IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


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.
Tags privacy issues , school incidents , transgender incidents , transgender issues

Reply
Old 15th December 2012, 10:10 PM   #601
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
 
Checkmite's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Gulf Coast
Posts: 28,589
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Being obtuse again I see.

Even if all accusations of harassment ended up being real and genuine which would be highly unlikely, it is still absurd that they have a specific law that says you can get up to 2-3 years in jail and a huge fine for something as minor as looking at a women in the "wrong" way. What possible justification is there to specifically single out womens feelings here? What possible justification is there to specifically make it sexual?

Bottom line is even if you do happen to look at a womans breasts you dont deserve to be thrown in jail for it
You obstinately refuse to consider what someone else has already brought up, quoted from the very article you posted in defense of your position:

Quote:
The new law defines harassment as “imposing on someone, in a repeated way, words or actions that have a sexual connotation” and either “affecting the person’s dignity because of their degrading or humiliating nature” or putting him or her in an “intimidating, hostile or offensive situation.”
Nobody went to jail for "happening to look at a woman's breasts". Someone went to jail for "imposing on someone, in a repeated way, words or actions that have a sexual connotation” and either “affecting the person’s dignity because of their degrading or humiliating nature” or putting him or her in an “intimidating, hostile or offensive situation.”

A very big part of human interpersonal communication - one that is sometimes easy to forget about when we have discussions via text - is body language. Like spoken words, body language can be threatening, demeaning, abusive, intimidating, or hostile. You can humiliate a person with certain kinds of body language just as you can humiliate them with spoken or written language. To dismiss such things as "just a look" is rather naive.

Last edited by Checkmite; 15th December 2012 at 10:11 PM.
Checkmite is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2012, 11:40 PM   #602
Meadmaker
Guest
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 29,033
Originally Posted by Meadmaker
In my opinion, instinctual behavior is quite real. It isn't rational, but neither is it an illusion. Instinctive fear is very real, very predictable and, for lack of a better term, I have been calling it "reasonable".
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
I never said that instinct wasnt real, so Im not sure why you act like I said it wasn't. The fact that I say woman's fear is partly down to instinct shows I think instinct is very real.
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Women's level of fear in this case comes from two main areas, 1. instinctual and 2. Public perception and conditioning. Neither of which are real, they are illusions,...



Quote:
The point is that we live in a different time. A women's fears that are in part instinctive may make "sense" in that we can see where they came from, however they are not reasonable because they are based on a primitive part of the brain that doesn't care about the facts.
I have two problems with this.

First, when people exhibit thoughts, feelings, fears, or whatever else in predictable, normal, situations, then I have a real problem saying that those perfectly normal feelings aren't reasonable. Why do we have segregated changing rooms? We could debate that, and some people have put forth opinions, but the bottom line is that we have them because we want them, and it would cause people, especially women, anxiety to undress in the presence of the opposite sex. Of course there are exceptions to that general tendency. I've enjoyed some great fun in clothing optional situations, but I've chosen to be in those situations, as did the ladies with whom I was sharing the experience. We were there to watch and be watched, and that was all part of the fun. When we aren't planning on that experience, it's not so much fun.

The anxiety we experience when naked around people we don't want to be naked around isn't from "a part of our brain that cares about facts." Come to think of it, the joy we find when we are naked around people we do want to be naked around also comes from a part of our brain that doesn't care about facts. Nonetheless, those feelings are both common and normal. We should respect both the joy, and the anxiety.


My second problem with this is that I see a real asymmetry in consoderation for different people's concerns. Let's consider the plight of a nonoperative transwoman who wants to go swimming at a public pool. I am talking about someone who is, biologically, male. "She" could do the following. Dress in male or androgynous clothes. (i.e. jeans and shirts are worn by both sexes) and use the men's locker room. Of course, "she" might feel awkward, anxious, or uncomfortable in that situation. On the other hand, if "she" uses the women's locker room and exposes "her" penis and scrotum, all the ladies in that locker room will feel awkward, anxious, or uncomfortable.

Why is it that the anxiety of those women and girls is less relevant than the anxiety of the biologically male person who is "really" a female? I'm not seeing why the transwoman's concerns trump everyone elses.

Remember,I'm talking about someone who never intends to go through reassignment surgery.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2012, 06:57 AM   #603
000063
Philosopher
 
000063's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 5,398
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Being obtuse again I see.

Even if all accusations of harassment ended up being real and genuine which would be highly unlikely, it is still absurd that they have a specific law that says you can get up to 2-3 years in jail and a huge fine for something as minor as looking at a women in the "wrong" way. What possible justification is there to specifically single out womens feelings here? What possible justification is there to specifically make it sexual?

Bottom line is even if you do happen to look at a womans breasts you dont deserve to be thrown in jail for it
I once read a story from a guy who had a female coworker hit on him during his lunch break, including groping, turned her down, and got back to work to find she had accused him of sexual harassment. Luckily, the place had a security camera. The woman was not punished.
000063 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:08 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.