Well, why not?

An Iranian couple who asked a GP to carry out a virginity test on their 18-year-old daughter after discovering she had a secret boyfriend, have gone on trial charged for subjecting her to coercive or controlling behaviour.

Mitra Eidiani, 42, and husband Ali Safaraei, 56, are thought to be the first parents to be charged under the law that was brought in three years ago to clamp down on people who subject their partners to psychological abuse.

Well, why not? This isn’t something we normally do, to be sure. But now be in a culture where virginity determines the possibility of a good marriage or not.

And is that really controlling behaviour?

49 comments on “Well, why not?

  1. I think it was the knife-brandishing and the death threats that secured the conviction, frankly…

    The virginity test is just the titillating pretext that gets it in the papers.

  2. “But when they got to the clinic, Dr Helen Lucas, the GP, refused to examine Sophia without her permission.

    Ms Eidiani then accused the GP of not understanding their culture.”

    Good old multi-culturism, where would we be without it?

    I trust the GP is now going to receive the usual lefty twatter storm accusing her of being literally worse than Hitler?

  3. We always have to understand and bow to their backward culture, they never have to respect our civilised values such as you can’t force people to do things without their consent.

    Dr Lucas would have been in serious trouble if she had examined Sophia without her consent.

  4. I am surprised that they didn’t just go to the local virginity-checker. This is the kind of thing that happens when you have recourse to institutions outside your primitive culture

  5. “Well, why not?”

    As others say, because you need consent.

    Although it would have been a more interesting question if she had legally still been a child, for who parents can give consent on their behalf.

    “I can’t WAIT for the ‘Guardian’ article on this one!”

    While you’re waiting, here’s one they prepared earlier.

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/may/08/virginity-tests-immigrants-prejudices-britain

    However, it was not enough to prevent India going to the UN commission on human rights and raising the use of immigration practices that seemed to “reflect prejudices dating back to the dark ages”.

    It’s coming to something when even India is decrying your primitive cultural ways! But that was way back the 1970s, and we’ve obviously stopped believing in that sort of primitive superstition.

    “We always have to understand and bow to their backward culture, they never have to respect our civilised values such as you can’t force people to do things without their consent.”

    Is this irony? Or did we stop enforcing our own cultural norms on others recently, without me noticing?!

    In any case, that would have to mean you can force people to stop forcing people to do things without their consent without their consent. Or “can’t” is meaningless.

    “This is the kind of thing that happens when you have recourse to institutions outside your primitive culture”

    “Primitive” is of course just another word for “more traditional”. For example, some traditionalists still follow bits of this very old manual of morals, legends, and traditions – but it would be very politically incorrect to describe them all as “primitive”!

    Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

    And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;

    And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

    Whether such things are “primitive” or “traditional” depends on your point of view. Freedom of belief applies, either way. But it only applies to oneself – you shouldn’t be able to impose your beliefs on others, even your own children, without their consent.

    However, it’s tricky when children are too young to consent for themselves. People often grow up holding these ‘traditional’ beliefs millenia after they went out of date because their parents raised them to believe before they were given any say, and by the time they *do* get a say, they already believe. Is their retrospective consent OK, given that if they had been raised by parents of a different belief system they’d have retrospectively consented to that too? Is such retrospective consent “informed”, in that their judgement is influenced by the act itself to agree to the act? (Like, if you hypnotise somebody to say: “I agree to being hypnotised”, is that valid consent?) It’s a philosophically interesting question.

    Although it’s interesting that in this case the daughter apparently didn’t share her parents’ beliefs. I wonder where she got that from…?

  6. Oh it’s an example of NiV’s Jihadi conversion.is it?

    There is a considerable difference between young females wanting to do what nature pesters them to do and killers with a 1400 year pedigree of death.

    By all means keep pushing NiV. Keep on pointing out how outdated their beliefs are. To their faces preferably. Just make sure you video the results.

    We need the laughs.

    We need the laughs.

  7. NiV: “Although it’s interesting that in this case the daughter apparently didn’t share her parents’ beliefs. I wonder where she got that from…?”

    Puberty, I suspect.

  8. “NiV, fuck political correctness or do you really believe it’s possible to pick up a turd by the clean end?”

    No, I’m just saying that people (which includes you and me) differ in their definitions of “clean” and “unclean”.

    One man’s “primitive” is another man’s “traditional”…

  9. “I have a horrid image of ecks doing the biblical virginity test on Niv.”

    Well, lots of blokes keep horrid images on their hard drives. Who am I to judge?

    Ecksy himself asks people for video of themselves doing ‘requests’ for him…

  10. Biggie–While NiV is a cunt I doubt he has one–unless the TG thing is personal rather than ideological to him.

    As for video requests NiV, in the case of you and the Jihadi conversions I suspect the films would resemble Candid Camera with added violence rather than anything even remotely pornographic.

  11. Well, why not? This isn’t something we normally do, to be sure. But now be in a culture where virginity determines the possibility of a good marriage or not.

    Because “the UK” is not such a culture. If you have (proper) different laws for multiculturalism, we’ll simply game the system? Ah yes, I see what you mean, we already did, “men in women’s prisons” as long as you put tights and suspenders on… Fair enough.

  12. “Because “the UK” is not such a culture.”

    Of course it’s such a culture. We allow both Protestants and Catholics. Both religious and atheist. Both vegetarian and carnivore. Both smokers and non-smokers. About 80% of the population support TG rights, but we allow sub-cultures that don’t agree to continue to exist. Tolerating multiple cultures is the basis of civilisation.

    “as long as you put tights and suspenders on…”

    You don’t need suspenders if you’re wearing tights.

    Although I guess not knowing that probably counts as a “proof of virginity” for men. Was that the idea?

  13. NiV,

    Pluralism is a great thing, but it does rather require that one may freely and openly reject as insane the beliefs of the other.

    Making people do obeisance to the trans insanity of the day* and crushing dissent, as is done, is basically the same thing as the bullshit we used to have to tolerate from religions.

    We dealt with that in 1848. In a truly liberal society, we wouldn’t have to deal with it again in 2018.

    *: You will note this is not the same thing as insisting, quite correctly, that we should tolerate such people and their personal views in a liberal society.

  14. You are conflating again (laws, culture and multi-culture at different points)! And work it out for yourself. Intelligent discussion is fine, but I can’t be bothered right now with a pointless “explain / shift tack & expand / explain” type process. Not enough hours.

  15. “Dr Lucas would have been in serious trouble if she had examined Sophia without her consent.”

    I suspect if it had been Dr Ahmed there would have been no problem with their request and no-one would have ever known about the whole affair…………..

  16. “You don’t need suspenders if you’re wearing tights.

    Although I guess not knowing that probably counts as a “proof of virginity” for men. Was that the idea?”

    Crotchless tights incorporating suspenders are a popular item of erotic apparel. But those are generally for biological girls & one doesn’t suppose your tastes stretch in that direction. So one can understand if not sympathise with your ignorance.

    ” About 80% of the population support TG rights”
    Heaven knows where you get statistics like that. I move in some very open minded circles & I wouldn’t think “support for TG rights” would get a fraction of that approval. We get a lot of trannie prossies & no-one but no-one sees them as anything else than blokes done up as girls. Despite most of them having undergone extensive surgical enhancement. As far as I’m aware, even they don’t regard themselves as anything else but what they are. Pretending to be real girls is likely to get them a punch in the mouth at the very least..There’s certainly no demands for “TG rights”, whatever they may be.

  17. “Pluralism is a great thing, but it does rather require that one may freely and openly reject as insane the beliefs of the other.”

    Agreed. That freedom goes both ways.

    “Making people do obeisance to the trans insanity of the day* and crushing dissent, as is done, is basically the same thing as the bullshit we used to have to tolerate from religions.”

    One example of the latter being the anti-trans insanity of the day, yes?

    I agree. But there is a difference between crushing dissent about social norms, and crushing enforcement of those social norms.

    Thus, the parents are entitled to dissent from modern UK norms regarding virginity tests, but they are not allowed to enforce their views on their daughter. Their attempt to do so will be crushed.

    Her parents will no doubt argue, as you do, that in doing so we’re still “crushing their dissent”, as their right to actually enforce their beliefs on others is an integral and essential part of their belief. They wish to practice their beliefs, too.

    It’s very difficult to explain to somebody who thinks it their right and duty to enforce social norms what the distinction is, and why they’re getting crushed when they think that they should be the ones doing the crushing.

    “We dealt with that in 1848. In a truly liberal society, we wouldn’t have to deal with it again in 2018.”

    Agreed. But we’re not and never have been a truly liberal society, are we?

  18. “Heaven knows where you get statistics like that.”

    That’s only because nobody ever follows my links!

    I’ve cited this one before:

    Overwhelmingly, the public reports themselves as not prejudiced against transgender people. Over 8 in 10 (82%) describe themselves as “not prejudiced at all”, while 15% say they are “a little prejudiced”, and just 2% say they are “very prejudiced” (Table 3).

    Or for a more comprehensive survey, consider tables III and V here.

  19. NiV, you are misinterpreting “not prejudiced at all”.

    Over 8 in 10 don’t give a shit.

    There fixed it for you.

    But there is a difference between crushing dissent about social norms, and crushing enforcement of those social norms

    Like the crushing enforcement that everyone must be supportive, nay celebrate, of TG rights else those that don’t are literally Hitler?

  20. “Over 8 in 10 don’t give a shit.”

    Quite so, and indifference is perfectly acceptable to me.

    But my point was that most people in our society are not opposed, but we tolerate those few – like you – who do. That’s multi-cultural.

    “Like the crushing enforcement that everyone must be supportive, nay celebrate, of TG rights else those that don’t are literally Hitler?”

    No. There’s a difference between the SJWs, who will get you sacked from your job for not vocally supporting TG rights, and people who get sacked from their job for threatening to beat up a TG for going to the ‘wrong’ toilet.

    I don’t support the former. I do support the latter. The distinction is very hard to explain to the latter, though.

  21. Hmmf. Messed that up a bit, typing too fast. I’ll try again.

    No. There’s a difference between the SJWs, who will get you sacked from your job for not vocally supporting TG rights, and [TG-rights supporters who will get people] sacked from their job for threatening to beat up a TG for going to the ‘wrong’ toilet.

    I don’t support the former. I do support the latter. The distinction is very hard to explain to [those sacked by] the latter, though.

  22. “..for threatening to beat up a TG for going to the ‘wrong’ toilet.”

    Seems perfectly libertarian behaviour, to me. Appealing to authority is stateist. I know if my thoroughly libertarian other half found a bloke with 5 o’clock shadow in a frock using the facilities alongside her, he’d receive a very short warning where to go. If he persisted he’d he’d be spitting his teeth out on the floor. You don’t mess with a capoeirista.

  23. “One example of the latter being the anti-trans insanity of the day, yes?”

    No.

    Trans insanity: Some blokes are really wimmin and some wimmin are really blokes. Really really.

    Trans are not entitled to demand the rest of the world holds, or pretends to hold, for fear of being metaphorically burned at the stake, that view.

    The quid pro quo is that non-believers get to say: I respect your right to hold said belief, even, yea verily, to believe it of yourself, but it’s still bollocks. Or, I suppose, in the case of the debollocked – bullshit.

    A liberal society accommodates all viewpoints. You don’t get to crush competing viewpoints. Maybe you get to crush unfair discrimination (already happened on the basis of gayness, colour, religion, etc), but not the freedom of others to hold and voice a contrary opinion.

  24. “Trans are not entitled to demand the rest of the world holds, or pretends to hold, for fear of being metaphorically burned at the stake, that view.”

    Agreed.

    The only reason society can intervene in anyone’s liberty is to prevent harm to others. Holding views – whether real or pretended – doesn’t cause harm. Neither does going to the toilet. Beating someone up for using the toilet – because you believe you have the right/duty to enforce your social norms – does.

    You are not entitled to demand that the rest of the world conforms to *your* beliefs, either.

  25. “But my point was that most people in our society are not opposed, but we tolerate those few – like you – who do. That’s multi-cultural.”

    I am happy to tolerate TGs and their pathetic delusions; but I am opposed to self-identification, chicks with dicks in ladies’ changing rooms and toilets and legal changes in line with TG ideology. My tolerance of their sub-culture ends when TGs expect to change my social world for their benefit.

  26. Theo–is pretty much right on this one.

    I also don’t care what oddballs do on their own time and resources but they don’t get in the Ladies and they don’t –and morally should not be trying to–get away with assisting Marxist subjectivist evil.

    Men do NOT become woman by declaring that they have.

  27. “You are not entitled to demand that the rest of the world conforms to *your* beliefs, either.”

    Yes, I am – when I am part of the majority who offer tolerance and indifference to minorities, but who – very reasonably – aren’t prepared to change their culture to appease said minorities. ‘Multi-cultural society’ (racial, sexual, etc) is a contradiction in terms: without a dominant culture, there is no society. Your ‘anything goes’ libertarianism is a recipe for decadence and deliquesence.

  28. “Overwhelmingly, the public reports themselves as not prejudiced against transgender people. Over 8 in 10 (82%) describe themselves as “not prejudiced at all”, while 15% say they are “a little prejudiced”, and just 2% say they are “very prejudiced”

    This is a well rehearsed tactic by progressives. Quote some spurious survey & interpret it to mean something entirely different

    ” About 80% of the population support TG rights”

    They didn’t say that at all, did they. Ask someone are they “prejudiced” about something they’d have to feel very strongly about it to accept the stigma of admitting prejudice. Prejudice is one of those danger words progressives trot out every time someone disagrees with them.
    Actually, prejudice is a very useful tool for dealing with the world. Most of us use it constantly. Work on the basis of what you think you know until you have better information. Keeping an “open mind” about things is another way of saying you’ve no strategy for the situation.

    But progressives like to push a few mental buttons. Make out you’re in the minority about something & a bigot for not going along with the majority. That way they can turn an opinion shared by a few into a “popular” opinion. Few people individually agree with it but no-one wants to stand out as the one bucking the consensus.

    Sorry NiV. It doesn’t work at Tim’s place. Since you’ve been posting here on your geezers-in-frocks, how many have you converted to your point of view? They’re free thinkers, not sheep. Well, apart from that Newmania cvnt.

  29. NiV,

    ““Heaven knows where you get statistics like that.”

    That’s only because nobody ever follows my links!

    I’ve cited this one before:

    Overwhelmingly, the public reports themselves as not prejudiced against transgender people. Over 8 in 10 (82%) describe themselves as “not prejudiced at all”, while 15% say they are “a little prejudiced”, and just 2% say they are “very prejudiced” (Table 3).”

    That’s because we Brits are, to a first order approximation, extremely tolerant and really do want other people to be allowed to get on with their lives.

    I would answer in the same way except if asked 2 direct questions:

    1. Yes I agree with Jordan Peterson (pbuh) that government has no right to compel speech and I will not be told how I will address anyone, its up to them to earn the right. In private company if someone asks me politely to address them in any way, sir, miss, they, it, then I will respect them. In my own case I prefer to be addressed as Simon rather than Sir, but don’t freak out when it doesn’t happen.

    2. Yes, I think it was criminal negligence to put a known sex offender in the same prison as women because they claim to be a woman. Women, more than men, are more likely to be vulnerable and when in prison even more likely so. The State has few legitimate tasks, but protecting the vulnerable is one of them. Yes, TGs are also vulnerable, but it does none of them any favours when the State fucks up the way the did.

    As I’ve pointed out before, Deirdre McCloskey seems to be well respected, maybe its because she doesn’t expect special treatment?

    Beyond my two statements I’m sympathetic with their cause, but then I also sympathised with some cake makers: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/feb/01/gay-cake-row-i-changed-my-mind-ashers-bakery-freedom-of-conscience-religion

  30. “I am happy to tolerate TGs and their pathetic delusions; but I am opposed to self-identification, chicks with dicks in ladies’ changing rooms and toilets and legal changes in line with TG ideology.”

    Those are all activities that do nobody else any harm, and therefore are things that society is not supposed to interfere with.

    If “opposed” means “verbally opposed”, then fine.

    “My tolerance of their sub-culture ends when TGs expect to change my social world for their benefit.”

    And *that*, I’m sure, is exactly what the father of this girl who took her to the doctor for a virginity test would say!

    Sure, he’ll tolerate English parents not caring about their daughter’s virginity – but his tolerance ends once you start dictating to him how *he* acts with his own daughter! He’s not going to change his culture for *your* benefit!

    “Yes, I am – when I am part of the majority who offer tolerance and indifference to minorities, but who – very reasonably – aren’t prepared to change their culture to appease said minorities.”

    As above – this is what the virginity-testers and other assorted crazy beards would say in their own countries. And you don’t change your mind when it turns out you’re in a minority.

    “‘Multi-cultural society’ (racial, sexual, etc) is a contradiction in terms: without a dominant culture, there is no society. Your ‘anything goes’ libertarianism is a recipe for decadence and deliquesence.”

    The authoritarian’s creed: people must do as we say, or the social order will be destroyed. There have to be *rules*, or society collapses into anarchy! And of course, they have to be *our* rules! But this sort of thing is only said by people who are part of the dominant culture, or who think they are.

    But as soon as the ‘dominant culture’ starts telling them they’ve got to do things they don’t agree with – like opposing racism and sexism and transphobia and so on – then all of a sudden they see the benefits of society allowing freedom to dissent. Selectively, of course!

    Now, I don’t *agree* with them saying you can’t even verbally dissent, but definitely they’re the ‘dominant culture’ in this. It’s the people caught being sexist who get fired, not the SJWs who call for them to be fired. Looks pretty ‘dominant’ to me!

    Do there “have to be rules” if they’re SJW rules?

    “They didn’t say that at all, did they. Ask someone are they “prejudiced” about something they’d have to feel very strongly about it to accept the stigma of admitting prejudice.”

    Really? There’s a ‘stigma’ attached to being transphobic? Gosh!

    “Keeping an “open mind” about things is another way of saying you’ve no strategy for the situation.”

    Hah! That’s a funny one! Can’t you just imagine an SJW saying the same thing?

    “Few people individually agree with it but no-one wants to stand out as the one bucking the consensus.”

    That’s a very definite assertion, for which you present absolutely *no* evidence. Zero. De nada. Bupkiss.

    Which is also a common tactic of progressives when they’re trying to support a point they know is wrong. Assert it anyway, and keep on asserting it and asserting it and asserting it, until everyone else gives up out of exhaustion. (aka the ‘Big Lie’ technique.)

    “The evidence has to be wrong – just look at my feeeelings!”

    Well no, it’s not wrong. The majority of people in the UK support transgender rights.

    Figures for “support for gender change” for the UK
    Strongly agree 47.8%, somewhat agree 29.2%, don’t know 13.3%, somewhat disagree 5.7%, strongly disagree 4.0%.

    Figures for “support for discrimination protection” for the UK
    Strongly agree 50.0%, somewhat agree 28.1%, don’t know 12.8%, somewhat disagree 5.4%, strongly disagree 3.6%.

    Figures for “support for restroom access” for the UK
    Strongly agree 35.5%, somewhat agree 26.8%, don’t know 19.0%, somewhat disagree 9.7%, strongly disagree 9.1%.

    Figures for “belief that transgender people are mentally ill” for the UK
    Strongly agree 4.0%, somewhat agree 9.3%, don’t know 15.2%, somewhat disagree 16.7%, strongly disagree 54.8%.

    On a broad range of subjects, around 60-80% in the UK are in favour of transgender rights, about 10-20% against. 20% is a not inconsiderable minority, but it’s still a minority.

    But that doesn’t accord with what you *want* reality to be does it? So damn the evidence, it must be wrong!

    Not that it matters if you are – the right of society to interfere is not based on whether the view is a majority, but on whether the behaviour being prevented does others harm.

    “Sorry NiV. It doesn’t work at Tim’s place.”

    Don’t blame Tim for his “peanut gallery”! Tim, I’m sure, would not support ignoring the evidence.

    “Since you’ve been posting here on your geezers-in-frocks, how many have you converted to your point of view? They’re free thinkers, not sheep.”

    Ha! Ha! Ha! What was it you just said?

    “Keeping an “open mind” about things is another way of saying you’ve no strategy for the situation.”

    Ho! Ho!

    “That’s because we Brits are, to a first order approximation, extremely tolerant and really do want other people to be allowed to get on with their lives.”

    I agree!

    “I would answer in the same way except if asked 2 direct questions:”

    I agree with you on both.

    And I sympathise with the cake makers, too. The guy taking them to court was being an arse, and not helping the cause of LGBT tolerance in the least! (In fact, it’s one of the biggest pieces of ammunition that the anti-LGBTers could have been handed.) Declining to make a cake does nobody else any harm, and so should not be the subject of interference by society. But it’s a lot harder to make that case if the principle is not applied even-handedly.

  31. “Those are all activities that do nobody else any harm…”

    Self-identification, chicks with dicks in ladies’ changing rooms/toilets, and legal changes in line with TG ideology are all harmful. The anxiety of a teenager when she sees a chick with a dick in the ladies’changing room is harmful.

    “Sure, he’ll tolerate English parents not caring about their daughter’s virginity – but his tolerance ends once you start dictating to him how *he* acts with his own daughter! He’s not going to change his culture for *your* benefit!”

    When in Rome, do as the Romans do. He’s in our culture, so he should abide by our rules, norms and laws – just as I do when I visit or live in a different country and culture.

    “There have to be *rules*, or society collapses into anarchy! And of course, they have to be *our* rules!”

    Without some rules, some norms, some stereotypes and some laws, there is no society. Our culture is the way we do things here. We’ll tolerate deviants and deviations, and regard them with indifference, but we aren’t going to make changes to accommodate the whims of every allegedly oppressed minority. Life however you wish in the interstices of our society; but if you want radical change go elsewhere.

    “But as soon as the ‘dominant culture’ starts telling them they’ve got to do things they don’t agree with – like opposing racism and sexism and transphobia and so on – then all of a sudden they see the benefits of society allowing freedom to dissent. Selectively, of course!”

    Opposing racism and sexism and transphobia aren’t part of the dominant culture. They are the obsessions of a metropolitan minority who have been educated beyond the level of their intelligence and thus have succumbed to the Great Liberal Death Wish.

  32. “Keeping an “open mind” about things is another way of saying you’ve no strategy for the situation.”

    Hah! That’s a funny one! Can’t you just imagine an SJW saying the same thing

    But you didn’t attempt to refute the proposition that prejudice is a useful working tool for dealing with the world. Because you can’t. We all use it.
    Thus:
    Avoid snakes!
    That’s prejudice against snakes. The majority of snakes are not venomous & present no hazard. However, the ones that are tend to be terminal. Therefore useful tool for dealing with snakes.
    People use prejudice every day to deal with the world because we can’t know for certain about anything. It’s purely the word has become a no-no.

    And talking about words.Made up words. Transphobia. Seriously? An unreasoned fear of men-in-frocks. Fear? Distaste would be more general. Unless, of course, you’re a woman forced to share toilet facilities with them. In which case, real fear. Understandably. Why would a man want to use the women’s toilets? Sorry. His choice of apparel really doesn’t cut it. He genuinely believes he’s a woman in a man’s body? Who wants to be sharing the toilets with a nutter?

  33. “The anxiety of a teenager when she sees a chick with a dick in the ladies’changing room is harmful.”

    Ah! Good one! We’re into microaggressions, safe spaces, and ‘offence’ here. This is precisely the excuse snowflakes use to ban racist, sexist, and right-wing opinions from their hearing. If they hear a right-wing view it causes them anxiety, they fear the right-winger might escalate from merely expressing their view to an outright aggressive verbal or physical attack if they should be challenged on it. The stress of this conflict situation might result in their needing therapy with colouring books and soothing whale music!

    No, it’s a crap and frankly unbelievable excuse. She doesn’t express anxiety getting into an elevator with a man, or a taxi with a man, or sitting on a bus or in a railway carriage with a man. Virtually all men are entirely harmless, mix safely with women, and are far more likely to make efforts to be nice to her because she’s a women than they are to do anything to merit ‘anxiety’. If people are paranoid, and imagine that other people going about everyday activities are plotting against them, planning to attack them and subject them to unspeakable depravity, and this is causing them ‘anxiety’, well, I feel sympathy at their illness, but that’s your own head doing that to you, not the other person.

    If you want to count causing ‘anxiety’ as harmful and subject to ban, then I’ll simply point out the unbearable anxiety felt by a transgender person going out, caused by fear of people with that sort of attitude. Do you really want to argue that somebody’s ‘anxiety’ is sufficient to ban its cause? Indeed, I can simply declare *anything* to be something that makes me ‘anxious’, and have it banned! That way, madness lies…

    No, what you mean is that anyone making *you* anxious should be banned, but you making anyone else anxious shouldn’t be. The usual authoritarian double standard.

    “When in Rome, do as the Romans do. He’s in our culture, so he should abide by our rules, norms and laws – just as I do when I visit or live in a different country and culture.”

    These *are* our rules! TGs have been allowed in toilets since the Sex Equality Act 2010! *You* are the one who is objecting to *our* society’s rules, approved by the majority of the UK public!

    “Without some rules, some norms, some stereotypes and some laws, there is no society.”

    That’s what *everyone* says when they’re making up rules for other people to abide by. They *stop* saying it as soon as they discover their ideological enemies are setting the rules. The SJWs make the rules. They set the norms. They require you to conform to their stereotypes. They make laws. If people started disobeying them, SJWs will tell you, society would degenerate back into racist, sexist conflict and oppression again.

    They’re wrong and it’s bad, but it’s bad for exactly the same reasons that the previous set of rules were bad. Society may need rules, but that doesn’t mean it needs *these* rules. That’s what the Harm Principle is about.

    “Opposing racism and sexism and transphobia aren’t part of the dominant culture.”

    They are now!

    Culture changes. Victorian morals were very different to 1930s morals, which were very different to 1960s morals, which were very different to 1990s morals. The ‘dominant culture’ in each era lost power to a new ‘dominant culture’, with different rules and requirements. It’s changing again, and “Opposing racism and sexism and transphobia” are a part of it. Just as opposing uppity blacks and uppity women and homosexuals was part of the 1930s ‘dominant culture’.

    “Live however you wish in the interstices of our society”

    Sure. “You get to be racist/sexist/homophobic in the interstices of our society, but don’t you dare come out into the open where other people can see you!” Is that the rule you want?

    “But you didn’t attempt to refute the proposition that prejudice is a useful working tool for dealing with the world.”

    I didn’t think I needed to. It’s denigrated in our society for good reason, and the reasons are well known.

    I’ve talked about the authoritarian ‘Group A Group B trick’ at length on many previous occasions. Do you want me to do so again?

    “Why would a man want to use the women’s toilets?”

    To piss, usually. Sometimes to take a dump. Occasionally to adjust clothing or make-up. Quite often to talk about something privately away from the rest of the group, or to avoid someone. The usual reasons.

  34. You are ranting, NiV. You have clearly never raised a daughter. A flasher reduced my 12yo to tears.

    Opening the spaces reserved for girls and women to chicks with dicks will cause severe anxiety. Any M2F trannie who can’t see that and compares the anxiety to micro-aggressions certainly hasn’t got a female brain!!! These people claim to be women but can’t understand how women think and feel!

    “TGs have been allowed in toilets since the Sex Equality Act 2010! *You* are the one who is objecting to *our* society’s rules, approved by the majority of the UK public!”

    Dickless TGs can use female-only facilities. I have no problem with that. However, a majority of the public doesn’t want chicks with dicks in said facilities.

    Meanwhile, please do explain how a ‘society’ could function without some rules, some norms, some stereotypes and some laws….

  35. “A flasher reduced my 12yo to tears.”

    Group A = Anyone with male genitals.
    Group B = Flashers.

    You want to justify persecution of (generally) innocent Group A, but can’t because society would regard you as an evil authoritarian loony. (Which you are.) So what you do is find a different Group B that overlaps with Group A, a group who are justly reviled and already illegal. You then conflate the two categories and try to imply that your legal persecution of Group A is only aimed at outlawing Group B, even though Group B was already outlawed. You think nobody will notice.

    Nobody is that stupid.

    “Any M2F trannie who can’t see that and compares the anxiety to micro-aggressions certainly hasn’t got a female brain!!!”

    Snowflakes claim that microaggressions cause them anxiety, and should therefore be banned from their presence. It’s one hundred percent the exact same argument.

    It’s the same fucking argument authoritarians always fall back on when they run out of real harms to use as an excuse for their rules. “It upsets me.” “It offends me.” “It gives me anxiety.” “Boo hoo. You made me cry with your words, your presence, your appearance.” The day that “hurt feelings” counts as ‘harm’ is the day liberty dies.

    “These people claim to be women but can’t understand how women think and feel!”

    Don’t be daft! *Everyone* knows the feeling!

    I’ve often had people sit next to me on buses and trains who made me acutely nervous. Or park benches, or in bars, or – yes indeed – in the gents toilet! Men with shaven heads and swastika/spiderweb tattoos on their face. With broken noses and scars where they’d been knifed of glassed. People clearly used to fighting, and with belligerent attitudes, looking for trouble, in gangs. Everyone – unless they’re suicidally naive (or possibly Chuck Norris) – has met people whose presence makes them anxious.

    Can I get anyone I don’t like the look of banned from all public spaces, please? If not, why not?

    And yes – TGs know *exactly* how girls feel having to go to the toilet alongside men. Because that’s *exactly* what you’re demanding they do! Ohhhh, but their anxiety doesn’t count, does it? Authoritarian double-standards! Your anxiety counts but anyone else’s anxiety doesn’t.

    “However, a majority of the public doesn’t want chicks with dicks in said facilities.”

    I strongly suspect you’re lying, and just made that up. Show me your evidence!

    “Meanwhile, please do explain how a ‘society’ could function without some rules, some norms, some stereotypes and some laws….”

    I think I may have mentioned the Harm Principle before…? Go read about it, and try to understand what it means.

  36. You are sounding desperate NiV…

    “TGs know *exactly* how girls feel having to go to the toilet alongside men. Because that’s *exactly* what you’re demanding they do!”

    So TGs are snowflakes by your standards? Why are they worrying about going to the toilet alongside men if girls shouldn’t worry about going to the loo alongside chicks with dicks?

    And, btw, if you were familiar with the literature on the harm principle, you would know that its main defect is that what constitutes harm is partly subjective. This point was made repeatedly during the contested claims of harm from Concorde’s sonic booms. In short, the harm principle isn’t a wholly objective test – though I grant it isn’t self-refutingly relativistic like your other raft of arguments.

  37. “You are sounding desperate NiV…”

    Keep telling yourself that.

    “So TGs are snowflakes by your standards?”

    [Rolls eyes] I give an example specifically illustrating the inconsistencies in *your* standard, and you assume that I’m somehow representing *my* standard?

    No. What constitutes ‘snowflake’ behaviour is not simply being anxious about other people, but making demands of them that go beyond simple harm prevention to alleviate that anxiety. I’ve got no objection to women being anxious. I’ve got no objection to women taking precautions – through their own free choices – to alleviate those anxieties. If I see a bunch of rowdy tattooed skinheads in a railway carriage, I’ll go find another carriage to sit in, or stand in the corridor. I won’t demand that the guard throws them off the train so I can sit down in peace of mind.

    It’s a basic principle of justice – people should only face penalties for crimes they’ve actually done or attempted. Not for crimes that they might potentially do, or have the capability to do, or that some people think they might do based on their appearance.

    “And, btw, if you were familiar with the literature on the harm principle, you would know that its main defect is that what constitutes harm is partly subjective.”

    It’s not a defect, it’s a feature. It’s precisely because people differ on the value of things that we have to give each the maximum liberty to make their own decisions.

    It’s like the difference between a free market and a regulated one. In both, everyone differs on the value of things (i.e. value is subjective), so in allocating resources to needs it’s impossible for any central authority to calculate how to do so to maximise utility. A free market gives everyone the maximum freedom to trade, and each trade for mutual benefit moves the whole a little closer to the optimum. A regulated market is no less subjective, but imposes the subjective values, choices, and decisions of a subset on the rest of the population. That is to your advantage if the values and choices being regulated align with your own, to your disadvantage if they don’t. Advocates for regulation always assume they’re going to be the ones in charge.

    Subjectivity is not a defect specific to the Harm Principle. But it is true that “harm” is imprecisely defined, and as always in reality there are fuzzy boundaries and difficult edge cases.

    However, this isn’t one of them. We have plenty of analogous situations to generalise from that make it clear that this isn’t harm. Going to the toilet in a neigbouring cubicle does not constitute harm. Being anxious about what somebody else might do, when they’ve given no indication they’re going to do it, is not harm. We’ve got plenty of examples of men and women sharing toilet facilities without problems. We’ve got plenty of other examples of people feeling anxiety. We’ve got plenty of other historic examples of race or sex segregation ending without the crime waves the hysterics predicted. And in this particular case, we’ve had the policy in operation for at least eight years here and it’s been so quiet that a lot of people weren’t even aware that it was already happening!

    It’s a non-issue. Most people don’t mind. Most people don’t care. It observably causes no serious social problems. It’s only you guys who are clutching your pearls over it.

  38. As usual, NiV, when cornered you equivocate shamelesly…

    So you can’t see that Chicks with Dicks (CWD) claiming that they can’t use a toilet cubicle in the gents is snowflake behaviour? What possible ‘harm’ could befall them? Anxiety? Fear of violence? But you’ve stated that those are insufficient grounds for claiming ‘harm’. Logically, you contradict yourself.

    So why do CWDs need to use the ladies facilities at all? They are NOT women. And real women generally perceive men as sexually predatory, so their anxiety about CWDs is generally justified. And in open changing rooms in shops or swimming pools where there may be naked small children, CWDs are a significant concern and will make many women and mothers extremely anxious.

    “Being anxious about what somebody else might do, when they’ve given no indication they’re going to do it, is not harm.”

    That’s too general to be meaningful here. A CWD with a bristly man-jaw teetering down the street in high heels ‘harms’ no-one, except himself. But in semi-enclosed situations – such as changing rooms, women’s refuges and women’s toilets – where women and young girls are vulnerable and have no easy method of escape, CWDs are threatening and potentially harmful. Why? Because male sexuality has a different vector to female sexuality. In short, it is predatory. Analogies with public transport or parks fail, because those are places where a threatened female can call on public assistance – and, also, shame inhibits a potential offender.

    CWD’s claims to be women are fatally undermined by their demands to be allowed access to women-only facilities. If they have ‘female brains’, why do they not think and feel like women? Because if they did, they would see why women oppose the presence of CWDs in women-only facilities. QED?

    Btw, I’m still waiting for your explanation of how a ‘society’ could function without some rules, some norms, some stereotypes and some laws….After all, this is a crucial part of your position….And BiG has demolished the ’empirical studies’ you quoted….

    *snigger*

  39. “But you’ve stated that those are insufficient grounds for claiming ‘harm’. Logically, you contradict yourself.”

    No I don’t, since I didn’t claim it was harm. I just pointed out that by *your* stated standard it was, and that by ignoring their anxiety you was violating your own standard.

    “So why do CWDs need to use the ladies facilities at all?”

    To use the toilet. Same as all the other women.

    “They are NOT women.”

    Wrong!

    “And real women generally perceive men as sexually predatory, so their anxiety about CWDs is generally justified.”

    ‘Perception’ isn’t a justification.

    This is a feminist SJW argument that can be used against all men to introduce all sorts of restrictions.

    Anxiety about TGs is generally not justified.

    It’s not true anyway – women don’t regard all men as sexually predatory (some men, yes, but not most), and are actually less bothered by TGs in the toilets than the men are.

    You’re making shit up and projecting your opinions on women to bolster your defective argument. They might well have reason to be scared of you, and not want to be left alone with you, but most men (let alone TGs) aren’t like that. Don’t generalise from yourself.

    “And in open changing rooms in shops or swimming pools where there may be naked small children, CWDs are a significant concern and will make many women and mothers extremely anxious.”

    Why? Do they subscribe to the “All men are paedophiles” meme?

    Any father with a daughter (which is most of them) will have changed nappies. It’s nothing they haven’t seen before. Why would they care, why would other parents assume, and are you projecting again?

    “But in semi-enclosed situations – such as changing rooms, women’s refuges and women’s toilets – where women and young girls are vulnerable and have no easy method of escape, CWDs are threatening and potentially harmful.”

    ‘Semi-enclosed situations’?! You mean “rooms”. Men should not be allowed in “rooms” with women – that’s what you’re saying.

    This is nonsense. Toilets and changing rooms are no different from any other room. They have doors.

    They’re a lot easier to get out of than moving elevators, cars, and railway carriages – none of which require segregation.

    And again, it implies a crippling paranoia about men that I don’t think many women subscribe to, nor is it justified. Nor would it be useful against actual rapists – any semi-intelligent human can come up with far easier and more effective methods that attacking people in toilets. And even if they were a good place for an attack (which they’re not), there’s nothing stopping a man walking in anyway. The doors are not locked.

    “Because male sexuality has a different vector to female sexuality. In short, it is predatory.”

    Crap. You’re projecting again. Most men are not predatory – a minority with defective personalities are. Narcissists, sociopaths, overcompensating inadequates, inexperienced adolescents trying to out-do one another in ‘macho’ culture to cover up their own feelings of inferiority and fears of social exclusion. The sort of men that women describe as “creepy”.

    Most adult men are gentlemen, and perfectly civilised about it, and women like them.

    “CWD’s claims to be women are fatally undermined by their demands to be allowed access to women-only facilities. If they have ‘female brains’, why do they not think and feel like women?”

    They do. They think the same, so they want to do the same and be treated the same.

    They’re well aware that there are bigoted idiots who get all paranoid about anyone breaking social norms, but that’s not “female” thinking – only bigoted.

    “Because if they did, they would see why women oppose the presence of CWDs in women-only facilities.”

    Most women don’t oppose it. Repeating the lie doesn’t make it true.

    As I said above, you need to provide some evidence for your claim. I take it from the fact you haven’t that this is because you don’t have any, and you know it. You just make convenient ‘facts’ up to paste over the holes in your argument.

    “Btw, I’m still waiting for your explanation of how a ‘society’ could function without some rules, some norms, some stereotypes and some laws”

    I already answered this – the Harm Principle is not the same as “no rules”.

    “And BiG has demolished the ’empirical studies’ you quoted….”

    He pointed out that the control groups were from geographically disparate populations, which *might* be a problem, or might not. It depends on where the patients came from, how the alleles are distributed, and whether the researchers checked – they didn’t say. It’s a fair point that the studies are not as solidly supported as I’d thought, and I’ve not cited them since, but they’re not disproved either. He then made a far more interesting and surprising claim that autosomal sex-limited genes couldn’t possibly have different population frequencies between the sexes, but was unable to explain why. When I asked, he waffled, throwing some bullshit about the Hardy-Weinberg equlibrium at me (which I already understand and know has nothing to do with it), and I concluded that he didn’t know, but there was no point in pursuing it any further.

    I was quite pleased about it, actually. At last, *someone* had made a serious attempt to argue rationally with me, and had managed to score a hit on *one* element out of the dozens of arguments I’ve presented! Well done!

    You just need to do that a few dozen times more. You can start by presenting your evidence for your claim that “However, a majority of the public doesn’t want chicks with dicks in said facilities.” Because according to all the surveys I’ve seen, oh yes they do!

Leave a Reply

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.