Women and the patriarchy

As a lifelong feminist I have always balked at the idea that women might be “better than men” because it perpetuates the myth that women and men are polar opposites, and that our skills (or lack of them) is to do with innate qualities rather than as a result of socialisation or opportunity. This particular competition of “who is best at what” further ingrains the false belief that “the battle of the sexes” is here for time immemorial.

The reality is that after thousands of years of living under patriarchy, through no choice or fault of our own, women have developed certain skills as a result of this tyranny. A feminist friend once remarked that “if oppression made one a better person there would be something to be said for it”, and while I agree wholeheartedly with this, the truth is that we have had to become far better than men at most things.

Well, yeeeees. Or, perhaps, and I realise this is somewhat unpopular these days among the bien pensants, perhaps this differential in skills has some innate cause. Of course, the variation across individuals is larger than that between the groups, but still. The more we actually find out about things like hormones, brain structures (the first largely being the cause of the second), physiques and so on the more we find out that there really are substantial differences between men and women on average.

It is, for example, pretty easy to tell the difference between a male and female skeleton from the pelvis. In a species which has such a difference, why might there not be a difference in some mental attribute as well? It would be most odd if physical differences existed but not any others after all. And absolutely no fucker is going to be stupid enough to argue that hips are a result of the patriarchy now, are they?

Well, OK, there probably are some out there but seriously.

We beat men at raising money from crowdfunding, which is just as well because we are paid less for doing the same job.

Men give more money to women than they do to men. This is the patriarchy?

We are less likely to abandon our children, and therefore make better parents.

Extensive and intensive child production methods are the result of the patriarchy? Rather than the investment required by biology?

But then this is Julie Bindel.

115 comments on “Women and the patriarchy

  1. So little Ugette can keep up with the boys. She can chuck a spear with the best of them and is ready to move up from the boy’s hunt to the men’s hunt.

    Then she gets pregnant. She has a baby, it dies, but that’s ok because she’s pretty soon preggers again. This one survives and she straps it on her back and gets ready to go hunting.

    But now she can’t keep up with the boys so she ends up with the women gathering food that can’t run away. And as she picks fruit and nuts she mutters to herself, “Fuckin’ patriarchy!”

  2. The bullshit and hypocrisy stuns the mind.

    –Better at everything?–Not at losing weight you fat cow that’s for sure

    –Less likely to abandon their kids?–Is that sans the house and most of his money after the female ends 80% of marriages? As for abandoning the kid of a casual shag that neither party could be bothered to try and prevent that is scum on scum. And she gets paid for putting burdens on the rest of us so men are still paying to keep stupid females and the progeny alive.

    –Beat us at begging ?( calling it “crowdfunding” makes not a jot)–Yeah –you can have that Title baby and welcome.

    The woman’s brain is like an endless ocean of leftist sewage from witch(sic) wave after wave rolls ashore to pollute.

  3. For decades, feminists have shamelessly equivocated between the views (a) that men and women are innately and essentially different and (b) that men and women differ only in their genital configuration and secondary sexual characteristics – using whichever view was best for cynically promoting feminist interests.

    Feminists, like JB, increasingly realise that if there are no innate or essential differences between men and women, then there no reasons to exclude men who ‘self-identify’ as women from places (like toilets) that are female-only.

    I find it quite delicious to observe. Such competitive victimhood stimulates the left to eat itself.

  4. @Kevin B – haven’t you read the ‘Clan of the Cave Bear’ series? Surely it’s true? Ayla single-handedly invented all manner of things, domesticated cats, dogs and horses, religions …

    Tim, you can only tell from pelvis shape after puberty, and as pre-pubertal girls grow faster than boys, then no wonder the average girl who is interested in such things becomes good at football. She’ll lose the abilities at puberty, even if she doesn’t lose the interest.

  5. ‘Women are much safer drivers, causing fewer accidents and being more likely to survive a serious crash.’

    How precious.

    How good are they at running a SAW249 with incoming fire? Can they get an M240 up a mountainside?

    Ms Bindel’s decadence is showing.

  6. The scent of theology is strong with this one. Julie starts out with all humans the same, notices some differences, explains this by patriarchy making women far better than men. It’s an appropriation of the evolutionary psychology crowd’s reasoning. They, noticing the same differences, start out with the assumption that sexual dimorphism in all its aspects including behaviour can be explained by evolution.

  7. As a lifelong feminist I have always balked at the idea that women might be “better than men”

    This isn’t, uh, true though, is it? Feminism and feminists routinely state or imply that women are better than the men.

    For example, the Guardian ran a piece in August this year which said: compared with women, men are lazy and entitled.

    The authoress? Julie Bindel.

    The reality is that after thousands of years of living under patriarchy, through no choice or fault of our own, women have developed certain skills as a result of this tyranny.

    Remember, Julie Bindel is technically an adult, and makes an apparently comfortable living as a professional feminist who regularly appears in the mass media despite resembling Ed Balls in a dress. She lives in the lap of luxury compared to the vast majority of people on this planet, with all the modern conveniences of our technological civilisation at her disposal, and very evidently doesn’t worry about where her next meal is coming from. She’s been afforded every educational, editorial and employment opportunity conceivably available to men – and then some, because no newspaper would dream of paying a professional Meninist.

    And she concludes that this is tyranny.

  8. “We are less likely to abandon our children, and therefore make better parents.”

    Really. So you think it is morally unarguable that one might be able to abandon one’s kids post-birth do you? Because you campaign vigorously for the woman’s right to kill her children pre-birth.

  9. How good are they at running a SAW249 with incoming fire?

    Given the size, shape, and overall attitude of a mate who is very, very good at this I’d say “not very”.

  10. “We are less likely to abandon our children…”

    Although much more likely to kill them before their first birthday.

  11. “For decades, feminists have shamelessly equivocated between the views (a) that men and women are innately and essentially different and (b) that men and women differ only in their genital configuration and secondary sexual characteristics – using whichever view was best for cynically promoting feminist interests.”

    I’ve seen some other people doing that! such shamelessness is widespread.

    “Feminists, like JB, increasingly realise that if there are no innate or essential differences between men and women, then there no reasons to exclude men who ‘self-identify’ as women from places (like toilets) that are female-only. “

    Given that these days only 14% of women are still uncomfortable with it, I’m guessing it’s only the TERFs and Muslims who still care about this.

    “I find it quite delicious to observe. Such competitive victimhood stimulates the left to eat itself.”

    Only if you consider “the left” to be a single unified group.
    But the left is well-known for its tendency to split into in-fighting factions. It doesn’t seem to slow them down.

  12. Actually Witchie, I have it on good authority that men made all the important discoveries back in the day. For instance, most clans would kick out a kid as soon as he turned autistic, but some times they would stick him at the back of the cave and leave him banging rocks together to his heart’s content. “Leave ‘im Ug, ‘e’s not doin’ any ‘arm.”

    Most times when Ug cut himself on one of the sharp stones that the kid left lying around then our hero would be kicked out sharpish but sometimes the chief would get the idea that it might be possible to cut up animals with said sharp stones and the whole arms race kicked into higher gear.

    Similarly, when the dumb kid banged together the wrong sort of stones and set fire to his straw, it was only occasionally that Ug got the idea that fire might be useful.

    Now since most autistic kids are male then it seems to me that all these important inventions were made my men. Although I am prepared to admit that a dumb girl might have been sat at the back of the cave weaving old reeds together and accidently invented the basket.

  13. We are less likely to abandon our children, and therefore make better parents

    We are more likely to abort our children, and therefore make of that what you will

  14. ‘Women are much safer drivers, causing fewer accidents and being more likely to survive a serious crash.’

    How the hell is that supposed to work?

  15. Nought to do with the main issue mind..

    “the battle of the sexes” is here for time immemorial.”

    Can that be used with the future tense?

    I’m dimly aware that it has a specific meaning to do with when customry law is recognised in the common law

  16. In the context of the article, it’s truly wonderful to see The Guardian using a stock photo of a young, attractive, blond haired, blue eyed woman behind the wheel of a car. Evidently progs and trots are as partial to eye candy as us neanderthals… although in a very feminist way that makes it all OK, I’m sure.

  17. I don’t think that Witchie was being serious, you know, with the Ayla reference. The book series starts out well enough, but quickly degenerates into tosh. Depending on your standards that might be book 2 (or page 2).

    Women are safer drivers, are they? That’s like my late mother in law who failed 21 driving tests, but maintained that she was a safe driver in her Isetta and later Reliant Robin. “I don’t know why they have it in for me at the Test Centre. I’m a really good driver. After all, I’ve never had an accident – but I’ve seen hundreds!”

  18. Given that these days only 14% of women are still uncomfortable with it, I’m guessing it’s only the TERFs and Muslims who still care about this.

    A survey that produced a figure of only 14% of women feeling uncomfortable about sharing female-only facilities with men-who-self-identify-as-women is either an outlier or methodologically flawed.

    I have asked all my aunts, female cousins, my wife and her friends and my daughter and her friends – a group of nearly 60 women from three generations and from a variety of backgrounds – and every one of them feels uncomfortable about
    men-who-self-identify-as-women entering female toilets, women’s refuges, rape crisis centres, etc. If your 14% we’re anywhere near the truth, I’d expect some reflection of the result even in my unstructured sample.

    Note, however, none of these women thought men who have fully transitioned would make them uncomfortable.

  19. @ Gamecock
    Women drivers have fewer accidents but they have significantly *more* accidents *per mile*. A prime example of a statistic taken out of context to deliberately suggest the opposite of the truth. Hence Disraeli’s: “There are lies, damn lies, and statistics”

  20. “A survey that produced a figure of only 14% of women feeling uncomfortable about sharing female-only facilities with men-who-self-identify-as-women is either an outlier or methodologically flawed.”

    “I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him.”

  21. “We are less likely to abandon our children…”

    Well, yes. Abort them instead.

    Or abuse them – women outstrip men at child abuse.

  22. “I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him.”

    Winning an election is decisive and irrefutable. One study (not cited) doesn’t outweigh common sense or straw polls.

  23. “One study (not cited) doesn’t outweigh common sense or straw polls.”

    The trouble is, “common sense” is exactly how *everybody* describes their own personal beliefs. It usually just means the stuff they consider too obvious even to require an argument/evidence.

    And of course “straw poll” is exactly how one would describe the methodology of “I can’t believe Nixon won. I don’t know anyone who voted for him.” And isn’t a straw poll itself just another example of “One study (not cited)…”?

  24. I don’t accept your evidential quibbles, NIV, and I don’t trust your judgement, as you have an axe to grind. Meanwhile, do cite the study you mentioned…

  25. @ NiV
    We have two data points – one which says that only 14% of a group of women said in answer to a question that they were uncomfortable with “transgenders” using a women’s lavatory and one which says that 100% of a “small group” of 60 (chosen for reasons other than the question) were uncomfortable.
    The probability of both being accurate is 0.14^60 or roughly 10^-52.
    We are not talking about anything as plausible as a one-in-a-million or a one-in-a-trillion chance. Either someone is lying or the two surveys asked different questions.

  26. “The trouble is, “common sense” is exactly how *everybody* describes their own personal beliefs. It usually just means the stuff they consider too obvious even to require an argument/evidence.”

    No. It’s how people describe consensual beliefs. Which is why they don’t often require evidence/argument. Who would one be arguing with or being required to present evidence to?

  27. “I don’t accept your evidential quibbles, NIV, and I don’t trust your judgement, as you have an axe to grind.”

    That’s OK. I don’t trust yours, and so do you.

    “Meanwhile, do cite the study you mentioned…”

    I’ve cited it at least three times previously, and quite clearly none of you have ever bothered to read it. What’s the point?

    If you want to start citing all the surveys and statistics that form the basis of *your* opinions, and challenging one another when you don’t, I might think about it.

    In the meantime, just as you’re allowed unsupported opinionation on the internet, so am I. You don’t have to believe me, any more than I believe you. 🙂

  28. “No. It’s how people describe consensual beliefs.”

    Ah, yes. I did think of bringing that up. “Common sense” is “sense” that we all have in common – i.e. stuff that everyone believes.

    Does everyone believe this, do you think?

  29. “14% of women is a lot of people. What percentage of the population is M to F tranny?”

    It depends on your definitions. Probably about 1% have gender dysphoria (So 0.5% of the population would be MtoF), although that’s largely based on statistical projections from the rate of increase of reports and is highly uncertain. I’ve seen numbers varying from about 0.5% to 4%. For example https://www.cbsnews.com/news/transgender-adults-identify-in-us/ and https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1054139X13007532

    As for people who have undergone SRS, that’s been estimated at about 1 in 2500, but again estimates are uncertain. See here: http://ai.eecs.umich.edu/people/conway/TS/TSprevalence.html

  30. The women’s toilets issue is a red herring. There’s a general move towards single sex toilets and women’s toilets have cubicles, with most of them having floor to ceiling doors.

    The question that made Mrs BiND uncomfortable was men self identifying as women going in to communal changing rooms, but there aren’t many of those around so perhaps a compromise would be not entering those that remain with them being phased out through the normal refurbishment cycle.

  31. john77

    The questions in my little survey were: would you as a woman feel uncomfortable about sharing female-only facilities (e.g. toilets, women’s refuges) with men-who-self-identify-as-women. And what about men who have fully transitioned to being a woman?

    I emailed the questions to my daughter and wife etc and asked them circulate them to 5-10 women each, and then to forward me the replies. I have no idea how many didn’t reply. The 57 women who responded ranged in age from 17 to 85. The thought that men-who-self-identify-as-women could enter female-only spaces creeped them all out. Most thought that dick-less simulacra of women were weird but harmless and sad. I suspect NIV’s survey simply asked about trans-sexuals.

  32. BiND

    The women’s toilets issue is a red herring. There’s a general move towards single sex toilets and women’s toilets have cubicles, with most of them having floor to ceiling doors.

    I disagree. Many women want more privacy from men than a toilet cubicle provides. Women generally don’t like to be seen by men when applying make-up, or sponging a menstrual leak off their clothing or dealing with laddered tights, etc. And many women would feel unsafe in a single sex toilet if they were alone with a strange man, particularly at night.

  33. “The question that made Mrs BiND uncomfortable was men self identifying as women going in to communal changing rooms”

    For what it’s worth, a lot of TGs feel the same! (One described the idea of going into a communal changing room as “terrifying” and to be avoided if at all possible.) They sometimes *have* to go to the loo, but most other facilities can be avoided. They’re a hell of a lot more frightened of the women and the risk of confrontations than vice versa.

    But yes, the solution would be to phase them out. That would also help all the people who feel uncomfortable using same-sex facilities, as well. Besides the obvious question of “what if there are gay people in here?!!”, some people just don’t like undressing in front of other people.

    I don’t see that there should be any difference in principle. Discomfort is discomfort. We should try to accommodate people where feasible, but at the end of the day, if they’re not doing any harm, mere discomfort isn’t sufficient to ban somebody or something from a public space. Otherwise, we’re getting into “safe spaces” and banning right-wing opinions because they make the special snowflakes feel uncomfortable…. And we’re not the sort of people to be special snowflakes, are we?

  34. You can either buy this week’s copy of Look In and read the Spice Girls comic strip with them squealing ‘Girl Power!’ at every opportunity, or you can read Julie Bindel in The Guardian.

    With Look In you get a free friendship ring.

  35. a professional feminist who regularly appears in the mass media despite resembling Ed Balls in a dress

    I think Ed Balls is more likely to wear a dress.

  36. @ NiV
    One – I quite believe that you referenced your source before (I have a vague memory) but it would take me ages to find it so please could you give me the link again?
    Abolish communal changing rooms? Who is going to pay for that? Are you asking for hudreds of individual changing rooms in every school? In my school days we could have two or three hundred boys changing at the same time to play rugger or cricket or endure a cross-country race.
    When it comes to stripping in front of women I have always felt uncomfortable, so presumably Harvey Weinstein thinks I am a special snowflake: do you want to sign up to Harvey Weinstein’s fan club?

  37. “One – I quite believe that you referenced your source before (I have a vague memory) but it would take me ages to find it so please could you give me the link again?”

    http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media/39147/bsa34_moral_issues_final.pdf

    “Abolish communal changing rooms? Who is going to pay for that?”

    Ultimately, the people who want it. As with everything else.

    “Are you asking for hudreds of individual changing rooms in every school?”

    No. I’m not the one being bothered by it.

    (Personally, I’d make PE voluntary, and anyone who doesn’t like it can opt out. If you want to get kids to do PE, then you have to make it an attractive enough experience that they’ll choose to do it voluntarily. Let the market decide. But that’s a separate topic…)

    But I’m sure it’s not beyond the wits of human ingenuity to come up with a cheaper solution.

    “In my school days we could have two or three hundred boys changing at the same time to play rugger or cricket or endure a cross-country race.”

    Yes, and in my school days, quite a lot of them hating every second of it. There was a lot of huddling and shielding going on.

    I don’t see why one sort of discomfort is acceptable (if you complain, you’ll just get told to “man up”), but the other is not. By all means, save people from discomfort. But don’t do it selectively.

    “When it comes to stripping in front of women I have always felt uncomfortable, so presumably Harvey Weinstein thinks I am a special snowflake: do you want to sign up to Harvey Weinstein’s fan club?”

    No. I’m just saying that a man who exposes himself to boys and makes them uncomfortable is no different to one who exposes himself to girls. Discomfort is discomfort.

    And the same goes for someone making others uncomfortable by loudly expressing right-wing opinions, racist opinions, homophobic opinions, etc. in shared public spaces. Or putting them on aT-shirt, or a poster.

    And the same goes for people smoking in pubs, making their neighbours cough. Or people walking around with tattoos and shaven heads. Or people taking their pit bulls and rottweilers for a walk (i.e. a shit) round the local kid’s park. Or men spreading their legs apart on tube trains, or looking at women, or picking their noses in public…, or all the other billion things the snowflakes complain about.

    *Everybody* does things that other people find annoying, distressing, disgusting, or alarming.

    More people are bothered by transphobia (53% say it is “always wrong”) than trangender people in toilets (15% “quite” or “very” uncomfortable about it). Personally, I think such opinions should be tolerated, but there are a lot of people who think they shouldn’t, and it’s very hard to argue for “the freedom to offend” if that’s not being reciprocated.

  38. Thanks for the link
    14% is not the statistic that *I* should have chosen from that link. In view of the earlier surveys I should think that 28% (including those ducked the question) is closer to the truth and it might actually be higher.

    I am quite offended by your suggestion that a normal guy who changes in a room full of other guys and unwittingly on one occasion in a million causes discomfort to a special snowflake is comparable to a Weinstein who deliberately exposes himself to women expecting it to cause discomfort.

    You disliked PE and cross-country – so what! So did I, especially during those years when I suffered from a female PE teacher but I put up with it because those were the rules. If you want to build up useful muscles then some degree of discomfort is a price to be paid – so are you proposing that we ban press-ups and swimming lessons?

    You seem to be unaware that most pubs had separate rooms for smokers and non-smokers. As a life-long non-smoker I habitually used the main (smoking ) bar.

  39. “14% is not the statistic that *I* should have chosen from that link. In view of the earlier surveys I should think that 28% (including those ducked the question) is closer to the truth and it might actually be higher.”

    If you want to make your data up, sure.

    “I am quite offended by your suggestion that a normal guy who changes in a room full of other guys and unwittingly on one occasion in a million causes discomfort to a special snowflake is comparable to a Weinstein who deliberately exposes himself to women expecting it to cause discomfort.”

    Well, I’m quite offended that you compared a normal TG who has no interest in doing anything other than getting changed to Weinstein’s deliberate exhibitionism. It was your comparison in the first place.

    “You disliked PE and cross-country – so what! So did I, especially during those years when I suffered from a female PE teacher but I put up with it because those were the rules.”

    Exactly my point!

    Some people may feel discomfort, but they have to put up with it because “those are the rules”. Exactly the same principle applies.

    It’s hypocritical in the extreme to say “so what!” and demand people put up with it to the one, but moan like a snowflake about the other.

    “If you want to build up useful muscles then some degree of discomfort is a price to be paid – so are you proposing that we ban press-ups and swimming lessons?”

    You don’t need PE to develop useful muscles. The body adapts to whatever level of exercise it normally experiences, and develops precisely the musculature and fitness it needs to deal with it. Most people don’t need much muscular strength, and most kids get that from the hours spent running around playing than they ever do in PE lessons. (The diet people once did an experiment where they strapped accelerometers to kids to see how much their activity levels had declined over the years, per the narrative. They found they hadn’t.)

    While people sometimes struggle to get a job because of weak maths or English, I’ve never heard of anyone struggling to get a job because of lack of qualifications in PE. It’s a totally unnecessary hangover from Victorian deluded attitudes, and ought to be dropped from the tax-funded, compulsory curriculum forthwith. If people *choose* to do it, I have no problem with that.

    “You seem to be unaware that most pubs had separate rooms for smokers and non-smokers.”

    I’m well aware of it. And the snowflakes *still* complained, because they said they wanted to drink with their friends who were sat in the smoking bar.

    Given that pubs already had separate non-smoking bars, and were free to set up as many more as they wanted, why the hell do you think smoking got *entirely* banned in all bars?

    Because the claims of “discomfort” were just a smokescreen. They don’t like people who do X, so they cite other people’s discomfort to justify rules to ban them. But when you point out Y and Z and W and so on that *other* people find uncomfortable, they say “so what!” ‘Discomfort’ per se is clearly *not* what it was about. They’re hypocritical authoritarian jackboots; they’ll happily ban the stuff that offends *them*, but kick up when other people ban the stuff *they* like doing.

    It’s a very common attitude. Everybody does it, to some degree. But if you do, you justifiably get absolutely *zero* sympathy when you suddenly find you’re not in the majority any more.

  40. Tony Querfotze: fuck off NiV you monomaniacal bore

    Just going by the name alone,Tony Q would strike me as someone possibly more open (!) and receptive (!) to what NiV bangs on about but no – and it’s hard to disagree with his position.

  41. I think Ed Balls is more likely to wear a dress.

    Ok, muumuu then.

    some people…

  42. “more likely to survive a serious crash.’

    How the hell is that supposed to work?”

    Exactly. If she survived, it wasn’t serious.

  43. NiV – “Because the claims of “discomfort” were just a smokescreen.”

    So – am I following you correctly – you think that when women feel uncomfortable about sharing toilets with men who wish they are women, this is a purely subjective feeling based on nothing but prejudice?

    In that case, shouldn’t we abolish segregated toilets altogether? Like the Japanese in the past men and women ought to bathe together? After all, the discomfort women like my grandmother might have felt in disrobing before men is simply prejudice without any objective basis that we need to respect. So why bother with it all?

  44. >Exactly. If she survived, it wasn’t serious.

    I don’t know. I once hit a Ford Focus pretty much amidships with a well laden LWB Landrover traveling at about 70mph. Both of us somehow walked away without a scratch (and after changing two flat tyres, I managed to drive the Landrover home, although it wasn’t very happy about it). The woman driving the Focus probably regarded it as a serious accident – had I not tried to go round the back of her car when she pulled out of a sideroad without looking, the Landrover would have gone straight through her driver’s door, with almost certainly terminal results for her – as it was, it pushed her car round a bit, then chopped the boot off, before throwing the remains 50′ up a verge.
    I only survived because I wasn’t wearing a seatbelt (my seat belt mounting was ripped off and had I been wearing it, the belt would have cut me in half)
    By not looking for 10 seconds, she did about £5k worth of damage to my vehicle, wrote hers (probably worth £15k) off, and half a seconds difference in timing could have easily have seen us both dead.
    On balance, that sounds like a female driver avoiding a serious accident.

  45. Last sentence should have read:
    On balance, that sounds like a female driver avoiding death in a serious accident.

  46. “So – am I following you correctly – you think that when women feel uncomfortable about sharing toilets with men who wish they are women, this is a purely subjective feeling based on nothing but prejudice?”

    No. I’m saying that there are a wide range of things we feel discomfort about, most of which we ignore or put up with, but a few of which we pick out as justification for us telling other people what they can and cannot do. The selection of some instances of the same thing to react to and not others is based on prejudice.

    Many people feel uncomfortable undressing in front of people of their own sex. Are those feelings of discomfort and embarrassment sufficient to ban same-sex communal dressing rooms? No. Many people feel discomfort sharing a toilet with certain people of their own sex. Likewise, it’s not considered reasonable to ban those people from the toilets for the sake of their discomfort. So the discomfort itself is clearly not the issue.

    “In that case, shouldn’t we abolish segregated toilets altogether?”

    If people care enough about it (and given the survey results, I’m not at all sure that most people do) then we probably ought to abolish communal toilets and changing rooms altogether, and provide individual facilities. No more problem.

    But you don’t like that solution either, because you wind up having to pay the price for your prejudices yourself, and because it takes away your best excuse to make somebody else’s life miserable.

    “I think I’d put it rather less politely than that.”

    I’m not the one who keeps bringing the subject up, over and over again, repeatedly, endlessly, obsessively, ad nauseam, and talking crap about it. If you *really* don’t want to discuss it, don’t discuss it.

  47. @ NiV

    I’ll repeat what I said last time you threw out your statistics that you place such reliance on.

    However, the low levels of people with overtly stated
    prejudice against transgender people contrasts with the
    high proportions of transgender people who report facing regular harassment and intimidation found in previous research.

    This gap is perhaps explained by the questions that reveal prejudice more indirectly. Only 4 in 10 people feel a suitably qualified transgender person should definitely be employed as a police officer or primary school teacher.

    The truth is more like 60% of people don’t like tranny’s. It’s just they are too polite in surveys to say so.

  48. NiV – “The selection of some instances of the same thing to react to and not others is based on prejudice.”

    So if I am understanding you correctly, the two key words are “some” and “same”. Some instances. Same thing.

    “Many people feel uncomfortable undressing in front of people of their own sex. Are those feelings of discomfort and embarrassment sufficient to ban same-sex communal dressing rooms? No.”

    Well it would be hard to find a solution to that but actually people do. They do (usually) provide privacy for people who are uncomfortable changing in front of people of their own gender. It is rarely compulsory.

    “Many people feel discomfort sharing a toilet with certain people of their own sex. Likewise, it’s not considered reasonable to ban those people from the toilets for the sake of their discomfort. So the discomfort itself is clearly not the issue.”

    Toilets are provided with stalls and doors. It would be perfectly reasonable to ban someone insisting they had a right to join you in the stall if you felt embarrassed about sh!tting in public. So we are there already as far as discomfort goes. What we do not ban is other people seeing you wash your hands as well as walk in and out.

    “But you don’t like that solution either, because you wind up having to pay the price for your prejudices yourself, and because it takes away your best excuse to make somebody else’s life miserable.”

    Someone else is trying to make everyone elses life miserable. It has nothing to do with me. Bring on the cost. The problem here is that people like you will not allow the extra cost to be paid. Even if people want to. You insist that admission is the only solution.

    The fact is that people are not taking offense as some instances. They consistently object to men with penises in women’s bathrooms. Whether those men think they are women or not. Neither is there any sort of comparison here that would make this rule appear applied inconsistently. They do not allow the same thing in other circumstances. Women are fairly consistently opposing men with penises in their changing rooms. You are simply building a straw man.

  49. “However, the low levels of people with overtly stated
    prejudice against transgender people contrasts with the
    high proportions of transgender people who report facing regular harassment and intimidation found in previous research.”

    That’s very simply explained. If 1% of people are prejudiced, then about one in every 100 people you meet will be prejudiced, and as you’ll likely come into contact with hundreds of people just walking down a busy street, encounters will be very common. You’ll certainly run into one every few days, if you go out in public.

    While TGs report very high levels of harassment and assault compared to the average, they’re not so high that they can’t be explained by a tiny minority of abusers. 37% report being harassed in a retail store, 25% in a doctor’s office or hospital, 25% in a hotel or restaurant, 22% on a bus, train or taxi. Rates for physical assault vary from 2% to 8%.

    My TG friends say that something trivial (insults or rude comments usually) happens every few weeks, and something serious enough to make them nervous about their safety every few months.

    Even allowing for the extreme precautions most TGs take to avoid dangerous situations, that’s high, but it’s not 60%-of-everyone-you-meet high.

    Most people dislike the prejudice. You just don’t want to believe it.

  50. “I’m not the one who keeps bringing the subject up, over and over again, repeatedly, endlessly, obsessively, ad nauseam, and talking crap about it.”

    Yes, you are. Your lack of self-awareness about this is striking.

    “If you *really* don’t want to discuss it, don’t discuss it.”

    I am happy to discuss it, and I think it needs to be discussed. I simply don’t want to discuss it with you because your fanatical screeds are full of equivocations, non sequiturs and straw men.

  51. “Someone else is trying to make everyone elses life miserable. It has nothing to do with me. Bring on the cost. The problem here is that people like you will not allow the extra cost to be paid. Even if people want to. You insist that admission is the only solution.”

    Aren’t you? If I say I don’t want to share a toilet or changing room with other men, aren’t you telling me that they have to be admitted, despite my discomfort?

    “The fact is that people are not taking offense as some instances. They consistently object to men with penises in women’s bathrooms. Whether those men think they are women or not.”

    No they don’t. You do. And you’re projecting your opinions onto everyone else – based on no evidence at all. Just shit you made up out of your head.

    What women are bothered by is men perving at them in bathrooms, whether they’ve got penises or not. Frightened TGs who only want to go in, do their business, and get out fast are not considered a problem. Pre-op or post-op makes no difference. It’s not like anyone can tell the difference, anyway. What are you going to do? Conduct crotch inspections at the door?!

    TGs have to spend two years living in public as their gender before they’re even allowed to have hormones, let alone SRS. When people suggest giving transgender kids hormones/surgery, you all kick up. Spending time as a TG with your original equipment is a part of the process.

  52. “I am happy to discuss it, and I think it needs to be discussed. I simply don’t want to discuss it with you because your fanatical screeds are full of equivocations, non sequiturs and straw men.”

    Not as many as everyone else’s. Most of the unevidenced opinionated crap talked here about TGs is provably false. That’s what you’re objecting to – that I keep on pointing it out.

    You want an echo chamber, not a debate.

    “Yes, you are. Your lack of self-awareness about this is striking.”

    Heh! You think *I’m* the one who keeps on bringing the subject up? OK, prove it! Which of the following debates on here this year did I start? What’s that as a percentage?


    22 January 2017 TG prisoners and their clothes

    22 January 2017 San Francisco has lots of LGBTs

    30 January 2017 TGs offended by the word ‘Mother’

    31 January 2017 Ultra-orthodox Jewish TG divorcee loses contact with children

    1 February 2017 Let’s all laugh at Barbie Girl

    2 February 2017 TG mayor voted in in Texas town

    15 March 2017 TG fell runner jailed for murder

    18 March 2017 TG comes out

    21 March 2017 Feminist Nigerian novelist roasted on Twitter for comments about a TG woman

    14 April 2017 Reality show contestant outed as TG

    11 May 2017 Transgender coppers

    6 June 2017 5% of Dutch are TG

    27 July 2017 TGs in the US military

    6 September 2017 TG rapist in prison

    9 September 2017 Gaydar AI

    17 September 2017 TG-feminist punch up

    26 September 2017 TG activist, when asked, says TG reversal research wouldn’t be their priority

    28 September 2017 Endocrine Society issues position statement on TGs

    9 October 2017 Macho culture leads to TG murders in South America

    19 October 2017 TG medical student self-medicates then has regrets

    23 October 2017 Pregnant men

    27 October 2017 Feminist-TG punch up

    2 November 2017 Lord Winston expresses his opinion on TGs

    13 November The Church OKs boys in tutus

    19 November 2017 TGs in prison

    26 November 2017 Eating the Children of the Revolution

    For a topic you all claim not to care about or want to discuss, about such a tiny minority, you sure-as-fuck talk about it a hell of a lot!

    If you don’t want to discuss it, don’t discuss it.

  53. “However, the low levels of people with overtly stated
    prejudice against transgender people contrasts with the
    high proportions of transgender people who report facing regular harassment and intimidation found in previous research.”

    That’s very simply explained.

    Good – explain it to the author of the report. Yes, the one you are quoting.

    I see you missed the important part out:

    This gap is perhaps explained by the questions that reveal prejudice more indirectly. Only 4 in 10 people feel a suitably qualified transgender person should definitely be employed as a police officer or primary school teacher.

    So, the report you keep quoting, is wrong on this then?

  54. “So, the report you keep quoting, is wrong on this then?”

    Where they speculate about the cause of an apparent disparity between reports, yes. There is no disparity.

    (And for what it’s worth, I’d hesitate myself to suggest a TG should be a policeman or primary school teacher – not because of the risk to the public, but because of the risk to the TG. Not wise, in the current climate.)

  55. “‘a suitably qualified transgender person’ A WHAT?”

    Like, someone with all the appropriate teaching qualifications, but who happens to be transgender.

  56. It’s hardly surprising women don’t want to share toilets with men, even those who think they’re women. Separate toilets was one of the central issues feminists fought on when women first started appearing in workplaces in large numbers. They’re not going to be giving that up easily.

  57. “Like, someone with all the appropriate teaching qualifications, but who happens to be transgender.”

    Nice try, but that’s not what it says. The transgender is what is qualified.

  58. “Separate toilets was one of the central issues feminists fought on when women first started appearing in workplaces in large numbers.”

    Yes, because the men had communal men-only toilets and chose not to supply any for women (saying it was too expensive), so the women had to go elsewhere, facing greater inconveniences and obstacles that kept them out of the workplace.

    Those are exactly the same issues the TGs are fighting over. If women accept the justice of the principle, then those of them who remember the feminist struggle ought to sympathise. Or is it a case of “I’m all right Jack, pull up the ladder”?

    Individual toilets would have solved the problem equally well, in either case.

  59. “Nice try, but that’s not what it says. The transgender is what is qualified.”

    No, the “trangender person” is what’s qualified.

    Would you give the job to a suitably qualified woman? (i.e. you need qualifications to be a woman?) Would you give the job to a suitably qualified fifty-year old? (You need qualifications to be fifty?) Would you give the job to a suitably qualified white person? (Perhaps with a ‘certificate of whiteness’?)

    I’ve no idea what your problem is here, but the grammar is straightforward. A suitably qualified transgender person is a transgender person who has suitable qualifications for the job you’re proposing to offer them.

    Or am I misunderstanding your problem?

  60. Or is it a case of “I’m all right Jack, pull up the ladder”?

    From what I can tell, it’s a case of “If they have a dick then they’re a man and should use the men’s toilets”. I have little time for feminists but I find this argument persuasive.

  61. Individual toilets would have solved the problem equally well, in either case.

    Not really. The beauty of communal urinals is they are very quick to use compared to individual stalls, which is why you don’t see long lines outside men’s toilets. The downside to this is they are not private, but this is not a problem if you keep men and women separate.

  62. “From what I can tell, it’s a case of “If they have a dick then they’re a man and should use the men’s toilets”.”

    OK. It’s not the legal definition, but I guess we can all make up our own definitions now. Very post-modern.

    “I have little time for feminists but I find this argument persuasive.”

    It’s not so much an argument as an assertion. What was the logic/justification for it that persuaded you? Why should the rest of us use this definition rather than any other?

  63. “The downside to this is they are not private, but this is not a problem if you keep men and women separate.”

    Yes it is. That’s what I’ve been repeatedly pointing out.

    It’s a problem you’re choosing to ignore.

  64. OK. It’s not the legal definition, but I guess we can all make up our own definitions now. Very post-modern.

    The legal definition is entirely irrelevant to how women feel about “men who were born men but are now women” using their toilets. Although it wouldn’t be the first time the government think they can legislate how people feel about something.


    It’s not so much an argument as an assertion. What was the logic/justification for it that persuaded you? Why should the rest of us use this definition rather than any other?

    I find their reluctance to share facilities with transgender men to be understandable. I really don’t care what definition they are using.

  65. Incidentally, NiV’s hiding behind the legal definition of a woman, and insisting this definition is used in every discussion, is like trying to discuss sexual harassment with a feminist who thinks this includes wolf-whistling; or violence with an SJW who thinks this includes speech; or poverty with an Oxfam boss who refers only to relative poverty.

    It’s simply another example of someone trying to nullify any serious discussion by redefining the terms such that they are meaningless to most normal people. That the state has partaken in this charade by enshrining the new terms in law doesn’t change the fundamental dishonesty behind it.

  66. “The legal definition is entirely irrelevant to how women feel about “men who were born men but are now women” using their toilets.”

    OK. So let’s ask them the question.

    Please think about a transgender woman – that is a man who has gone through all or part of a process to become a woman. How comfortable or uncomfortable would you be for a transgender woman to use female public toilets?

    Noting that this definition includes those who have undergone only *part* of the process, i.e. pre-op as well as post-op, what did women say?

    For both sexes a majority say they are comfortable with a transgender person using a public toilet according to their gender identity (Table 5). Women tend to be more comfortable with this than men, with 72% of women saying they are “very” or “quite comfortable” with a transgender woman using a female toilet, compared with 64% of men saying they are comfortable with a transgender man using male toilets. Around 1 in 6 (14% of women, and 15% of men) say they are not comfortable with this.

    Everyone else keeps on making confident assertions about ‘what women want’, but nobody (apart, arguably, from Theophrastus’ anecdotal straw poll of close relatives) is bringing any data to the party! So far as I can tell, you’re all just making it up.

    “Although it wouldn’t be the first time the government think they can legislate how people feel about something.”

    The government spent a lot of time checking public opinion on the subject before diving into such an obviously controversial area. They legislated following the public sentiment, not the other way round;

    Here we find that only 53% condemn transphobia completely, saying that prejudice against people who are transgender is “always wrong”, however a further 19% say that prejudice against transgender people is “mostly wrong”, meaning a total of 72% have a largely negative view of prejudice against transgender people. A minority (15%) say that transphobia is “sometimes wrong”, while very few (4%) say it is “rarely” or “never” wrong.

    “I find their reluctance to share facilities with transgender men to be understandable.”

    That’s because you’re making that up, based on your own feelings.

    How about you try proving some of your assertions, for a change?

  67. “I’m not ignoring it, I simply don’t see requiring transsexual men to use male toilets as a problem.”

    That wasn’t the problem I was talking about.

    “Incidentally, NiV’s hiding behind the legal definition of a woman, and insisting this definition is used in every discussion”

    But that’s exactly what you’re doing. You make up your own definition, and then insist on using it over the wishes of everyone else. (Frequently switching definitions when I point out that it doesn’t do what you want it to.)

    Suppose I assert, as you do, that “If they have a beard then they’re a man and should use the men’s toilets”. Or that “If they wear trousers then they’re a man and should use the men’s toilets”. Or that “If they have a man’s name then they’re a man and should use the men’s toilets”. Or that “If they can crush a beer can with one hand then they’re a man and should use the men’s toilets”. Why does one definition supersede all others?

    Besides just because it’s *your* definition, that is?

  68. The government spent a lot of time checking public opinion on the subject before diving into such an obviously controversial area.

    Given what a stunning departure this would be from government behaviour on practically every other subject, this is almost certainly bollocks.


    That’s because you’re making that up, based on your own feelings.

    Hey, if you think I’m making up the feminsts’ opposition to transsexuals using women’s toilets, you go right ahead.

  69. But that’s exactly what you’re doing. You make up your own definition, and then insist on using it over the wishes of everyone else.

    No, I’m not making up my own definition. Which is why I don’t need to provide links to 182-page .pdfs when I discuss the subject of “men” and “women”.

  70. “Hey, if you think I’m making up the feminsts’ opposition to transsexuals using women’s toilets, you go right ahead.”

    Thanks! I will!

    “No, I’m not making up my own definition. Which is why I don’t need to provide links to 182-page .pdfs when I discuss the subject of “men” and “women”.”

    Ok. Cool. I like someone who’s willing to make bold assertions. 😉

    So let’s take your “dick test” as the definition of ‘men’ and ‘women’.

    Now take the hypothetical case of a man who loses his dick in a traffic accident. (Or a close encounter of the ‘Bobbitt’ persuasion…)

    They were born a man. They look like a man. Big bushy beard, flat hairy chest. They still think like a man. But according to you’re “dick test” they don’t have a dick, so they’re not a man and they go in the ladies.

    Was that what you intended? Do you think that’s correct? Do you perhaps want to revise your definition a bit?

    People have written entire treatises on the ontological philosophy of sex and gender. The problem is that reality is a bit fuzzy around the edges, and simplistic definitions suitable for the bulk of cases don’t work at the edges. Simplistic people always want to bull through, regardless, because they can’t cope with complexity or change. It rarely works.

    Society is still working on a definition that fits all the edge cases – the real rules of society are always a work in progress. But they’re already a lot more complicated and subtle than any such crude definitions.

  71. Now take the hypothetical case of a man who loses his dick in a traffic accident.

    At this point I’d take the view that social policy affecting tens of millions of people ought not be made on the basis of a man who’d lost his dick in an accident.

  72. “At this point I’d take the view that social policy affecting tens of millions of people ought not be made on the basis of a man who’d lost his dick in an accident.”

    Well, I’d respond with the view that social policy affecting tens of millions shouldn’t be governed by an idiot definition that gives the wrong answer to such a simple counter-example!

  73. Well, I’d respond with the view that social policy affecting tens of millions shouldn’t be governed by an idiot definition…

    That’s is precisely what you argue for, every time this subject comes up.

  74. “That’s is precisely what you argue for, every time this subject comes up.”

    Really? Make your case, then.

  75. I already did. Let me copy and paste.

    Incidentally, NiV’s hiding behind the legal definition of a woman, and insisting this definition is used in every discussion, is like trying to discuss sexual harassment with a feminist who thinks this includes wolf-whistling; or violence with an SJW who thinks this includes speech; or poverty with an Oxfam boss who refers only to relative poverty.

  76. “I already did. Let me copy and paste.”

    And as I already explained, there are lots of definitions that we could pick, and if we’re all simply allowed to make up and assert our own, you end up with *everyone* being ‘right’. Why should we accept your definition rather than anyone else’s? What you need to present is a clear argument why yours is better than any of the others.

    Got one?

    The legal definition is based on the principle that personal identity is invested in the mind, not the body. No matter how mutilated the body, the legal identity of the mind remains the same. Transplanted organs ‘become’ parts of the person they’re transplanted into. And death is declared on irreversible brain death, even if the body is still alive and functioning. On the problems of transgender, intersex, and mutilations – where the states of mind and body may be inconsistent with one another – the law comes down on the side of the mind. Legal identity always follows the brain, not the body. It’s more complicated than that, of course, but that’s the essence of it.

    I don’t mind entertaining alternative definitions, if you want to propose them, but you’re going to have to make a reasoned case why they’re necessary. I’m not accepting mere assertion of your own personal made-up definitions as anything more than unsupported personal opinion.

    To which you’re entitled, of course, but which has no legal weight.

  77. NiV: Lol, reality is never fuzzy.

    If there are 10 genuinely intersex people in a country, there is no loss to have noone know or care about their fucked up existences. And the perverts who claim to be the other sex can go straight in the bog.

  78. And as I already explained, there are lots of definitions that we could pick

    I repeat:

    NiV’s hiding behind the legal definition of a woman, and insisting this definition is used in every discussion, is like trying to discuss sexual harassment with a feminist who thinks this includes wolf-whistling; or violence with an SJW who thinks this includes speech; or poverty with an Oxfam boss who refers only to relative poverty.

    It’s simply another example of someone trying to nullify any serious discussion by redefining the terms such that they are meaningless to most normal people. That the state has partaken in this charade by enshrining the new terms in law doesn’t change the fundamental dishonesty behind it.

  79. “It’s simply another example of someone trying to nullify any serious discussion by redefining the terms such that they are meaningless to most normal people.”

    I repeat too – all you’re doing is redefining the terms in such a way that John Wayne Bobbitt would be classed as a bona fide woman; a result that would seem nonsensical to any normal person.

    And your only answer when I point this out is to reject all consideration of edge cases when setting policy for the masses. Given that this as much as admits that you’re definition isn’t intended to be valid for edge cases, how can we rightly be proposing to use it to decide the ‘right’ answer in a difficult edge case like transgender people?

    What you’re saying is that you know it’s not right, but “fuck ’em” to all the people caught in the gears.

    And as I just said, if you want to justify why your definition is better, I’m perfectly prepared to have that debate. So don’t go telling me I’m trying to nullify any serious discussion. I’m just waiting for someone to try discussing it seriously, instead of just making crap up and asserting it.

    I think you’re capable. Why not have a go?

  80. I repeat too – all you’re doing is redefining the terms in such a way that John Wayne Bobbitt would be classed as a bona fide woman

    On the contrary, I’m not trying to define what a man and woman are at all: only you are doing so, as far as I can tell. A discussion on the subject of men and women taking place with anyone except deranged, white liberals does not require reference to a legal definition of the terms or invitations for each person to provide one. If it does, you’re dealing with someone who is not acting in good faith.

    And your only answer when I point this out is to reject all consideration of edge cases when setting policy for the masses.

    That is *exactly* what should happen.

    What you’re saying is that you know it’s not right, but “fuck ’em” to all the people caught in the gears.

    Yes, that’s right: especially if the “problem” only involves a negligible number of people, cropped up only in the past few years, and is only identifiable to a handful of white, western liberals most of whom seem deranged.

  81. “On the contrary, I’m not trying to define what a man and woman are at all: only you are doing so, as far as I can tell.”

    Compare that with: “From what I can tell, it’s a case of “If they have a dick then they’re a man and should use the men’s toilets”.”

    Honestly?

    “Yes, that’s right: especially if the “problem” only involves a negligible number of people”

    Cool argument! 24% of the global population are Muslim. What percentage are Jewish?

    Still OK with that?

    “and is only identifiable to a handful of white, western liberals most of whom seem deranged.”

    Ah! You mean you’re happy to grind up anyone if your political opponents support them? (Or if they support your political opponents?) Is that a good precedent to set, do you think? Can SJWs legitimately grind up anyone that right-wingers support, on the same basis?

    Anyway. It’s not just white liberals. Brain scanners can do it too.

    http://www.journalofpsychiatricresearch.com/article/S0022-3956(10)00325-0/fulltext

    Our results show that the white matter microstructure pattern in untreated MtF transsexuals falls halfway between the pattern of male and female controls. The nature of these differences suggests that some fasciculi do not complete the masculinization process in MtF transsexuals during brain development.

    Try again?

  82. Compare that with: “From what I can tell, it’s a case of “If they have a dick then they’re a man and should use the men’s toilets”.”,

    Yes, that’s generally what normal people think the world over.

  83. Cool argument! 24% of the global population are Muslim. What percentage are Jewish?

    The numbers of Jews and Muslims are not negligible and the issues surrounding them are somewhat long-standing.

    You mean you’re happy to grind up anyone if your political opponents support them?

    No, I’m happy to ignore my political opponents when they’re trying to reshape society by pointing to an almost imperceivable problem.

    Our results show that the white matter microstructure pattern….

    What was I saying again? A discussion on the subject of men and women taking place with anyone except deranged, white liberals does not require reference to a legal definition of the terms or invitations for each person to provide one. If it does, you’re dealing with someone who is not acting in good faith.

  84. “The numbers of Jews and Muslims are not negligible and the issues surrounding them are somewhat long-standing.”

    The number of Jews is considerably more negligible than the number of people with gender dysphoria. If Muslims feel ‘discomfort’ at having them around, by your own argument does it matter what they do to them?

    Arguing that we don’t need to respect the liberties of any sufficiently tiny minorities takes us down a path with a pretty dark history. The “tyranny of the majority”, and all that. I’m guessing you wouldn’t want to go there, but I don’t know. Do you?

    “No, I’m happy to ignore my political opponents when they’re trying to reshape society by pointing to an almost imperceivable problem.”

    “ignore” wasn’t what you said.

    Like I said earlier, for a supposedly imperceivable problem you don’t care about, the people here sure do talk about it a hell of a lot!

    “A discussion on the subject of men and women taking place with anyone except deranged, white liberals does not require reference to a legal definition of the terms or invitations for each person to provide one.”

    OK, so are you saying that there is *no* definition, or that we’ve got to use *your* definition? If the latter, what *is* yours, and how is it justified?

  85. “Observable human behaviour, of course.”

    So where are your observations? Do you have surveys? ‘Show me!’ as they say in Missouri

  86. So. No answer. You’ll call people a “bell end” for no reason and with no excuse, and then not even have the basic honesty to explain why.

    Pretty disappointing.

    What you’re saying is that you know it’s not right, but “fuck ’em” to all the people caught in the gears.

    Yes, that’s right: especially if the “problem” only involves a negligible number of people, cropped up only in the past few years, and is only identifiable to a handful of white, western liberals most of whom seem deranged.

    But that one’s OK with you, is it? No criticism to offer?

    I don’t know how you can live with yourselves.

  87. I think there’s a pretty convincing argument that wide pelvises are NOT due to the patriarchy but to women sex-selecting for more intelligent men. The downside of this of course is that it vastly increased women’s vulnerability as they couldn’t run so fast, and for the first few years they had to carry an infant with them too.

  88. @ NiV
    Going back umpteen posts (since I am not permanently logged in) to where you equated an innocent inadvertently and unknowingly upsetting a snowflake with a bully deliberately offending and upsetting a normal innocent female, my response is “don’t talk rot”.

    As for pub smoking – the snowflakes did *not* say they wanted to drink with their friends in the smoking bar because the answer was obvious: “your pal can join you in the non-tripe about “passive smoking”, which would, if it were true, have prevented the first analysis finding out that active smoking increased mortality.

  89. “Going back umpteen posts (since I am not permanently logged in) to where you equated an innocent inadvertently and unknowingly upsetting a snowflake with a bully deliberately offending and upsetting a normal innocent female, my response is “don’t talk rot”. “

    What about a bully deliberately offending and upsetting a normal, innocent TG? That’s what more usually happens.

    The bullying drives 42% of TGs to suicide. But the bullies don’t give a damn about that, because despite all the pious platitudes it’s not bullying itself they see as a problem, but the idea that they can’t tell other people how to live their lives, what they’re allowed to wear, or where in public spaces they’re allowed to go.

    As far as they’re concerned, *they* define the rules society lives by, and “fuck ’em” to all the people that get caught in the gears.

    Problem is, eventually society changes, they’re no longer in charge, and they suddenly get bent all out of shape by the fact that *other* people are doing to *them* as they formerly did to others. From “no you can’t” to “yes you must”, and there’s nothing they can do about it. I have absolutely no sympathy for them. But there’s always a chance that some of the brighter ones might come to realise what the libertarians were talking about for all those years.

    “As for pub smoking – the snowflakes did *not* say they wanted to drink with their friends in the smoking bar because the answer was obvious: “your pal can join you in the non-tripe about “passive smoking”, which would, if it were true, have prevented the first analysis finding out that active smoking increased mortality.”

    It was one of the arguments given at the time, as I recall. Yes I agree, it doesn’t make any sense. Most authoritarian excuses for bullying don’t.

  90. @ Niv
    The question was about *me* not a bully deliberately offending a TG – perhaps you *chose* not to read it because it didn’t suit you? I should prefer that you did not assume that I am Mr Ecks. I have previously stated that I am allergic to bullies.

  91. “The question was about *me* not a bully deliberately offending a TG”

    What question?

    I started with:

    I don’t see that there should be any difference in principle. Discomfort is discomfort. We should try to accommodate people where feasible, but at the end of the day, if they’re not doing any harm, mere discomfort isn’t sufficient to ban somebody or something from a public space. Otherwise, we’re getting into “safe spaces” and banning right-wing opinions because they make the special snowflakes feel uncomfortable

    Your response was:

    I am quite offended by your suggestion that a normal guy who changes in a room full of other guys and unwittingly on one occasion in a million causes discomfort to a special snowflake is comparable to a Weinstein who deliberately exposes himself to women expecting it to cause discomfort.

    I responded:

    Well, I’m quite offended that you compared a normal TG who has no interest in doing anything other than getting changed to Weinstein’s deliberate exhibitionism. It was your comparison in the first place.

    To which you said:

    Going back umpteen posts (since I am not permanently logged in) to where you equated an innocent inadvertently and unknowingly upsetting a snowflake with a bully deliberately offending and upsetting a normal innocent female, my response is “don’t talk rot”.

    In none of those are you stated to be the person offending anyone, and none of them is a question. What am I missing?

    The sort of scenario I’m talking about is one where an innocent TG gets a job where the staff are required by their employer to change into a uniform at work. They walk into the women’s changing area, head down. They find some quiet corner and, back to the room and without looking around, try to get changed as quickly as possible. In the middle of this process the bully comes up, tells them they’re in the ‘wrong’ changing room, and if they don’t get out immediately she’ll call the lads in to get her assaulted and thrown out. The TG is told they’re a dirty pervert, and the women are going to spread word of it all round the workplace about him perving at the women in the changing rooms. Someone having a dick makes her feel uncomfortable (even without seeing it, or anything being done with it) and violates her female-only ‘safe space’, and she’s prepared to use violence to keep her environment ‘pure’ of such filth. The TG leaves in tears, and tries to figure out what the hell she’s supposed to do now.

    The TG in this scenario is not, in any way, comparable to Weinstein. They don’t want too offend or upset anyone. They don’t want to hurt anyone, or intrude on their modesty. They’re not doing it out of any sort of political protest, or campaign to change society, or for sexual kicks, or as a prelude to any crime. They just want to get changed into their uniform so they can do their job, the same as all the other women. And they don’t see what the organs anyone happens to have got in their knickers has to do with anything in this scenario.

    You obviously have a different scenario in mind. But I’m trying to suggest with this example that whatever it is about that that makes you compare anyone to Weinstein, it isn’t intrinsic to the issue of TGs in changing rooms in general.

    You say you’re allergic to bullies. Would you be allergic to the bully in my example scenario? Or would you agree with her? I don’t have any reason to think that you’re Mr Ecks, but I don’t know that you’re not, either.

  92. @ NiV
    The question was, since you have forgotten, “When it comes to stripping in front of women I have always felt uncomfortable, so presumably Harvey Weinstein thinks I am a special snowflake: do you want to sign up to Harvey Weinstein’s fan club?”

  93. @ NiV
    That was a only an “answer” in so far as you can claim that Cameron answered Corbyn during PMQs.
    The rest of the thread followed on from your response so that WAS the original question.
    If TGs want to change in private, I am not doing anything to stop them – and I should not even notice it as I often turn up to races in kit and tracksuit because I prefer to have a nice warm bath at home to ease my aching muscles than a brisk shower. That does not justify a ban on communal changing rooms for the insensitive – in fact there are two closed cubicles in the one I visit most often so if a guy wants privacy while changing he can have it.
    Your scenario is dealt with by the TG changing into uniform at home and coming to work in a coverall – or choosing a job whose conditions suits them.

  94. “If TGs want to change in private, I am not doing anything to stop them – and I should not even notice it as I often turn up to races in kit and tracksuit because I prefer to have a nice warm bath at home to ease my aching muscles than a brisk shower.”

    Doesn’t the same apply to anyone?

    “That does not justify a ban on communal changing rooms for the insensitive – in fact there are two closed cubicles in the one I visit most often so if a guy wants privacy while changing he can have it.”

    I’m not suggesting banning communal changing rooms! I’m suggesting that if people are sensitive to *any* sort of person seeing them while they change, then individual cubicles is an easy solution. If they’re not sensitive, then communal rooms are fine.

    What I’m objecting to is making a fuss when people of one group causing discomfort, but saying “so what!” when it’s any other group. It’s not discomfort while changing that is the issue in that case, but the particular group.

    “Your scenario is dealt with by the TG changing into uniform at home and coming to work in a coverall – or choosing a job whose conditions suits them.”

    It is also dealt with by any women who don’t want to share a changing room with a TG doing the same – that’s actually the legal recommendation as it stands now.

    The same applies if a person doesn’t want to get changed in the same room as a black person, or someone with swastika tattoos and a shaven head, or someone with right-wing political opinions, or simply somebody they don’t like.

    You don’t get to chuck other people out of the changing rooms because you don’t like them. You’re welcome to choose not to go in yourself, or to wait the fifteen minutes while they change until they’re gone. If you have a problem with other people doing something you dislike, but which does no actual harm, then it’s your job to find an alternative.

    I mainly objected to schools because they allowed no alternative. Lots of people felt discomfort, but the attitude was always “so what!” You need to make up your mind. Do we say “so what!” when people object to sharing a changing room with particular others? Or do we give them individual cubicles? But then you have to stick to it. You can’t change your mind just for the TGs.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.