Transgender man gives birth

[DragonLady]

OTOH, what is the harm?

Well, since I started posting to this topic, I'm seeing a lot of claims. But I don't know how many are real or which are just BS.

My own position really boils down to:

No one should be forced to share space with someone who makes them feel anxious or unsafe.

No one should be allowed to force others to share space with someone who makes them feel anxious or unsafe.

If someone does make you feel anxious or unsafe -especially in an isolated, closed space like a public washroom, you need to take measures to protect yourself and leave quickly.

It's not fair. But life rarely is.

 

[DragonLady]

I'll accept the fear. I'd need some demonstration that it's a rational fear before applying any weight to it.

I think the fear of rape needs to be rational before it has any weight.

I understand your reasoning. But I think far too many people become victims precisely because they fail to simply act on instinct when they're put into danger.

Trying to figure out where the fear is coming from just gives a perpetrator more time and opportunity to harm you.

 

[p0lka]

Interesting comparison. We have a friend who does the same and it doesn't bother us, but others have been taken by surprise and, detesting needles, have reacted quite strongly.

I don't proudly flaunt the fact I'm injecting myself as I do understand that it can bother others, I do it discreetly. But it shouldn't be done in a toilet.

But what if your meds required IV injection? Would you administer them in public in the full knowledge that a fair number of people find such injections deeply unpleasant to watch? Or is it something that everybody should "get over"?

In my situation I have to inject just before I eat so it's not something I can do earlier, If someone required IV injections it might be possible to work around it without having to do it in public if they wanted, but again, it shouldn't be done in a toilet

Is it OK to take a casual pee in the gutter on a busy street and justify it on the grounds that it's a natural bodily function that only recently became taboo and people should be less uptight?

Well there's no reason to not do that in a toilet, so do it in a toilet.

 

[Belz...]

I'll accept the fear. I'd need some demonstration that it's a rational fear before applying any weight to it.

See my reply to zooterkin.

 

[zooterkin]

What would you consider to be a threshold for the fear to be rational? 1/10? 1/1000? 1/1,000,000? People do play the lottery expecting to win even with very low odds, after all. The actual figures are more-or-less irrelevant. These crimes occur, and so people are worried about being victims.

To remind you, you asked:

You think it's irrational for a woman to think that a man seeing her nude may increase her odds of being assaulted?

If there is no reason to suppose that there is an increase in risk, then it's irrational. Are women at higher risk of being attacked on a clothing-optional beach, for example?

 

[Belz...]

If there is no reason to suppose that there is an increase in risk, then it's irrational.

And you contend that there's no reason? Why all these nudie pics of actresses and other celebrities on the web, then, if it doesn't arouse one to see them that way?

 

[tyr_13]

I wasn't aware that the rest of this forum doesn't exist when discussing issues in a particular thread.

I didn't claim that. Your straw man doesn't stop being one by creating another straw man.

Considering the uproar over Facebook genders a couple of years ago, I'd say it's not quite as far into the fringe as you think.

Why do you believe that an uproar on Facebook means the idea isn't fringe? Do you know how social media and online interactions in general work?

Because there isn't anything scientific about it.

Why do you think that?

Some people _claim_ to be non-binary, but that doesn't mean anything.

It's more than a claim, and it does mean something. Not that such links have helped up until now...

 

[Delphic Oracle]

One of the reasons people should always, always trust their fears is because their bodies are reacting to signals they can't see. So even if all looks good, a sense of foreboding or fear can be a sign of a very real danger.

Since these feelings of fear validate subhuman treatment of others, where does this end?

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[3point14]

And you contend that there's no reason? Why all these nudie pics of actresses and other celebrities on the web, then, if it doesn't arouse one to see them that way?

When you see these semi-naked ladies, do you instantly have to go and seek some sort of gratification?

 

[zooterkin]

And you contend that there's no reason? Why all these nudie pics of actresses and other celebrities on the web, then, if it doesn't arouse one to see them that way?

You're the one claiming it's a rational fear, please provide the evidence that it is so.

What does being aroused have to do with assault? You do know that in civilised countries there are nudist beaches, and adults manage to behave themselves without giving in to lustful urges caused by the sight of naked flesh.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Well, since I started posting to this topic, I'm seeing a lot of claims. But I don't know how many are real or which are just BS.

My own position really boils down to:

No one should be forced to share space with someone who makes them feel anxious or unsafe.

No one should be allowed to force others to share space with someone who makes them feel anxious or unsafe.

If someone does make you feel anxious or unsafe -especially in an isolated, closed space like a public washroom, you need to take measures to protect yourself and leave quickly.

It's not fair. But life rarely is.

Nobody is forcing you to anything.

You can simply not use public restrooms since it's your feelings causing the problem and not the other person.

Take personal responsibility for yourself like an adult human should.

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[Delphic Oracle]

I understand your reasoning. But I think far too many people become victims precisely because they fail to simply act on instinct when they're put into danger.

Trying to figure out where the fear is coming from just gives a perpetrator more time and opportunity to harm you.

Fear excuses rational consideration, got it.

Again, how far does this excuse go?

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[Delphic Oracle]

And you contend that there's no reason? Why all these nudie pics of actresses and other celebrities on the web, then, if it doesn't arouse one to see them that way?

Arousal and violent sexual assault are a ways apart.

That this needs to be pointed out is disturbing...

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[DragonLady]

Since these feelings of fear validate subhuman treatment of others, where does this end?

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

Now it's "subhuman treatment" to expect transgendered individuals to show the same respect for the feelings of others they want to be shown.

You can simply not use public restrooms since it's your feelings causing the problem and not the other person.

Right. The feelings of transgendered individuals are valid, but the feelings of those of us who are not aren't.

Fear excuses rational consideration, got it.

Fear is often the result of rational causes, even if we don't know or aren't entirely sure what they are when it occurs.

 

[The Big Dog]

You're the one claiming it's a rational fear, please provide the evidence that it is so.

What does being aroused have to do with assault? You do know that in civilised countries there are nudist beaches, and adults manage to behave themselves without giving in to lustful urges caused by the sight of naked flesh.

that is not accurate, given that there is fairly substantial market on the internet for "voyeur" style pictures from nude beaches, and one can certainly understand why that type of conduct would be extremely unwelcome to many, and although not a physical battery, certainly could be an assault on the individual.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Now it's "subhuman treatment" to expect transgendered individuals to show the same respect for the feelings of others they want to be shown.




Right. The feelings of transgendered individuals are valid, but the feelings of those of us who are not aren't.

They aren't placing demands on where you can or can't engage in excretory functions.

Sharing space is hard to portray as selfish compared to demanding their exclusion.

Fear is often the result of rational causes, even if we don't know or aren't entirely sure what they are when it occurs.

Horse ****.

It's an excuse used by weak people who won't accept responsibility for themselves.

 

[zooterkin]

that is not accurate, given that there is fairly substantial market on the internet for "voyeur" style pictures from nude beaches, and one can certainly understand why that type of conduct would be extremely unwelcome to many, and although not a physical battery, certainly could be an assault on the individual.

Try to focus, we're discussing this statement:

You think it's irrational for a woman to think that a man seeing her nude may increase her odds of being assaulted?

 

[The Big Dog]

Try to focus, we're discussing this statement:

Hi!

I did focus.

I quite clearly addressed the issue without completely unnecessary and patronizing comments like "try to focus."

If you like me to provide a legal definition of "assaulted" (At Common Law, an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact) and has been extended to things like an assault on privacy (see eg. http://articles.latimes.com/2014/mar/06/nation/la-na-nn-upskirt-photos-massachusetts-20140306)

As such, you really don't have to worry about my focus, not at all or in the slightest. Now if you want to address the substance of my response?

Thanks, otherwise for chiming in.

 

[Delphic Oracle]

Also, and perhaps I missed it, but where is the breaking point for not subjecting people to segregation?

0.3% is not enough, but 13.3% is (African-Americans).

So we've got it down to a 13% window, shouldn't be hard to pin down from there...

Sent from my SM-J327P using Tapatalk

 

[Belz...]

I didn't claim that. Your straw man doesn't stop being one by creating another straw man.

Then what are you claiming? You're arguing against my pointing out that the argument has been made here in the past, so what is your point?

Why do you believe that an uproar on Facebook means the idea isn't fringe?

It's the fact that Facebook thought they should add the list in the first place that shows that the idea has legs.

Why do you think that?

Same reason I don't think god exists: lack of evidence.

It's more than a claim, and it does mean something. Not that such links have helped up until now...

Leaving aside that the term "non-binary" I was using refered to people who neither identify as male or female, it's trivial to point out that sex is controlled by a large number of genes, and that some of them might be on the "wrong" side in a particular individual. It does not follow that the person is neither male nor female.