• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: Transwomen are not women part XII (also merged)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Nope, nope we are not starting "Subtopic #8,343, subparagraph H, the definition of 'discrimination.'"

"I don't want them near because I'm afraid of them." is the motivation. Nobody is denying that. We don't need yet another go around about a specific word.

So all the (somewhat) valid criticism against progressives/liberals have a "Designed Ranked Victim List" doesn't count anymore?
 
JoeMorgue said:
Nope, nope we are not starting "Subtopic #8,343, subparagraph H, the definition of 'discrimination.'"

"I don't want them near because I'm afraid of them." is the motivation. Nobody is denying that. We don't need yet another go around about a specific word.

So all the (somewhat) valid criticism against progressives/liberals have a "Designed Ranked Victim List" doesn't count anymore?
Click to expand...

Luckily the specific word exists. "Animus", at least in the legal world, describes discrimination in the law that is motivated solely by the unpopularity of certain populations.
 
Last edited:
angrysoba said:
LOL! Even Ai agrees! I can’t wait to see what kind of evidence this is based on.
Click to expand...

Article here:

Conservative female politicians tend to appear happier and more attractive in pictures than liberal politicos, a new artificial intelligence study conducted in Denmark found.

Published in the Nature-owned journal Scientific Reports in March, the research found AI can predict a person’s political ideology with 61% accuracy by analyzing just one headshot.
Click to expand...

BTW, I think you also asked about boys being better at projectile motion because they are used to aiming their urine?

In a recent article published in TES (a UK weekly that was formerly the Times Educational Supplement), titled "Taking the pee out of physics: how boys are getting a leg up," the authors hypothesize that “playful urination” practices allow boys to comprehend projectile motion more easily than girls. This is worth noting, they say, because most physics curricula begin with the concept of projectile motion.
Click to expand...
 
Brainster said:
Article here:



BTW, I think you also asked about boys being better at projectile motion because they are used to aiming their urine?
Click to expand...

Are we supposed to interpret this any other way than "uglier women have worse chances in conservative politics". Not exactly shattering any stereotypes about the right wing voter who don't care about what women think unless they're a hot piece of ass.

Am I missing how this is on topic?
 
Darat said:
That approach then means a refuge would be turning away females with male children. Which means in the UK thousands of women with a male child would be turned away or told they can be helped but not their child, they would have to find other services to care for the male child.
Click to expand...

Surely that would is really a could?

There is no reason that the policy couldn't be "no adult males" as a proportionate way of achieving the aim.
 
Aber said:
Surely that would is really a could?

There is no reason that the policy couldn't be "no adult males" as a proportionate way of achieving the aim.
Click to expand...

There's no reason the policy couldn't be "just not the abuser either."

I think the whole "It's perfectly reasonable to not want to even lay eyes upon another man because one of them hurt me" is not as obvious to everyone as people are thinking.

I await "Acting shocked I would even think such a thing in lieu of an answer."
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Are we supposed to interpret this any other way than "uglier women have worse chances in conservative politics". Not exactly shattering any stereotypes about the right wing voter who don't care about what women think unless they're a hot piece of ass.

Am I missing how this is on topic?
Click to expand...

It seems to cross genders in conservative politics. Have you seen all the pictures of Elon Musk and Donald Trump edited by conservative bloggers, twitterer's etc, that are doctored to make them buff, with 6 pack abs etc? Hell I've seen the same with Jesus Christ. I saw a tweet for a conservative about how if the election is RFK Jr versus Christie she'd vote for RFK JR cause he's got abs and Christie is a fat slob. Wish I could find it.

I cannot ever recall a picture doctored by a left-wing person to make a left-wing politician more attractive.
 
JoeMorgue said:
"We'd call it 'Separate but Equal' but for some reason that didn't poll well with the focus group."
Click to expand...

"Separate but Equal" may have remained the law of the land except for the fact that it was clearly very unequal and imposed as a way of maintaining and enforcing white supremacy.

Seperate pools and locker rooms for women, is clearly not the same as Jim Crow. Its morally dishonest for people to argue so.
 
lobosrul5 said:
It seems to cross genders in conservative politics. Have you seen all the pictures of Elon Musk and Donald Trump edited by conservative bloggers, twitterer's etc, that are doctored to make them buff, with 6 pack abs etc? Hell I've seen the same with Jesus Christ. I saw a tweet for a conservative about how if the election is RFK Jr versus Christie she'd vote for RFK JR cause he's got abs and Christie is a fat slob. Wish I could find it.

I cannot ever recall a picture doctored by a left-wing person to make a left-wing politician more attractive.
Click to expand...

Take a gander at my avatar.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
Well, you say it yourself, planet fitness has an approach to this that does not rely on violating anti-discrimination law.
Click to expand...

Not a valid take. What I meant to say is that both market to that demographic concern. They take different approaches in their marketing, but that doesn't mean that the result is equivalent.

The Planet fitness approach, for example, is words only: They advertise a "judgment free Zone" but do not actually do anything other than that. Basically, the Planet Fitness approach is just an advertising slogan.

The Curves approach actually addresses the issue.

so, if you are self-conscious, Planet Fitness says "We don't judge!" while Curves actually provides an environment that helps minimize your discomfort.

According to you, the law requires gyms to do nothing to make people feel more comfortable. And you apparently think this is a good thing.
 
TomB said:
Not a valid take. What I meant to say is that both market to that demographic concern. They take different approaches in their marketing, but that doesn't mean that the result is equivalent.

The Planet fitness approach, for example, is words only: They advertise a "judgment free Zone" but do not actually do anything other than that. Basically, the Planet Fitness approach is just an advertising slogan.
Click to expand...

I very much disagree that they "don't do anything". Planet Fitness is notorious for not being a great place to go if you're a fitness fanatic, exactly the kind of person that might intimidate less fit gym goers.

Lots of complaints online for more serious lifters essentially being chased out by the lunk alarm, even if they claim they are being courteous and just minding their own business. They definitely are catering to a more casual crowd.

I looked around my own local PF because it was so close and so cheap, but they have extremely limited free weights, which I suspect is another choice to make the place less appealing to gym rats.

Coincidentally, the #1 story I can find now about PF booting members is for a cis woman who caused a stink about a trans woman using the women's facilities (consistent with gym policy) and the cis woman complaining ended up getting her membership revoked. Not shy about getting rid of problem members that harsh the vibe.
 
Last edited:
d4m10n said:
Perhaps you should ask them why they appear to be striving for their own workout spaces rather than "fighting against sex segregation" as you claimed.
Click to expand...

Why should I ask them - they are someone you wondered about,
d4m10n said:
One's internal subjective sense of being a man or woman or neither.
Click to expand...

Then I don't think there is any reason to treat either differently in regard to the steady improvement in women rights as demonstrated by the success at removing sex segregation (hint: context.)
 
lobosrul5 said:
Looks like someone took a blue pen and made some dots that vaguely resemble Hillary Clinton's face? What is your point?
Click to expand...

It's a poster from her 2016 campaign, doctored by left-wingers to make a left-winger look more attractive. Since you claim to not recall having ever seen this I thought you might like an example.
 
d4m10n said:
Did I make any claims about what they were fighting for?



Sent from my SM-G996U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Your question: "Can we safely assume the women at Boxfit studios disagree?"

If you want to know the answer to your question then you'll need to contact them.
 
Again I'm reminded of how we went back and forth for like two years on this topic with a bunch of people declaring themselves "The Lorax but for Transpeople" and then out of the blue an actual transperson came by, told us all we were bigots even the "No I can speak for the Transpeople" people, and were wrong about everything, completely pissed over the entire gender/sex distinction which was at that point the big point of debate, and then left.

Far too much of this discussion is by proxy.
 
JoeMorgue said:
There's no reason the policy couldn't be "just not the abuser either."

I think the whole "It's perfectly reasonable to not want to even lay eyes upon another man because one of them hurt me" is not as obvious to everyone as people are thinking.

I await "Acting shocked I would even think such a thing in lieu of an answer."
Click to expand...

Part of the issue with domestic violence shelters is that their intention goes beyond the surface purpose of providing a refuge from the abuser. There is also a psychological component where they are trying to provide an environment where things like PTSD triggers are minimized.

It is arguable that discomfort around males may be overemphasized in the issues that the shelters design themselves around addressing, but there certainly is a demographic of abused women who will have difficulty coping in an environment where males are present.

My personal opinion is that shelters should get to decide what demographic they are meant (and are equipped) to serve. There are shelters that are specifically designed to address the issue Darat mentioned with the teenage son. Those shelters are less common because they require more space and privacy for "family" living units among other things. But they do exist.

When my wife worked at the Men's shelter, there were similar issues. Sometimes they were presented with a displaced family or there was a son under the age of 18. (The minimum age for the shelter was 18.) In those cases, my wife would make calls and referrals to the other shelters in the area to find housing for all. There were, as I recall, generally more resources for keeping women together with their children than there were for men.

The organization she worked for has since closed the physical shelter and instead works with local hotels to put clients up. This has the advantage of better facilitating family housing. I'm not sure it would work for an abuse shelter, however, as you lose the gatekeeping protection.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom