harder to keep up with the rest of the class. We've all already passed this one years ago, everyone else in the topic knows why forcing trans men into the women's changing room is a bad idea. You're arriving late and dropping your low effort opinions with a completely unearned sense of smugness because you're so far behind everyone else that you can't actually see them anymore.
|
On July 05 2023 14:52 Fleetfeet wrote:
@DPB
Oh, I know. That's why I practically immediately asked BJ to clarify their position but was either ignored or missed.
I certainly don't mind actual cogent argument being presented, but the amount of fucking garbage argumentation that happens in this thread (Taelshin going off atm is accenting that point nicely) is kind of astounding. It was nice to see BJ have one actual good post and be appropriately congratulated for that, but it doesn't look like that was a new leaf turned.
"People that eat ketchup with the dinner are trailer-trash but I think we should still have ketchup available at our restaurant for people that want it."
"Hey man, just because people like ketchup doesn't mean they are trailer-trash."
"Why are you ignoring the part where I said I'll have ketchup available for people that want it."
The only confusing part is why you and DPB think it's mutually exclusive to be dismissive while also offering someone what they want. I'll grant you it's somewhat contradictory. I don't really understand why anyone would offer private stalls to any woman concerned about penises if they think women shouldn't be concerned about penises in the first place but I'm not the one with that position.
|
On July 05 2023 14:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 14:49 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 14:15 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 12:53 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 12:13 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 11:30 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 11:14 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 05 2023 11:02 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 07:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 05 2023 02:21 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
You suggested single-person stalls, which may or may not be practical, while also being generally dismissive of whether women should be concerned with penises in their spaces. The stalls themselves have nothing to do with whether women should or shouldn’t be concerned with penises. Can you please elaborate on why you believe that having single-person changing room stalls "has nothing to do with" women's feelings / everyone's perceived or real vulnerabilities? The single-person stalls were suggested as a way to directly address those very issues, and so far there doesn't seem to be a significant counterpoint as to why they wouldn't work in practice (especially given the fact that they currently work just fine in any department stores or other areas that use them). Do you mean that single-person stalls don't address the underlying systemic issues against women and other demographics that need to be fixed? Because sure, I agree that it doesn't, but neither does keeping men and women separate. I was addressing your dismissive attitude towards women who might not want penises in their spaces. Giving them private stalls does nothing for the dismissiveness. I don’t think I can clarify it any more than that so maybe we should just move on. You made up this dismissive attitude. It is not real. No women here have presented the idea to DPB that they do not want penises in their spaces. If they had, I'm certain DPB would respond charitably and include them in the conversation while pointing out that their spaces would still be protected within the shared space of a unisex room. From there, a conversation could be had. Yes, were this a real board producing a real decision, it would be important to have a few less dicks on the board. However, you're still a dick and while you're welcome to point out that there are too many dicks on the board, you can't appoint yourself a non-dick and say words for them. I, for one, encourage people to be dismissive towards people presenting themselves as the authority for a group they are not part of. He said “women being scared of penises is not a valid ethical concern.” Im other words women being afraid of people with penises should have no bearing on whether they should be allowed in women’s spaces. On July 05 2023 11:04 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 11:02 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 07:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On July 05 2023 02:21 BlackJack wrote:
[quote]
You suggested single-person stalls, which may or may not be practical, while also being generally dismissive of whether women should be concerned with penises in their spaces. The stalls themselves have nothing to do with whether women should or shouldn’t be concerned with penises. Can you please elaborate on why you believe that having single-person changing room stalls "has nothing to do with" women's feelings / everyone's perceived or real vulnerabilities? The single-person stalls were suggested as a way to directly address those very issues, and so far there doesn't seem to be a significant counterpoint as to why they wouldn't work in practice (especially given the fact that they currently work just fine in any department stores or other areas that use them). Do you mean that single-person stalls don't address the underlying systemic issues against women and other demographics that need to be fixed? Because sure, I agree that it doesn't, but neither does keeping men and women separate. I was addressing your dismissive attitude towards women who might not want penises in their spaces. Giving them private stalls does nothing for the dismissiveness. I don’t think I can clarify it any more than that so maybe we should just move on. The space women are entitled not to have penises in is their bodies. They're not entitled to legislate that no penises be allowed in communal spaces intended for other people, some of whom have penises. Obviously. Is this not a dismissive attitude to what women may think on the matter? Edit: also there’s congressional testimony from one of Lia Thomases former teammates that some of the girls changed in the janitors closet because they felt uncomfortable. The idea that anyone is “inventing” women that are uncomfortable is off the mark. It’s not unfairly dismissive and women are coming out ahead in my “you don’t get to decide which shared public spaces are reserved for which sex” stance. For most of history people without penises haven’t been allowed in positions of power. I’m dismissive of the people wishing to continue that oppression and their desire to restrict access based on penises. If there’s a space that is intended for everyone and someone comes along and says “letting people with/without penises in makes me feel uncomfortable” then that’s their feeling but it’s not public policy. I mean come the fuck on, this is coloured water fountains all over again. You can feel uncomfortable if you like, as long as you accept that that’s your problem and don’t make it everyone else’s. I don’t disagree, I think this is logically consistent. I think a lot of times people want to have their cake and eat it too by saying it’s okay to banish cis people with penises but not trans people with penises from women spaces. It’s is okay to ban men from women’s spaces but not okay to ban trans women from women’s spaces because trans women are women. A bathroom is not a cis woman exclusionary zone. It’s for all women. Huh? Didn’t you just say it’s not okay to ban men from women’s spaces? You just compared it to coloured fountains. No. Read my posts again and let me know if you’re still confused by my stance once you’re done.
Ok still confused
|
On July 05 2023 15:20 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 14:52 Fleetfeet wrote:
@DPB
Oh, I know. That's why I practically immediately asked BJ to clarify their position but was either ignored or missed.
I certainly don't mind actual cogent argument being presented, but the amount of fucking garbage argumentation that happens in this thread (Taelshin going off atm is accenting that point nicely) is kind of astounding. It was nice to see BJ have one actual good post and be appropriately congratulated for that, but it doesn't look like that was a new leaf turned. "People that eat ketchup with the dinner are trailer-trash but I think we should still have ketchup available at our restaurant for people that want it." "Hey man, just because people like ketchup doesn't mean they are trailer-trash." "Why are you ignoring the part where I said I'll have ketchup available for people that want it." The only confusing part is why you and DPB think it's mutually exclusive to be dismissive while also offering someone what they want. I'll grant you it's somewhat contradictory. I don't really understand why anyone would offer private stalls to any woman concerned about penises if they think women shouldn't be concerned about penises in the first place but I'm not the one with that position.
Why do you think that people who have ketchup with their dinner are trailer trash?
|
On July 05 2023 14:33 Salazarz wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 12:58 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 12:43 Taelshin wrote:
@Salazarz , I'm Canadian, What guns? You’re allowed to make these kind of tangential posts as long as you’re doing it to call conservatives bigots or hypocrites. Don’t feel safe around penises, what about guns?!?! These are called good faith arguments. Just don’t try to make posts like that about liberals. Take my word for it You're welcome to bring up any inconsistencies you find in the statements I make or stances I hold. I couldn't care less about some fairytale liberals somewhere out there who believe in whatever you think they believe in; my comment about hypocrisy and lack of consistency is aimed squarely at posters who are active in this thread, such as yourself. But of course, you'd rather deflect and bullshit away rather than explain how your stance is logical and consistent, I didn't really expect anything else from you.
A few days ago when we were talking about threats trans faced and I made a point to say overestimating threats can lead to bad policy like how Democrats overestimated the threats to COVID your response was in part:
On July 03 2023 01:22 Salazarz wrote:
Take your rant about democrats who believe 50% of COVID cases end in hospitalization -- literally who cares? None of the posters here have ever claimed anything like that, it's an irrelevant point that has nothing to do with the conversation people are trying to have yet you somehow think that makes your inane bullshit more valid. It's ridiculous.
But now here you are trying to draw some comparison between being uncomfortable around penises to being uncomfortable around guns. Literally who cares? Who in this thread is talking about guns? It's an irrelevant point that has nothing to do with the conversation people are trying have yet you somehow think that makes your inane bullshit more valid. It's ridiculous.
You get to make some random tangential point to what...? Dunk on random MAGA Republicans that oppose gun control? "Pwn the cons" as it were? This is peak hypocrisy
If I post a youtube of something a liberal said that I think is dumb everyone groans and moans... yet a good chunk of this thread is just a circle-jerk over the latest dumb thing that marjorie taylor-green has said. The double standard is palpable.
|
@kwark
Sex at birth isn't a working system for anyone.
yes it is... And has been for many many years. Still is.
Conservatives get really upset when burly trans men use the bathrooms of their birth sex as has already been explained to you
what?
Your other ramblings sound like what I think your accusing me of. You think that trans women, Anyone who claims they are a Women (Or trans man) no matter whom says it regardless of a P or a V at brith are what they claim to be. Again show my some studies that say Trans women are having an issue in public bathrooms. But you wont, you Love this Identity politics issue. Tbh It's not my major interest. Fortunately I'm not hamstrung by my politics and clout in this area, Hell let alone being a mod on this bastion of freedom and thought.
|
Shit bruv you're drunk, go back to work
|
Belgium4985 Posts
On July 05 2023 15:35 Taelshin wrote:
yes it is... And has been for many many years. Still is.
If it is, then why are people saying it isn't? Just to fuck with your head?
People don't feel comfortable in the body they've been born in. It can happen early, it can develop over time. It is one of the leading causes of self harm and suicide because imagine feeling imprisoned by your own body. Not a good time.
Society is slowly realizing that we need to be more mature about these things, because around 1% feel this way and it's becoming painfully obvious our mental health support is systematically and fundamentally lacking.
Just because people feel and act differently from you, doesn't mean they're not valid feelings. Somehow I'm embarrassed of uttering these words because that's a kindergarten lesson, but here we are.
|
United States43355 Posts
On July 05 2023 15:21 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On July 05 2023 14:50 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 14:49 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 14:15 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 12:53 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 12:13 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 11:30 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 11:14 Fleetfeet wrote:On July 05 2023 11:02 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 07:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Can you please elaborate on why you believe that having single-person changing room stalls "has nothing to do with" women's feelings / everyone's perceived or real vulnerabilities? The single-person stalls were suggested as a way to directly address those very issues, and so far there doesn't seem to be a significant counterpoint as to why they wouldn't work in practice (especially given the fact that they currently work just fine in any department stores or other areas that use them). Do you mean that single-person stalls don't address the underlying systemic issues against women and other demographics that need to be fixed? Because sure, I agree that it doesn't, but neither does keeping men and women separate. I was addressing your dismissive attitude towards women who might not want penises in their spaces. Giving them private stalls does nothing for the dismissiveness. I don’t think I can clarify it any more than that so maybe we should just move on. You made up this dismissive attitude. It is not real. No women here have presented the idea to DPB that they do not want penises in their spaces. If they had, I'm certain DPB would respond charitably and include them in the conversation while pointing out that their spaces would still be protected within the shared space of a unisex room. From there, a conversation could be had. Yes, were this a real board producing a real decision, it would be important to have a few less dicks on the board. However, you're still a dick and while you're welcome to point out that there are too many dicks on the board, you can't appoint yourself a non-dick and say words for them. I, for one, encourage people to be dismissive towards people presenting themselves as the authority for a group they are not part of. He said “women being scared of penises is not a valid ethical concern.” Im other words women being afraid of people with penises should have no bearing on whether they should be allowed in women’s spaces. On July 05 2023 11:04 KwarK wrote:On July 05 2023 11:02 BlackJack wrote:On July 05 2023 07:03 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
Can you please elaborate on why you believe that having single-person changing room stalls "has nothing to do with" women's feelings / everyone's perceived or real vulnerabilities? The single-person stalls were suggested as a way to directly address those very issues, and so far there doesn't seem to be a significant counterpoint as to why they wouldn't work in practice (especially given the fact that they currently work just fine in any department stores or other areas that use them). Do you mean that single-person stalls don't address the underlying systemic issues against women and other demographics that need to be fixed? Because sure, I agree that it doesn't, but neither does keeping men and women separate. I was addressing your dismissive attitude towards women who might not want penises in their spaces. Giving them private stalls does nothing for the dismissiveness. I don’t think I can clarify it any more than that so maybe we should just move on. The space women are entitled not to have penises in is their bodies. They're not entitled to legislate that no penises be allowed in communal spaces intended for other people, some of whom have penises. Obviously. Is this not a dismissive attitude to what women may think on the matter? Edit: also there’s congressional testimony from one of Lia Thomases former teammates that some of the girls changed in the janitors closet because they felt uncomfortable. The idea that anyone is “inventing” women that are uncomfortable is off the mark. It’s not unfairly dismissive and women are coming out ahead in my “you don’t get to decide which shared public spaces are reserved for which sex” stance. For most of history people without penises haven’t been allowed in positions of power. I’m dismissive of the people wishing to continue that oppression and their desire to restrict access based on penises. If there’s a space that is intended for everyone and someone comes along and says “letting people with/without penises in makes me feel uncomfortable” then that’s their feeling but it’s not public policy. I mean come the fuck on, this is coloured water fountains all over again. You can feel uncomfortable if you like, as long as you accept that that’s your problem and don’t make it everyone else’s. I don’t disagree, I think this is logically consistent. I think a lot of times people want to have their cake and eat it too by saying it’s okay to banish cis people with penises but not trans people with penises from women spaces. It’s is okay to ban men from women’s spaces but not okay to ban trans women from women’s spaces because trans women are women. A bathroom is not a cis woman exclusionary zone. It’s for all women. Huh? Didn’t you just say it’s not okay to ban men from women’s spaces? You just compared it to coloured fountains. No. Read my posts again and let me know if you’re still confused by my stance once you’re done. Ok still confused
It’s okay to ban men from women’s spaces. If anything it’s necessary to ban them from woman’s spaces. That’s kinda implied by the name. If both men and women are welcome then I would call that a unisex space rather than a woman’s space.
|
United States43355 Posts
On July 05 2023 15:35 Taelshin wrote:@kwark yes it is... And has been for many many years. Still is. Show nested quote + Conservatives get really upset when burly trans men use the bathrooms of their birth sex as has already been explained to you what? Your other ramblings sound like what I think your accusing me of. You think that trans women, Anyone who claims they are a Women (Or trans man) no matter whom says it regardless of a P or a V at brith are what they claim to be. Again show my some studies that say Trans women are having an issue in public bathrooms. But you wont, you Love this Identity politics issue. Tbh It's not my major interest. Fortunately I'm not hamstrung by my politics and clout in this area, Hell let alone being a mod on this bastion of freedom and thought.
0/10 must try harder
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
