|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
3rd December 2012, 12:44 PM | #441 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
Put the straw down, I didnt say that testosterone isnt linked with aggression, just that ..."The results challenge the belief that testosterone effects are limited to promoting antisocial behavior, the study authors said. They believe, instead, that testosterone may increase pride and the need to develop a positive self-image." Which means it isnt the brutish inherently violence male hormone creating violent compulsions that its being made out to be, as the reason why we should fear men
Quote:
|
3rd December 2012, 01:03 PM | #442 |
Crone of War
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,262
|
|
3rd December 2012, 01:28 PM | #443 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
Just that saying so makes Meadmaker a man-hating
What exactly is wrong with this statement? Do people not have occasional base desires to harm others that they can simply choose not to act on? Perhaps he says as a man because he probably has experience being a man, but cannot say the same for women because he's never been one. He may be "acting like" estrogen isn't linked with violence in your opinion; but he never talked about women or estrogen and violence so you actually don't know what his opinions or thoughts on those subjects are. He's already admitted that he oversimplified; so I'm not sure why you have to keep pounding on this. The "women" involved were minors, some as young as six; I think they have every right to be concerned about a naked man in the locker room because in our culture, men exposing themselves to young girls is considered an act of sexual misconduct, and men who have no interest in sexual misconduct simply do not engage in it, with very rare contextual exceptions, none of which apply to this particular situation. Yes, the "offender" in this situation was a transwoman with male genitalia, but it's obvious that the minors involved were either unaware or unable to tell the difference (because they reported a man, not a transwoman), so it makes little difference to this specific topic. |
3rd December 2012, 01:35 PM | #444 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
Are you having trouble reading what I have written?
I certainly suggest here that there is at least one other scenario where a high schooler could decide that there was a "man" in the sauna without actually seeing genitals. You have repeatedly stated that there is only one possible interpretation. If you'd like an additional speculation, maybe the high schooler was raised by conservative christian parents, saw this person in the parking lot and, in your words "told on her" but didn't see even a nipple. Whee, speculation's fun. I can't prove this one even a bit, but it should disprove your idea that you've figured out the only possible scenario. Done. Her enlarged breasts are somehow purely circumstantial. I've already explained the likelihood that she could be faking her gender identity. It would be a lot of work just to get past the front desk of a community pool front desk. I also don't see how it speaks to her behavior. Somebody could change their name on a whim, but not their state-recognized gender. This takes longer than a day, as I've shown earlier. Your argument is irrelevant unless you are saying that this is all she has done. Also, is anyone arguing that this woman made changes in a spur-of-the-moment fashion? What are you arguing? Intentionally lewd behavior is equally illegal for all gender identities so I don't understand why you're so interested in commitment-testing her gender identity. You posted evidence that doesn't prove the claim and you wonder about my timing in not being convinced. "How could you not be convinced you know what Person A saw, when you have what Person B saw right there!" and "Other people speculated about what could have happened, how can you look at the police report and not agree with all of the earlier speculation!" In all your defenses, you make it clear that there has been no testimony that minors actually saw genitals, while you want people to vocally condemn showing minors genitals. Your argument that she went to a place where women get naked, and that minors sometimes also use that space, that therefore she was only interested in being naked with children is specious. It is especially so when you can't point to the moment anyone was actually naked with children. Here's a speculative question for you to analyze: If the conservative christian legal firm, with a history of strongly opposing LGBT non-discrimination legislation, could only talk about the damaging possibility of children seeing genitals, when they were hired by some concerned parents of the swim team, why do you feel you can talk about it as the only scenario possible? |
3rd December 2012, 01:37 PM | #445 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
|
3rd December 2012, 01:38 PM | #446 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
Also the manor and langauge he used shows this, yes. He may not even consider himself a man-hater, probably because he's so used to feeling like this and society backs him up.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I dont really care to argue details about to what extent transgenders can use sex specific dressing rooms, I cared when he specifically said that women should fear men because men are inherently and biological violent and so that fear is deserved. You may well be able to convince me its justifiable to call it "sexual misconduct" but that doesnt change this. |
3rd December 2012, 01:48 PM | #447 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
Without speaking for Earthborn I suspect its because Meadmaker's argument was that testosterone = aggression and therefore women have real reason to fear someone with male genitals in their dressing room, despite the fact that transsexuals are typically taking estrogen and hormones that are blocking testosterone anyway. Which means that it really is just about female perception of males.
|
3rd December 2012, 02:01 PM | #448 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
You ask a lot of hypothetical questions that are framed in slanted ways.
"Would any woman out there be okay if a man looked at you with a John Waters leer? Would any woman agree that genitals should be placed near a child in a suspicious way? Does anyone support the idea of someone staying in your personal space for too long? Are transgender people perfectly okay to you every time? How about when they're loiter-y? Anyone? I'm just asking. It's for a survey." |
3rd December 2012, 02:04 PM | #449 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
Wrong; you've failed to account for how the naked person with male genitals that was found in the locker room immediately after a report of a man in the locker room was made by the minor, was able to get to that location without being seen by any of the kids in the locker room. Did the person teleport into the sauna immediately after the girl saw her in the parking lot and went to tell the swim coach, and the teleporter forgot to send her clothes, too? How about the swim coach's including as part of her apology an explanation that there were children present who were not used to seeing individuals in situations like this, as described in the police report? If they had actually not seen anything, what difference would it make what they were or were not used to "seeing"? Which enlarged breasts? I haven't seen them. Have you? Where? Who says she's changed her state-recognized gender, besides herself? Anyone - did a court officer actually confirm this? The motor vehicles office? Any of her doctors? Anyone at all? I'm wondering about the timing of this particular objection, which you hadn't seemed to feel a need to bring up before. Actually there is, in the swim coach's apology - see above. My suspicion is continuing to grow as more women agree that the behavior would be abnormal, even if the male genitals weren't there. I'm guessing that when these groups use the word "possibility", they're referring to the possibility of damage, not whether or not genitals were seen. I'm guessing they're equally sure that the children in the locker room cannot have avoided seeing the naked person who was in the same locker room at the same time. |
3rd December 2012, 03:26 PM | #450 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
Are you seriously mythologizing a floor plan defense? The testimony that you said mattered is "sauna". You're mixing things up. The report states that the teen saw a "man in the sauna". Are you going to say that she meant the locker room because that's how people other than your witness stated it fourth hand? What nonsense is this? Can you see why I don't necessarily trust your interpretation of what was said?
Whatever. You're getting kooky now. Edit: Oh, I see, you're poking holes in one of my hypothetical situation that I put forth to show scenarios other than your single one could exist. Oh you got me. It must mean that your scenario is the only one there could be. Even if the high schooler might misidentify her as a "man" for reasons other than genitals, let's say it's the only way. Then we shall harumph at the woman. |
3rd December 2012, 04:17 PM | #451 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
|
3rd December 2012, 04:26 PM | #452 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
|
3rd December 2012, 04:31 PM | #453 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
Certainly; but this transwoman was mistaken for a man; surely there was no way they could discern by looking that "he" was taking estrogen. Appalling says the individual has breasts. I don't know if that's true; but "regular men" sometimes have breast-like structures without the benefit of estrogen.
|
3rd December 2012, 04:36 PM | #454 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
I didn't ask a single question in that post about responding women's impressions of other peoples' behavior. I intentionally and specifically asked about what they themselves would choose to do.
I find it hard to believe you could call a question like "would you spend time naked or clad in a towel in a locker room where children were present" slanted. I even carefully worded the bit about legs being open to make sure I wasn't suggesting an exaggerated and attention-getting posture. I thought you'd be proud. |
3rd December 2012, 05:27 PM | #455 |
Scholar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 67
|
Okay, I did an impromptu poll of some female friends of mine in a FB group. Not everyone has responded yet. I simply asked how common it is in their experience that women are substantially naked (not counting the occasional flash while changing) in locker rooms/changing rooms/saunas.
So far: 5 answered never, 5 answered rarely (not including my vote), and one answered pretty common. None for frequently. The pretty common vote came from a non-American though. Judging from their comments, none of them engage in such nudity themselves and several expressed discomfort with overly naked women in this context, so I can imagine the scenario here wouldn't have gone over well either. We are an extremely pro-LGBT group. I didn't think they needed the actual discussion point to answer the more general experience question, so I didn't address it at all, but I'm confident that all or most of them would be reasonably supportive of transwomen using women's changing rooms/saunas, but not this particular behavior. Not sure if this helps, but it was interesting. |
Last edited by No Nice Things; 3rd December 2012 at 05:47 PM. Reason: Added more context and updated the result |
|
3rd December 2012, 05:49 PM | #456 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
Thanks for your poll! And yes, I think I would actually prefer that the transgenderism aspect of the situation that prompted the question was left out if anyone else asks such questions of their friends.
I notice that you even left out the part about minors being present, and yet it still seems as if open nakedness in a locker room or sauna is not something that your friends were comfortable with even when they're thinking about an all-adult situation. Interesting! |
3rd December 2012, 05:57 PM | #457 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
No. Why would I say that? Aggression is not a bad thing, when channeled appropriately. Men are naturally aggressive. Saying that men should stop being aggressive is saying that there's something wrong with men. I meant what I said. Saying that men should stop being aggressive is a male hating statement.
Quote:
|
3rd December 2012, 06:00 PM | #458 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
|
3rd December 2012, 06:00 PM | #459 |
Scholar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 67
|
I thought it best to only ask about frequency. The discomfort aspect were from comments and expressed without solicitation as I thought any level of judgement about the acceptableness of nudity versus the frequency of it in the poll might skew the results.
I'll update later if I get more responses, and I likely will. |
3rd December 2012, 06:14 PM | #460 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
When someone commits an act of sexual misconduct, it is reasonable to infer that the person committing the act is unconcerned about the discomfort or anxiety produced. In fact, the creation of anxiety may be part of the motivation. It's a display of power.
If someone shows such callous disregard for the feelings of others, especially in a sexual context, one might reasonably suspect that he is unconcerned with others' wishes, and might disregard the word "no". Yes, I'm serious. You like to do research. Check out research regarding rapists and empathy. |
3rd December 2012, 06:15 PM | #461 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
No my heart wasn't in it when I saw how much of it was Birther-level nonsense of whether she was even a trans woman.
I like how you interpret inconsistencies in the report as multiple sightings. Your questions are leading. You ask if women would be okay with loitering. I'm not going to ask you how you could think that is not biased. I don't think you understand your own bias enough to have a conversation about it. |
3rd December 2012, 06:17 PM | #462 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
|
3rd December 2012, 06:19 PM | #463 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
See, it's garbage like this.
You're simultaneously arguing that a girl had to specifically see genitals and nothing else to describe the person as a man while arguing that people could mistake her for a man without seeing her genitals. Why discuss something when someone is showing such bad faith? |
3rd December 2012, 06:21 PM | #464 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
Quote:
Imagine it! Testesterone may actually have positive effects! Who could have believed it? And yet, scientific studies say it is so. So, who are these morons that held that belief in the first place? ETA: But I did check out the link from which the quote was taken. It's a fascinating result. |
3rd December 2012, 06:23 PM | #465 |
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
|
|
3rd December 2012, 06:24 PM | #466 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
I know right? It's about as ridiculously nitpicky as insisting that the fact a naked "man" was found in the locker room sauna mere moments after kids complained about a "man in the sauna" is coincidence because the police report doesn't quote the kid as having said "naked".
|
3rd December 2012, 06:29 PM | #467 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
Where did you get the bold part from? I don't see it in my post.
Perhaps it wasn't clear; but I was trying to imply that once they saw male genitals, the mere presence of "breasts" might not necessarily lead them to conclude the person was on estrogen (i.e. a transwoman). The people I was responding to were talking about people taking estrogen and its relation to violence. Remember? |
3rd December 2012, 06:33 PM | #468 |
Skepticifimisticalationist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
|
|
3rd December 2012, 06:36 PM | #469 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
|
3rd December 2012, 07:50 PM | #470 |
Crone of War
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 8,262
|
I don't see why I'd do that, but it wouldn't bother me.
Quote:
Quote:
Note: I am not a |
3rd December 2012, 08:04 PM | #471 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 2,515
|
Well it would not be fine by me! Disgusting... and dangerous for any one using the facilities.
|
3rd December 2012, 08:20 PM | #472 |
Poisoned Waffles
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 68,744
|
I find it rather surprising that so many people link nudity to sex, and sex to violence, so readily. It's a public place, this locker room, isn't it? Is one man, or shemale, or whatever, such a threat that he or she can terrorize all who behold him or her by merely being present? Or does he or she have to punch through some brick walls and rip some heads off to get that level of intimidation? "Eeek a penis! We're all doomed!" and then all the ladies pray for a swift death? What the heck?
|
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara. |
|
3rd December 2012, 08:20 PM | #473 |
Scholar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 67
|
|
3rd December 2012, 08:22 PM | #474 |
Scholar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 67
|
|
3rd December 2012, 08:25 PM | #475 |
Poisoned Waffles
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 68,744
|
|
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara. |
|
3rd December 2012, 08:30 PM | #476 |
Scholar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 67
|
I just said I didn't have an extreme response. However, seeing something very much out of the norm, especially in the context of what most of us consider a "vulnerable"* situation, can produce pretty significant discomfort at the very least. As far as I can tell her behavior would have been uncomfortable for people had she been a cisgendered woman. Now add in the possibility that she was truly and reasonably mistaken for a cisgendered man.
I remember having to do an experiment in college of standing facing the wrong way in a full elevator. People did not like. *vulnerable mostly because of the nudity thing and much, much less because of fears of sexual predation |
3rd December 2012, 08:43 PM | #477 |
Scholar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 67
|
And at the risk of being misinterpreted as me painting the individual as a definite sexual predator of some sort I do find it odd that this particular transwoman with male genitalia (and no plans to modify this) who is attracted to women and may or may not have visible breasts would be more comfortable hanging around nude in a women's sauna rather than a men's sauna. Not efficiently changing and oops there's a flash, or wearing a towel, but nude.
Or better yet, like the vast majority of us (women and presumably transwomen) who in my experience seem to not hang around nude at all. And you notice I'm only referring to the verified info, not the stuff about minors being exposed to the nudity. |
3rd December 2012, 08:49 PM | #478 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
Most of why this issue initially seems dodgy is due to the fact that most of the story and "concern" came from press releases from the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative christian lobby firm that is actively opposed to non-discrimination laws.
It was framed as a moral panic with rampant child endangerment with a college that didn't care about children. This woman apparently used the center for years with no complaint. This gets lost in the outrage. |
3rd December 2012, 08:54 PM | #479 |
Scholar
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 67
|
That's fine, but that is absolutely not my position at all. I find the behavior in this particular case odd. I do not find the idea of transwomen, pre-op or not using changing rooms or bathrooms or saunas threatening at all. I do not find exposure of genitals of either type within the norm threatening. I do not even find this behavior threatening. I do find it odd, outside the norm of behavior and anywhere between poor judgement to exhibitionism depending on intent.
|
3rd December 2012, 09:02 PM | #480 |
Critical Thinker
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 320
|
It's odd.
I would say that the only witnesses to the oddness of it were people who were trying to get rid of a "man" in the first place. |
Thread Tools | |
|
|