Um, he was referring to a poster in this thread who ranted in the thread on things he knew nothing about (even more than uke did).

I didn't say anything about trans. Rape is rape. I have neither more or less sympathy for trans rapists than non-trans rapists.

If you choose to rape someone, don't expect any sympathy if you got to jail, end up being ostracised by society, or play the victim card when the person you are raping fights back.

Don't forget to respect people's pronouns.

You'd think so, but for many in the trans movement 1) is unacceptable.


https://verdict.justia.com/2015/06/1...ential-partner

There's a lot of other discussion that's easily found.

You missed it. I give about a 0% chance the inept "what is a woman" Matt Walsh copycat routine is going to lead to any type of "good faith" conversation, but I did indeed give such a response.

Lol. This is the trans thread. The discussion had a specific origin with rickroll victim blaming trans murder victims as putatively being rapists. You don't get to just pretend you are making some neutral anti-rape comment nothing to do with trans people.

This is just one more in a loooooooooooooong list of attempts by the usual folks ITT to center the conversation around the bad bad trans people doing bad bad things and getting bad bad consequences.

I looked back many pages but couldn't find your response. Not doubting you gave one, as I remember you did, but I what I remember was basically "a woman is someone who wants to be treated as society treats biological females".

While that may have been in good faith, it's still really the same as "a woman is anyone who says they're a woman" which is circular and doesn't really define anything. No definition should be objective, not depending on what a single person says.

I don't believe women (or men) should have any special privileges at all, and in my ideal world every single thing would be unisex so the definition wouldn't matter. But if you're going to decide to give special status and benefits to certain people, it makes no sense to base those things on whatever a status a person claims to have.

I have no idea who Matt Walsh is and haven't heard anything about him, but if you're going to say "only women can do X", you certainly need a better way to determine who is a woman than just asking everyone, or the rule is completely meaningless. I honestly can't understand how anyone would think differently.

You know, I don't generally support vigilante justice, but when it happens to someone who actually deserves it I don't feel particularly bad for the one it is used on.

When a man tries to rape a woman, and the woman fights back and kills the man, do you feel bad for the man? What punishment do you think should be legally imposed by a court on that woman who murdered the man?

I really don't think it is worth going back to, but this is the post I'm talking about. You give off zero Matt Walsh vibes, but basically the guy is a far right anti-trans agitator who made a "documentary" called "what is a woman" full of, well, uh, just read hole in wan's posts on the topic the whole thing was exactly that.

Regardless, I don't really agree with most of this post here. Lots of things like "love" in human behaviour are complex and don't have "objective" ways to independently confirm it. But so what? I'd also be ok with things like unisex bathrooms, but in the meantime I don't need some objective independent measure to figure out precisely who is and who is not a woman to assert that people who believe they are women should be allowed to use the women's bathroom.

Ok. My suggestion was that we stop centering the conversation around murdered trans victims not being victims because they are bad bad rapists. Like sure, if you pull that thread long enough you can imagine some hypothetical where an evil rapist is killed in self defense and there isn't a murder charge, but why is this conversation leading to these kinds of hypotheticals? You've jumped in late, but the usual "bad trans person of the day" narrative that we see up and down this thread is particularly acute right now.

I'm curious about what the directions are.

Can’t spoil it!

Though chilrob did one already when he was still guessing my answer: THATS CIRCULAR!!!!!!!

Yeah, that post doesn't give a definition at all, it just says that humans have sexual dismorphism and you're ok with someone choosing to switch sides. It should be clear why many people are not ok with switching sides when different rules and benefits are applied to one side.

"Love" isn't easy to define objectively, but "woman" isn't a behavior or feeling. And because love can't be objectively determined, there are no laws or rules based on it. Typically people who get married claim to be in love, but no marriage laws say they must be. Tables in fancy restaurants aren't reserved for people who are in love.

Of course you would. You're a man.

They're starting to be pretty common in businesses in Portland and Seattle. It feels a bit funny when you're using a urinal and a woman comes in, but it doesn't seem to bother them.

I mentioned looking for a good account of "non-binary." I think I found one.

https://aeon.co/essays/nonbinary-ide...er-segregation

A lot if the trans movement is based on continental writers who are kind of silly. This is a good, Anglo philosopher.

I have some sympathy for the position that many social norms are capricious and needlessly confining. I was a punk/metal kid and remain a big weirdo.

I don't buy that these weirdos are special, that being one makes well off people oppressed, that we should pay tons of attention to this or alter the English language etc.

I think it's good, however, for people to explain where they are coming from so we can understand each other and treat each other better. I just don't see any argument as to why "non binary" deserves vastly more consideration than the spectrum, nudists. Vegans, or others who are intentionally or unintentionally non conforming.

Anyway, this is a good article arguing otherwise.

OK, so you do support vigilante justice, you're just too cowardly to say so.

That's silly.

I oppose the death penalty but I don't really feel bad for someone like Ted Bundy.

I don't want drunk drivers to be injured, but don't feel too bad for them if they solo crash.

Could go on forever.

the only thing trolly ever put any thought into was his username

I've seen communal bathrooms before in small offices but never one that had a urinal

friend in Seattle owns an office building, each office has its own bathroom, it's mostly small offices with single occupancy bathrooms but two floors are just one unit and have a large female bathroom on one side and a large male bathroom on the other

one of those tenants exclaimed that they wanted to convert them both to coed because some of the people wouldn't need to walk as far - he said sure, he doesn't care who uses what bathroom

tenant said great and then asked which weekend he would start construction so they would make sure nobody came in to work on those weekends, my friend was confused and asked what construction would be required and they wanted him to take out all the urinals and upgrade all the stalls to 100% enclosed

he refused, said it would cost too much to do that and would make it harder to rent because the next tenant would probably want urinals in the men's room

offered a compromise where they signed a 10 year extension (they were on year 2-3 of a 5 year lease) and paid a deposit equal to 75% of the cost of the renovations that they would only get back at the end of the 10 year extension so he had his bases covered if they left early

they refused and just covered up the urinals instead, the idea of a coed bathroom with urinals in use was just a non starter

So if you're a guy, you pee in the sink?

No, I have come out very much against some vigilante activity, including saying that both Kyle Rittenhouse and his parents should be in prison.

The unisex restrooms with urinals were not designed that way. A lot of music venues in the area have just changed the signs on the doors of the previously single sex facilities.

In at least some of the places there is now a picture showing what is inside.
The former men's room will have a picture of a toilet and a urinal and the former women's room a picture of two toilets. I assume this is mostly so women can avoid the room with urinals if they want to do so, but some don't care. I only ever went into a former women's room by mistake, but since I was already in there I went ahead and used a stall.

The one I regularly see purposefully unisex has no urinals and about 5 stalls, whose doors go both higher and lower than the typical ones which could be peeked under or over. Then the washing facilities are all in the outer chamber which has no door at all to the hallway. This should work to suppress anything inappropriate that might be attempted in a unisex washroom that was more hidden by a door. I think this is the kind of setup that should be the standard for all public restrooms in the future. They could make waiting times a bit longer for men, but personally I wouldn't miss urinals.

Just a slight urinal upgrade needed, to this one.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fema...esign%20awards