Now the Left is angry at J.K. Rowling

amother

Coffee

Tue, Jun 16 2020, 11:50 am

amother [ Babypink ] wrote:

Let me put it in plain language. I dont want my little girl sharing a bathroom with individuals with man parts. Period.

Just because its in vogue to "identify" with a different gender doesnt mean you turn the whole system upside down to satisfy them. Make a separate bathroom for them. Many rest areas have them.

I don't want my little girls sharing a bathroom, changing room, or shower room with anyone who has man parts and isn't a first-degree relative (even brothers need to be little). Period.

I want to feel safe in women's changing rooms and shower rooms, knowing that those with male genitals will not enter the room. And that we can safely call security on anyone who violates that rule.

I don't want ANY teenage girl to have to compete with biological males for track and field scholarships, knowing that she stands no chance against them.

I don't want ANY abused girl or woman to have to feel unsafe in a women's shelter because there is someone with man parts who she's not related to, also staying there.

I don't believe that ANY female criminal deserves to be incarcerated together with people with man parts. There are men's facilities and women's facilities for a reason.

In any of the above cases, if those who claim transgenderism feel left out, they can lobby for their own:
- bathrooms
- shower rooms
- changing rooms
- scholarships (they already have those)
- shelters
- prison facilities.

JUST LIKE WE LOBBIED FOR THEM. And it took us DECADES to obtain these things. There's no reason we should have to give them up nearly completely for a group that insists on lobbying to take over OUR spaces instead of lobbying for the creation of their OWN spaces.

ora_43

Tue, Jun 16 2020, 11:54 am

imorethanamother wrote:

As I stated earlier, when Helen Thomas told Jews to go back to Poland, she was fired a few days later. I didn't see anyone sticking up for her free speech then.

Free speech is exactly that, and unfortunately, we too have classified a lot of speech as not being allowed, or being punished by some pretty harsh consequences.

I don't think this has to be either/or.

To use two extreme examples:
Someone who openly supports Nazi views shouldn't work as a nurse, a position where they'd have the power of life and death over minorities they openly hate.

A celebrity whose father was a cop who was killed in the line of duty shouldn't have their show cancelled because they didn't retweet "defund the police."

And then there's a whole big grey area in between.

By nature, sometimes some of us will think that Person A has just said something unforgiveable and should lose her job for it, while Person B is a victim of PC hysteria and if she's fired it will be a sign that we're on a slippery slope to far-left authoritarianism - and others will think the exact opposite.

That doesn't mean we should give up on either 1. not giving people who are openly racist power over potential victims OR 2. a society where we actually debate ideas, rather than use them as sticks to hit each other with.

Those are both important enough to fight for.

amother

Babypink

Tue, Jun 16 2020, 12:10 pm

amother [ Coffee ] wrote:

Thank you for being so eloquent. It is time to take back our country. No more should be have to be afaid to speak out for our safety because it offends a few. Enought of this craziness!

ora_43

Tue, Jun 16 2020, 12:13 pm

I'm not sure there are any hard and fast rules for when someone should/should't be fired for their views, but I think that there are two major criteria:

1. Is the person openly calling for harm to a certain group of people?

2. Does their job give them power over those people?

Lara Kollab is an example of double "yes"es. She openly hated Jews, she joked about giving Jews the wrong medicine, she was actually in a position to give Jews the wrong medicine. Firing definitely justified.

Helen Thomas was borderline. She was saying Jewish Israelis don't belong in Israel, but was she supporting people who want to violently expel Jews from Israel? Unclear. Re: #2, journalists can do significant harm with malicious reporting, but it's largely indirect harm, not direct harm.

JK Rowling is a definite 'no' to both. She's not calling to hurt trans people. She has a certain power as a celebrity, but publishing another book at this point will have an incredibly indirect effect, if any.

Come to think of it, I'd also add

3. Is the person talking about their own identity?

Because part of what makes this so absurd is that Rowling, a woman, is being slammed for her definition of womanhood.

amother

Coffee

Tue, Jun 16 2020, 1:50 pm

chanatron1000 wrote:

Why is the restroom debate always about the women's restroom?

You're right, let's talk about the men's restroom.

Men don't want to share their restrooms with anyone who has female parts. It puts them at risk of s*xual harassment and assault, as well as lawsuits from anyone who they accidentally insult, or anyone whose overtures they refuse.

DH would almost certainly hold his pee for another four hours if the only bathroom were one that biological women taking male hormones felt comfortable using. Because he has been sxually assaulted and harassed (and otherwise abused) by women, he is terrified of a repeat ch"v.

amother

Coffee

Tue, Jun 16 2020, 2:21 pm

chanatron1000 wrote:

But why doesn't having MTF in the men's restroom and FTM in the women's produce the same problem?

Because MTF isn't biologically the same as just plain F, and FTM is not biologically the same as just plain M?

Look, I know an "FTM" person. She calls herself a "gestational abba." She looks like a woman. Her body functions like a woman's. She gets pregnant, she gives birth. The only thing is, she takes testosterone and therefore has a beard and a bit of a lower voice. She might be confused but she is programmed female, acts female (despite not wanting to admit it), sees me and my kids as a female would. (And she married a gay male, btw.)

I would rather share a bathroom with her than with a MTF who is biologically male, with male hips, male jaw, male voice artificially raised by artificial estrogen, who may or may not (almost certainly does) have male genitalia. That person is not a female, is not programmed female, does not act female, does not see me or my children as a female would see them. Period.

DH would rather share a bathroom with an MTF who is biologically male than with an FTM who is biologically female. The chance that the MTF will see DH as a target for zxual assault or overtures is infinitely lowre than the chance that the FTM will see DH as a target for zxual assault or overtures.

But an even better idea is to have three bathrooms: Men, women, and whatever you identify as.
Let the gender nonconformists have their own bathroom. And leave the men's and women's restrooms for those who are cisgender men and cisgender women.

amother

Green

Tue, Jun 16 2020, 2:23 pm

amother [ Coffee ] wrote:

Thank you for writing this up so clearly.

Are any of the left-leaning posters who have been busy defending transgender rights on this thread since page 1 honestly going to say that they disagree with any of this? Seriously?

Why do the rights of this group supercede the safety and security of millions of women?

imasoftov

Tue, Jun 16 2020, 2:23 pm

amother [ Coffee ] wrote:

I've been to a number of places with DH that had unisex bathrooms (one was a shul in a bomb shelter) so I asked him how he felt about it, he told me that all he did was look around to make sure he hadn't missed a sign somewhere indicating the gender of the bathroom and then just like in an all-male bathroom he didn't interact with anyone else. I don't think either of us can generalize about what men as a group want or don't want from our individual sample size of one.

amother

Coffee

Tue, Jun 16 2020, 2:31 pm

imasoftov wrote:

DH makes sure there is either no one in unisex bathrooms, or that the only other person is a male. He won't use a unisex bathroom if there is a woman in it. He doesn't want to be falsely accused and he doesn't want to be harassed or assaulted.

You asked why the conversation is always about women's bathrooms, the answer is probably that women are more scared than men to use unisex bathrooms. It was women who lobbied for gender-segregated bathrooms in the first place and we still need them more than men do (meaning, more women need them than men).

Not every man sees things the same way, and many men don't see it as an issue at all (unless they are in the 1 in 6 who have been assaulted) but most women DO see it as an issue, and that's why we focus on women's restrooms instead of men's restrooms.

amother

Coffee

Wed, Jun 17 2020, 1:36 am

[quote="amother [ Babypink ]"]

chanatron1000 wrote:

Why is the restroom debate always about the women's restroom?[/quote
How is this even a question? How many men are raped annually by women?

We'll never know the answer to that until we start accepting male victims and stop scaring them that if they speak up the story will be changed and they will go to jail.

We'll never know the answer to that until we start providing legal aid and legitimacy to male victims.

By the way....if you would not say that a woman who was aroused can't have been raped, because if she was aroused then she wanted it, then you shouldn't be saying that a man who was aroused can't have been raped because HE obviously wanted it.

Arousal is physiological, if it doesn't negate rape for one gender it shouldn't negate rape for the other.