Thursday, May 19, 2016

I would say "Screw them!", but they'd probably like that . . .


I'm furious to read this report.

Hampden-Sydney College has caved to radical gender ideologues who demanded the firing of Ret. Lt. Gen. William “Jerry” Boykin after his criticism of transgender bathrooms.

Boykin – once commander of the Army’s elite Delta Force and currently executive vice president of Family Research Council – has been teaching at the all-male college located in Virginia.

Radical LGBT activists descended upon the college after Boykin’s comment, “...the first man who goes in the restroom with my daughter will not have to worry about surgery.” Through social media, emails and phone calls to the school, the leftwing ideologues demanded Boykin be fired for what they referred to as urging violence against gays and transgendered individuals.

. . .

In a Facebook post Tuesday, Boykin announced his termination:

Because some of you already know and are contacting me about it, let me make it official and let you all know that I have been terminated from teaching at Hampden-Sydney College after nine years there.
. . .

Boykin asserts he has never called for violence against any individual.

“I was referring to perverts who will use these policies to get into locker rooms with girls and women, and I object to that,” he stressed. “Nonetheless, I gave the LGBT community just what they needed to pressure the college leadership to terminate me and they did.”

. . .

Boykin said the real goal of the radical LGBT agenda is to intimidate parents who object to their daughters being in bathrooms with boys and men who claim to be girls. He invites Americans to sign a petition to push back against President Obama’s decree that all schools allow boys to use the girls’ bathrooms and vice versa, according to their wishes.

“Push back against these bathroom laws, and stand up if not for a moral reason, but for the safety of the women and young girls who would be put at risk,” he urges.

There's more at the link.

Just in case there's any doubt about my position on this matter, let me re-state it clearly and for the record.

  1. I have enormous sympathy for people suffering from a genuine chromosomal or genetic issue that causes gender difficulties.  However, such people are a tiny minority, measured in tenths or even hundreds of one per cent.  Most of those claiming to be transgendered are suffering from psychological or psychiatric aberrations.  I'm sorry for them, but I will not indulge or endorse their self-deception by pandering to it.
  2. I regard the whole transgender bathroom issue as a storm in a teacup.  Transgender people have been using bathrooms for one or the other gender for years, and no-one has minded, because they haven't made a fuss about it or tried to use it to make a public statement.  Unfortunately, the issue has now been politicized and made into a cause célèbre.  I will not permit, and I will not tolerate, any attempt to treat it as such in my presence, or on this blog.
  3. I endorse Lt-Gen. Boykin's reservations about the current administration's policy on this issue, and agree with him that it's an open invitation to perverts and criminals to take advantage of political correctness to get away with their sick obsession and criminal acts.  It will not happen on my watch to any person for whom I am responsible.  That's a promise.  I can and will do whatever it takes to make sure that no pervert uses any such opportunity to approach them.  If this causes distress to LGBT activists - tough shit.  Get used to it.  That's the way it is, and that's the way it's going to stay.
  4. I fear that Hampden-Sydney College has chosen to tar itself with the brush of political correctness, rather than stand up for free speech and normal, common human decency.  I submit that in the light of their decision, any parent who was considering sending his or her child to that college would now be well advised to look for a better institution - one where they'll get an education rather than an indoctrination.

Thank you, Lt.-Gen. Boykin, for taking a stand.  You have my respect, Sir.  I didn't serve in the US armed forces - my service was on another continent, in another war - but you can have a salute from me anytime.

Peter

35 comments:

deborah harvey said...

God bless and protect general boykin and all his like.
gives one hope that there are some men left in the nation.
we need them.
may they increase in number!

Egregious Charles said...

Boykin stated he would physically attack someone like Blaire White if she used the same bathroom as his daughter. He implied it would be specifically an attack on her genitals. He has my contempt and I would give my life fighting to defend White from such perverse violence as I would for Boykin's daughter.

m4 said...

Normalising violence against people who you think don't belong in a particular bathroom is NOT a noble cause.

Anonymous said...

From my understanding of the situation, what he said was meant as a joke. I've noticed that SJWs of all persuasions tend to have no sense of humor. Funny thing, that. (Also, if I'm thinking of the right Blaire White, I doubt Blaire would be in danger even had Boykin been serious. Blaire doesn't look like a man, and unless Boykin recognized Blaire, I doubt he would notice.)

Larry said...

Now while I'm sure I have a problem with Blair White hanging in there in my teenage girl's locker room, I'm pretty sure I couldn't kick his ass. I'd sure give it a shot, though. The normalization of perversity is a warning sign of a decadent culture in swift decline.

Rolf said...

The problem with boycotting left-wing schools for "progressive" stupidity is that it leaves a painfully short (and mostly very expensive) list of (largely private) schools from to choose. As a parent will kids that have not yet gone to college, that is a very real problem.

Dirk said...

Things I don't understand about this whole tempest:

1: What's so hard about using the restroom whose plumbing matches your own?
2: Does Obama really want teenage boys to be allowed into girls' bathrooms and locker rooms? While there may be 1 boy at a school that might actually identify as a girl, there will be dozens at every school who will *SAY* they do, just to get into the girls locker rooms, I guarantee it. I was a teenage boy once, too! And it'll even become a badge of honor among teenage boys to say they identify as a girl and visit "the promised land". And do you really think a girl who identifies as a boy would want to use the boys' facilities at a school?
3: Why do the "feelings" of a tiny minority trump those of the vast, overwhelming majority?
4: How in the hell did it suddenly blow up into a big issue?
5: Why do we allow the witch hunts like the one that cost Boykin his job?

Peter said...

@Egregious Charles and M4:

You still confuse the issue with the reality.

The issue under discussion here is NOT transgender persons as such. The issue is the use of the transgender 'fig leaf' by perverts and criminals to gain access to potential victims.

You simply CANNOT provide that 'fig leaf' to otherwise harmless individuals of transgender tendencies without also opening the door to the perverts and the criminals. That, I'm afraid, is absolutely, 100% out of the question as far as I'm concerned.

There's a very easy way to prevent it, and that's to stop the problem before it starts. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY TO PREVENT IT. Period.

To oppose transgender use of bathrooms not intended for their biological sex is not a form of discrimination against them. It's a safety measure to protect those who WILL otherwise become prey. It's as simple as that.

raven said...

Those leftists creeps go on and on about tolerance but they sure seem dedicated to using up as much of it as they can.





Uncle Lar said...

Anyone else find it both ironic and hypocritical that the protestors decry the good general for violence, said in jest I might add, while bullying and intimidating the college to fire the man?
I read of this in another forum today and was sickened.
It's my fervent hope that no one with any sense of justice whatsoever contributes as much as a penny to this school ever again.

Jim said...

I see from a post on his twitter account that the college had a change of heart and has reinstated the general. My guess is that outrage of far exceeded agreement to the action.

Anonymous said...

@Dirk

Instead of thinking restroom with enclosed stalls, think a locker room with open showers. The rule applies there too.

Now do you see why people could be upset?

JohninMd.(HELP?!??) said...

I'm not really concerned by this crud, for two reasons -- 1, my wife, the only female I need worry about, practices situational awareness. 2, she also carries. Your move, boychik. Just make it carefully....

m4 said...

@Peter: No. What you and others advocate is actual bodily harm against people who you think do not belong in a bathroom. If someone looks like a gorilla and tries to enter the female bathroom as they are required to by the laws you're advocating, you threaten to cause them harm. How pray tell do you intend on proving that these people don't have the appropriate plumbing? Sexual assault? Indecent exposure? Do you expect them to carry around birth certificates? Why should a person have to carry a legal document to be allowed into a bathroom? Why should a person have to carry a form of identification to avoid the threat of death or genital mutilation at the hands of someone who thinks that they might commit a crime in the future?

Would you be ok with people taking away your guns on the grounds that you might use them to commit a crime? That you're using "self-defence" or 2nd amendment as a "fig-leaf" for your "criminal intent"?

Based on the rest of your posts, you don't like that at all. Why are you doing it to others?

Anonymous said...

If it is perfectly safe for any male to use women's privy facilities at any time, and perfectly safe for any female to use the men's privy facilities at any time, then logically there is no reason for trannies to need to use a facility other than the one which corresponds to their plumbing, regardless of outward presentation.

If women need not fear for their safety or privacy in the communal showers because we have laws against assault, then trannies need no special accommodations either, because assaulting them is just as illegal, and they can use the facilities corresponding to their plumbing just like everyone else does.

Activists claim that sharing communal facilities with others of their biological sex makes trannies uncomfortable, but that providing them special accommodations where they have total privacy is not good enough. Nothing but forcing their way into the other sex's facilities - and making sure that everyone knows that this is what's happening - is acceptable. There can be no reasonable compromise on this issue because the activists are not interested in reason or the emotional wellbeing of others - they count on useful idiots falling for the emotional propaganda to cloak their irrationality and lust for power.

As Peter says, real transsexuals have been quietly using the other facilities for years with no problem because they aren't interested in making public political statements or in outing themselves as not *really* the sex they identify as. Those who are pushing this issue are using a tiny minority of people to distract from the fact that their policies are really about two things: enabling the psychoses of attention whores, exhibitionists, and other sexual predators; and humiliating those who believe in objective reality by co-opting the power of the state to force them into complying with an obvious lie that everyone knows is false.

Anonymous said...

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016/05/20/college-reverses-decision-rehires-famed-delta-force-hero.html

leaperman

tannasmarchat said...

m4: Are you denying that pedophiles can and will use this as a means to get closer to their victims? Are you claiming that "peeping toms" will not use these laws as a way to practice their form of voyeurism?

What happened to "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"? What happened to protecting the innocent victims?

In answer to your question "How pray tell do you intend on proving ...", most transgenders can pass for their preferred gender, hardly drawing a second look. There would be no reason to "check them". The pedophiles and voyeurs on the other hand tend not to go to those lengths. Those are the people that should be stopped.

m4 said...

@tannas: " In answer to your question "How pray tell do you intend on proving ...", most transgenders can pass for their preferred gender, hardly drawing a second look. There would be no reason to "check them". "

So you're going to create a law and force normal people to break that law under threat of death? You're kidding right?

tannasmarchat said...

m4 said.. So you're going to create a law and force normal people to break that law under threat of death? You're kidding right?

Your logic is flawed.

I am saying "leave well enough alone". There on laws on the books against assault. Creating a "special class" law really is not necessary.

I note that you did not answer any of my questions.

Do you deny that pedophiles and voyeurs can and will use this law to satisfy their desires?

m4 said...

@tannas: Except it's too late for leave well enough alone. There's already laws that leave you in the unpleasant situation I'm trying to bring your attention to. You're thus stuck between breaking those laws, and having people like Peter and his fans shoot you.

As for whether or not people who are willing to break laws are going to do something whether it's legal or not... Are you really going to do that? Here? Yes people will do these things. They're going to do them whether or not there's a law that they can hide behind. We've had this discussion dozens of times about guns. It's the same reasoning and it's just as BS coming from you as it is from the anti-gunners.

And I don't know about "protecting innocent victims", that seemed to go out the window around the time people decided that people must either break the law or be shot. Don't give me that shit when you're defending the people who are advocating the killing or genital mutilation of strangers that don't look like they belong in the bathroom they're legally forced to go to by the very same people intending to shoot them.

Anonymous said...

Except no one is actually advocating for violence. At least not here, so far as I can tell. Lt. Gen. Boykin made a joke. A joke that a number of people have already made to express how they feel about what's going on. I find joking far preferable to carrying out actual violence--which is exactly what's going to happen if people continue to exert this kind of pressure on the sane, normal people who do object to being forced to go along with a lie. Who object to being forced to give up their liberties and privacies (locker rooms are a big deal, and are already posing a problem in some school districts) to enable mental illness when we should be trying to *help* those with mental illnesses instead.

The fact that a man lost his job (not to mention other idiocies going on) over what was clearly a joke in context only goes to show how far rational people have been pushed at present. Similar thing happened to Nobel Laureate Sir Richard Timothy Hunt. Over a joke.

This sort of madness can only go for so long before something somewhere has to give. I don't think I'm alone in hoping that things can still be resolved peacefully--something that diminishes in likelihood when your ability to make a living can be taken away due to the shrieking of a humorless minority.

m4 said...

@Anon@6:32 Actually you're right on one thing there. Apologies on my part and a correction: You're right that nobody here is advocating violence, that slid from my original assertion as I tried to make my point ever more bluntly. My original charge is that these people are normalizing violence in these instances with their jokes. How long before someone does exactly what you're joking about, under the impression that it's the right thing to do because all these people agree with him?

You venture that this will happen because people are being pressured; I venture it'll happen because people keep saying it's what they'd do.

As for mental help vs hormones and surgery ("enabling"). It's an interesting perspective, and one that I hadn't considered until Peter mentioned it. I'm on the fence about it, and I'd like to see a proper study by someone with proper credentials. Until then, I'm not willing to pass judgement on this either way. Regardless, it's a separate issue to the one I'm raising. Until studies can be conducted you've got no mental help to give them anyway, making it a non-issue for the time being.

Anonymous said...

@m4 "How long before someone does exactly what you're joking about, under the impression that it's the right thing to do because all these people agree with him?"
I would argue that no sane, rational person would ever think that murder, etc. is okay, no matter how many jokes they hear about it. As for those that aren't, well, if we made verboten everything that *might* convince a mentally unstable/ill/deranged/etc. person to do harm, then we'd become a society of mimes with a faction organizing to make hand gestures that offend illegal. ;-)

Humor helps release the pressure whether you're dealing with trauma, rage, grief, or any other strong emotion. I'd argue that it's what helps keep us sane.

re: enabling via forcing the general public to ignore reality/hormones/surgery. I'm still researching here and there in this area. I'm no expert, but I do know that John Hopkins (they pioneered sex changes in the US) no longer perform the surgeries because they found that the problems people were dealing with didn't go away post-op. In some cases, they simply intensified.

Body or gender dysphoria is still considered a mental illness. Trying to persuade reality (and everyone else living in it) that white is not black, and red is in fact blue does nothing at all to address the mental part of the mental illness. Suicide rates are incredibly high among transgenders, and I find that blaming everyone else for not acquiescing to an alternate reality a handy, yet poor excuse for it. I would also love to have studies done by people who are actually doing the studies to understand the illness and are working toward a cure. Studies done by activists help no one. More often than not, they hurt the very people/causes they claim to support.

Because reality will win out. (1/2)

Anonymous said...

(2/2)

Even now, people are declaring that a person's sex has absolutely nothing to do with biology. That a person is who they feel they are, and everyone else better respect it. (They are strangely silent about respecting other people's rights to a reality unfettered by lies.) You can change the outside of a person's body, shoot them full of hormones, but every cell in their body will remain the sex they were born. (A number are also using language such as the doctor assigning their gender at birth.)

If this were schizophrenia or anorexia would be be having this discussion? Would it be right for laws to be passed requiring mentally sound individuals to acknowledge another person's delusions or hallucinations as valid and real? Would it help the anorexic to agree with them that they aren't skinny enough? That skipping a few more meals, starving themselves just a little bit longer, will result in the happiness and control and power they so desperately need?

"Until studies can be conducted you've got no mental help to give them anyway, making it a non-issue for the time being."
I would suggest considering why studies aren't being done. I would also hazard that any of the slap dash "studies" with incredibly small pools of people are not going to be of any help as they would likely be done to score a political point rather than to actually help the person with the disorder. And perhaps those studies would have been done prior had enough people stood up earlier and said no, this is a mental illness. Not politics. A mental illness. And due to the sheer amount of misery that is leading to such high suicide rates, I would argue that no, this isn't a non-issue. But those who would do something to help (like doing studies to understand--not validate or for activism--this disorder) so they can better treat it have their hands tied while politicians and activists are scoring points, working to deprive people of their jobs, and trying their best to silence anyone who has a basic understanding of biology.

And what happens when advocating for people with this specific mental illness--gender dysphoria--becomes a criminal act and labeled as discrimination? The point of having an advocate is to ensure that the people with the disorder have someone looking out for their best interests. Instead, we have people using these people as pawns while they scramble for power. (I've been researching this area as well, and the hypocrisy of those activists *demanding* the rest of the world bend to their version of reality is astonishing.)

tannasmarchat said...

m4: I’m not sure what exactly you are arguing about. Quite frankly, you seem to be arguing both sides at the same time – but perhaps it is just me.

“Except it's too late for leave well enough alone. There's already laws that leave you in the unpleasant situation I'm trying to bring your attention to. You're thus stuck between breaking those laws, and having people like Peter and his fans shoot you.”

Breaking what laws? Do you mean laws that have been in place for years that say men should use the men’s restrooms and women should use the women’s? Cause people have been ignoring those for decades.

Never mind transgenders, I have seen women go into men’s restrooms simply because the line was shorter. And, like I said before, most transgenders can pass for their “chosen” gender.

I’m not sure why you think I would be threatened by Peter and/or his fans.


“As for whether or not people who are willing to break laws are going to do something whether it's legal or not... Are you really going to do that? Here? Yes people will do these things. They're going to do them whether or not there's a law that they can hide behind. We've had this discussion dozens of times about guns. It's the same reasoning and it's just as BS coming from you as it is from the anti-gunners.”

Have done them actually.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/5190/5-times-transgender-men-abused-women-and-children-amanda-prestigiacomo
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/14/man-who-choked-girl-in-womens-restroom-stokes-alar/

You are correct; they are willing to break the laws. So why give them a loop-hole? Why deny me the right to not only protest but also protect myself?


“And I don't know about "protecting innocent victims", that seemed to go out the window around the time people decided that people must either break the law or be shot. Don't give me that shit when you're defending the people who are advocating the killing or genital mutilation of strangers that don't look like they belong in the bathroom they're legally forced to go to by the very same people intending to shoot them.”

And this is where you lost me.

I am talking about true innocents – women and children.

What I am defending, as you call it, is the right of people to protect their loved ones. If someone who I can tell is male follows me into the women’s restroom, I should have the right to protect myself and my family. I should not have to choose between breaking the law by asking them to wait outside and being afraid that he will harm me, my family, or any minors present. If someone that is androgynous comes in, I am not going to pay them any more or less attention than I would an obvious woman: Eg, a quick once over to determine threat level.

My concern is for the safety and well-being of the children, the elderly, the infirm; those not capable of defending themselves.

Here’s a “fun” thought for you: Under these laws, I could walk into a men’s restroom, get a few minutes’ entertainment, then claim assault and/or harassment when a man got too close or expressed his displeasure. Never mind that I went somewhere I should not be, and that he is the victim, I would get to file the charges.


Do I have a problem with what Peter said? No. He is expressing exactly the same fears that I have. My personal safety, the safety of my family members, could be diminished by such “special victim” laws.

I submit that the answer lies in creating more so called “family restrooms” or converting existing facilities to have full floor to ceiling stalls and sinks out in an open area, than in opening loopholes for people such as this: http://www.king5.com/news/local/seattle/man-in-womens-locker-room-cites-gender-rule/65533111

m4 said...

@Anon: "I would argue that no sane, rational person would ever think that murder, etc. is okay, no matter how many jokes they hear about it."

Normally I'd hold to that. Have you noticed I'm the only person to call it murder though? Everyone who has made this "joke" has framed it as self-defence. That's dangerous, and just because you and I can see through it, doesn't mean that everyone can. Not everyone is as well informed as we are.

re the rest, again I have no wish to be part of that particular argument. I'm patiently waiting for something to come of that and should an opportunity to add my voice to a call for studies, I will. However if you want to change people's minds about something because you want to help them, you need to look like you intend to help them, not that you want to shoot them in the street. Your position is inherently weaker across the board as a result of this "joke" of yours. Sooner you see that, better off you'll be.

@tannas: I mean North Carolina's House Bill 2. The passing of this law implies that there wasn't actually a law to the same effect prior to it, but I'm not intimately familiar with US law. Best I can find is that it's probably governed by city laws. You're welcome to correct me if you have better information. Either way, there's a new law at state level passed by people just like Peter. After which people just like Peter have publicly stated they'll shoot anyone that doesn't look right going into the bathroom. Do you still not see the problem with that?

Here's one: http://aplus.com/a/aimee-toms-transgender-walmart-bathroom?

How many innocent people are going to be harmed by your paranoia? For your links, have you noticed that most of those cases result in the offender being arrested under existing laws, and also predates the trans-friendly laws coming in as far as I can tell. In these cases your trans-ban law is not necessary for these people to be committing crimes, your trans-access law is not being exploited to commit them, and your point is entirely moot.

I'm not even inclined to answer the point you're trying to make there though because your logic is straight out of the antigunner playbook. Hey look, here's proof that bad people with guns do bad things with guns, we need to ban guns! Replace guns with bathroom access and voila, your argument in a nutshell.

I'm not denying you your right to protect yourself. Hell I think everyone should be carrying by law. What you're advocating is not protecting yourself. What you're advocating is shooting people who don't look like they belong in the bathroom you happen to be blockading. Regardless of whether they actually belong in that bathroom or if the very laws your paranoid buddies have enacted are forcing them to go there. Your divisive campaign and laws are already starting to cause problems for ordinary people. If I grow my hair long, should I be afraid of going into the male bathroom for fear of being accosted by someone like you? If my girlfriend cuts her hair short, should I be afraid that she'll be accosted for being in the female bathroom?

True innocents? The people you intend to kill where they stand because you've decided are guilty are what, collateral damage? Just because you think they might commit a crime later, that makes them criminals to be executed? What makes you judge, jury and executioner? Only women and children are innocent here? Need I remind you that women can be rapists too? Children can be killers too. What makes them true innocents? What makes the victims of your paranoia-fuelled execution any different?

Yeah, I can see that you don't have any problems with this. That's why I'm speaking up, because if this rhetoric starts racking up a bodycount, I'll know that I tried.

Tal Hartsfeld said...

The way I see it: If someone "gender incognito" simply uses a bathroom normally and remains inconspicuous there's really no problem with whatever their actual birth gender is, and thus no-one will be the wiser for it.

The issue is actually someone having ulterior motives, in which case it's the behavior that needs to be addressed.
There are plenty enough laws on the books to address most types of subversive behaviors.

In other words, under normal circumstances who's ever going to know the difference anyway? Who's ever going to think to even ask?

Bibliotheca Servare said...

Except HB2 doesn't force anyone to use any particular restroom or locker room unless that restroom or locker room is owned and operated by the government. For non-government restrooms (like, say, Target? Trader Joe's? Yeah.) all HB2 does is forbid the local government from passing a law that forces business owners to let men who are visibly, unquestionably male use the women's showers because they claim to be women. And vice versa for the men's showers. Not forcing anyone to do anything. Just restraining the city or county government from forcing people to do something. It's far from a perfect law, but how about you try addressing its *actual substance* and the *real* problems with it, rather than the ignorant delusions and/or lies you've come up with regarding its actual contents? Just a suggestion. ;-)
PS: "normalizing violence"...seriously? You're going to crush those pearls you're clutching them so hard. Damn, get a freaking grip on reality, why don't you? "Normalizing violence" is bullshit rhetoric, and you -should- know it. Talk about "antigunner" tactics...that could be a fricking *quote* of the Brady Campaign!

Anonymous said...

@m4

Could you refer me to where Lt. Gen. Boykin said anything about murder? The only thing I could find was: “...the first man who goes in the restroom with my daughter will not have to worry about surgery.” which would seem to infer to involuntary castration at worst.

As far as rhetoric goes, the worst rhetoric I've seen circulating by way of jokes or memes has all been going back to involuntary castration. Funny? Personally, not really. I don't really care for rhetoric, because too often it's used to muddy the issue. But again, I see it as releasing pressure. And, in the interest of being fair, I have seen rhetoric from those who feel they are a part of the trans/feminist community such as "Die, cis scum." If that is the rhetoric you were referencing, then we can agree. Yes, such rhetoric could lead one to conclude: murder.

Thinking outside the box: you prefer those of us who do care about trans people to look like we want to help. What do you propose? I don't normally speak up, because the reality is that anyone standing up and saying anything that goes against the narrative risks losing their livelihood. As much as I would like to help ease (and hopefully one day end) the suffering, current conditions show that the risks to my family's well-being in speaking up are not worth it. People have, and will continue to, lost their employment. They have been hounded and mobbed. They are being silenced. In a recent article about a high school requiring a student that is biologically male, but identifies as female, to share the locker rooms with the other female students, biologically female students that spoke up about being uncomfortable in this situation were shamed, called names, and told that the feelings of the biologically male student superseded their own. In NY, you can be fined (up to 250,000) for refusing to use the "proper" pronouns. Proper being whatever the trans person deems proper.

You wish to avoid there being a body count. So does everyone else who is sane and rational. But the thing is, unless you (general you) intend to completely stamp out a group or are working to *cause* a war, you always leave that group you're fighting against a way out. You give them a proper channel to retreat to. (1/2)

Anonymous said...

(2/2)

Such a compromise is being taken away at an alarming rate. Are you comfortable with censorship? The revoking of the 1st amendment? Because that's what's happening. A joke can get you fired. Expressing reservations gets you labeled any number of things, and people are hard at work to make any such speech against the law. You, yourself, made the leap from a joke to rhetoric calling for murder. When there are actually people out there using rhetoric as an excuse to call for the murder, othering, and silencing anyone who subscribes to reality over tumblr memes. (From sources I trust, the plethora of pronouns came from the tumblr community, and have no actual basis in science.) What consequences are those people facing?

Rhetoric *willI* lead to a body count in this instance, I believe. But you're shooting at the wrong side. My reasoning: people are using rhetoric right now to push laws through that further restrict freedoms of the vast majority of people living in the US. This isn't theory. It's happening right now. A few states have stood up to some of those laws as well as Obama's requirement that schools recognize and cater to people identifying as trans (the rights for the rest of the students be damned--I mean that in a literal sense, not for swearing or hyperbole) if schools want federal aid. Eventually those pressing for legal reforms like these will push too far. Reality will always win out. Trans people have been using the (in many cases, biologically) wrong bathrooms for a long time without most people getting too upset by this. The reason? They quietly went about their business without seeking punitive measures or to force the issue to the point that the average person can no longer ignore it and quietly go about their own business. Also, the majority looked like they belonged in the bathroom they were in. The point of being a transgender person is to transition from one sex to the other. Which means working toward having the outward appearance of the sex they identify with.

But with this issue being politicized, the people being hurt are those who want to work towards helping transgendered individuals, and the truly transgendered themselves.

m4 said...

So my entire comment just went poof. Sigh. Acknowledgement for valid points will follow once I've recovered my wits.

Tal Hartsfeld said...

I've one last thing to say: Unisex Bathrooms

m4 said...

(1/2)
Right, let's try this again. Hopefully I won't lose the comment after I write it, otherwise I'm just giving up. On with the show.

@Tal: While true, it still relies on "good" law-abiding people breaking the law. They might not get caught doing it, but that's beside the point. Worse still if they do get caught, it'll be a scandal and it'll be used as an example of why the ban-laws are needed.

@Bibliotheca Servare: I'm going to ignore the inflammatory remarks near the end and instead am going to do something that might shock you. It is this: Good shout! I was not even remotely as well-versed in HB2 as I should've been, and you're absolutely right to correct me on it. On that note, even knowing that I needed more info I found it hard to get hold of. Everyone's either calling it common-sense or the devil-bill and nobody seems to be producing details. Links to actual content of bill would be appreciated.

Real issues with the bill? Well there's the much more restricted but just as problematic issues I listed above. The other big issues on this topic aren't necessary with what the bill does but with what the bill might be used for. It prevents lesser government entities from working to resolve the problems that have become a political battleground, and it could well be used as a springboard for further-reaching legislation along the same lines. In itself not a dangerous bill, but if it was setting a precedent for taking your guns you'd be concerned too. The bill is divisive, turning this issue into a battle with two sides and perfectly normal people are getting caught in the crossfire.

There's also a world of difference between "video games make people violent" and telling people that your response to a situation would be violence, framing it as the right thing to do, and implying that everyone else should do it too. Denying that is not going to do your position any favours.

m4 said...

(2/3*)

@Anon@11:29: First I disagree that it's castration at worst. It's castration at best, and murder at worst (simple logic). Second that accusation isn't actually levelled at Lt. Gen. Boykin. It's actually levelled at Peter. I had to go back and find the exact post, and re-reading it now after this discussion leads me to believe that Peter didn't deliberately seek to imply what he did. Peter is a pretty reasonable fellow and it's actually why I come here even though I sometimes disagree with him; he's reasonable and it makes his viewpoint accessible. So his actual quote:

"... If you come within ten feet of her while I do that, there's going to be a very loud bang, and you will require the services of the coroner. ..." This in response to someone who looks male attempting to enter a female bathroom.

A few problems with this. First, Peter elsewhere insists that it's a plumbing distinction, yet here it's outward appearance that is used to make a judgement and threaten death. There's only two ways of actually verifying plumbing and that involves either indecent exposure or sexual assault, neither of which is advisable. So a person is being threatened with death because they don't look right and want to go to the bathroom and, if HB2's approach is extended or it takes place inside a gov't building, is being forced to go into a bathroom they don't look like they belong in by people much like Peter. Now I don't know how you guys do it over in America, but I've rarely seen a bathroom large enough to reasonably allow two people to use it and not come within 10ft of each other. I've seen plenty of bathrooms with are about that far across. So Peter is in essence demanding a person, who may or may not be required to go to that bathroom by law, and may or may not belong there, doesn't enter a bathroom on pain of death.

It's phrased as a valid self-defence situation, but it really isn't. What would happen in court if you did shoot them, and they turned out to be female? "I thought this man was coming to rape my daughter, so I shot him" "but that's a woman" "well I didn't know that!" Not going to go well methinks.

We're in agreement certainly that such statements don't help any. I also have no doubt that some very toxic statements are made by people from both sides of the argument. My stance is that we shouldn't be doing it either.

What to do? Now there's a disarming question. Honest answer: I don't know. Something other than threaten people with guns is about as far as I'm comfortable pushing. Beyond there... I don't know. You're absolutely right that some very nasty people are using their communities as a weapon against people. Kinda like 4chan and Anon but worse. Yes there's worse places on the internet than 4chan, and that's sad. Worse still, those awful places aren't seen as a cesspool and thus maintain their credibility, and not for the betterment of mankind, that's for sure. Seems that we have to be very careful about what we say and go out of our way to seem like we're fighting the good fight (secret police much?)

Using the requested pronouns shouldn't be a legal matter, it should be a matter of courtesy. Like everything else to do with what you call people ffs. What is wrong with the world today?
Mixed bathrooms that don't provide actual privacy is also bad. Provide 100% privacy and everyone wins. I don't even like sharing changingrooms with people of the same gender, so there's benefits there too.

m4 said...

(3/3)

You're right that I'm shooting at the "wrong" side, but only insofar as I'm shooting at my "own" side. I consider this community as my own, I'd even say I feel that I'm among friends here, even though I don't personally know any of you. There's two reasons for this. One is that we should have our own house in order before we can convince others that what they're doing is not ok. I also have no power in those other groups, but here at least I can voice my concerns and possibly effect change. Try doing that over on certain other sites and you're at risk of death threats. It's getting a little secret-police out there, and that's worrying. Yup, we're both talking about Tumblr. Sigh.

The problem we're facing now is that it's just too late to go on as we did. There's laws on the books, the spotlight is trained on what is now a political battleground. Ordinary people are getting caught in the crossfire and both sides are eroding their credibility in their attempts to convince people that the other side are hateful.

@Tal: Pretty much.

@Everyone: I'd just like to say thank you all for keeping this civil, and I'd like to apologise to anyone who I've been unfairly hostile towards, especially Peter. My main intention was to get some notice and responses. Responses we've certainly had and some very valid points have been raised.

Further apologies for the state of my reply, I may have missed things being under the impression that I've covered things when I did so in my previous attempt and not this one.

And there's a numbering error because I expected this to be 2 messages, instead it's 3. So (1/2) should read (1/3).