Jump to content

Society's demand that women allow biological males in our spaces


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, juliann said:

Ad hominem much? I don't know anything about Dirk, but he does represent the majority opinion, regardless of the loud minority voices. And since when do you have to be a scientist to analyze data? Seriously???? Dirk shockingly says, "Our campaign doesn't say trans-people are a risk to anybody, it's saying predators are going to take advantage."

You asked for data. You were given it. The ball is in your court. If you don't like the data anymore than you like pastors then counter it. And frankly, you have to be brain dead to think predators are going to get together and call Kings X on women's spaces.

Here is the raw data on Target assaults if you can't get past who presents it: 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1oju2lck3TJVFKTAm7neinY7-tq1fQfS3IhPOyvqq3Kw/edit#gid=302670011

I asked for an unusual spike connected to changes in female spaces. It takes more than raw data to establish a plausible connection.

There are manifold reasons crime can spike. It can be part of a cyclical pattern but also other contemporary changes in the shared environment. That's where credentialed scientists with peer review come in. They can help control for other contributing factors in their analysis, etc...

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Ipod Touch said:

Why is it always the women's bathroom that is converted to "all gender."

That might not be what you suggest, which is a slap to women. It is probably because a women's bathroom, with "all stalls and no urinals" offers more individual privacy. Converting a men's bathroom to "all gender" would require women to be forced to witness guys doing #1 as they walk by to use a stall. I suppose a men's bathroom could be converted by removing urinals and replacing them with stalls, but that would be far more expensive. 

Link to comment
9 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

I asked for an unusual spike connected to changes in female spaces. It takes more than raw data to establish a plausible connection.

There are manifold reasons crime can spike. It can be part of a cyclical pattern but also other contemporary changes in the shared environment. That's where credentialed scientists with peer review come in. They can help control for other contributing factors in their analysis, etc...

 The research showed a spike. That was the point. Hey, there are even pictures! This was so you could figure it out from raw data yourself since you will only accept results of sociological studies from "scientists"....if they agree with you, of course. 

This is my last reply to your nonsense. 

Link to comment
11 minutes ago, I Was About to Say... said:

That might not be what you suggest, which is a slap to women. It is probably because a women's bathroom, with "all stalls and no urinals" offers more individual privacy. Converting a men's bathroom to "all gender" would require women to be forced to witness guys doing #1 as they walk by to use a stall. I suppose a men's bathroom could be converted by removing urinals and replacing them with stalls, but that would be far more expensive. 

So men's bathrooms don't have any stalls? Hmmm. 

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

It's not ad hominem to identify a person's potential bias and then ask for their qualifications.

He attempts scientific techniques to analyse the data, which require multidisciplinary competence to do correctly. 

So there's no "ball" in his study as of yet. It needs to be peer-reviewed by specialists in social science and applied mathematics or statistics.

Meadowchik, if you think a study on this topic has a remote chance of being considered for peer review by an academic journal, then you have no idea what is going on in the social sciences right now. This has nothing to do with the merits of the study and *everything* to do with politics. The social sciences ceased being "science" years ago. Subject matter like this simply does not align with their ideology.

What about the other articles I posted?

Or what about this? https://www.feministcurrent.com/2020/09/13/protecting-men-at-the-womens-shelter/
Or this? https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/oct/11/transgender-prisoner-who-sexually-assaulted-inmates-jailed-for-life

Or this? https://www.womenarehuman.com/transgender-teen-charged-with-making-death-threats-against-two-individuals/

Or this? https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/man-dressed-as-woman-arrested-for-spying-into-mall-bathroom-stall-police-say/1979766/

Shall I go on?

At least two cases of a male-bodied individual exposing himself around young girls at a spa seem to be no big deal in your estimation. Such individuals would readily and universally be recognized as a threat just a few years ago.

When does Meadowchik deem this an issue worthy of concern? 

Link to comment
42 minutes ago, juliann said:

So men's bathrooms don't have any stalls? Hmmm. 

Nope, we have our bowel movements standing up now in poopals.  It requires a little more technique than urinals, but you get used to it.   

Link to comment
1 hour ago, juliann said:

 The research showed a spike. That was the point. Hey, there are even pictures! This was so you could figure it out from raw data yourself since you will only accept results of sociological studies from "scientists"....if they agree with you, of course. 

This is my last reply to your nonsense. 

It needs to be an analysis by a qualified researcher, preferably peer-reviewed, in order to correlate crime patterns to policy patterns.

 

Link to comment
55 minutes ago, Vellichor said:

When does Meadowchik deem this an issue worthy of concern? 

Your "study" was preposterously biased and by an unqualified person. You could have mentioned that as a disclaimer but didn't. I have very little confidence, then, in your ability to assess the global system of social sciences.

The other links about anecdotes and opinions aren't convincing of some overall connected trend.

Link to comment
2 hours ago, juliann said:

So men's bathrooms don't have any stalls? Hmmm. 

He's not saying that. It isn't what he wrote, either. Maybe re-read it? 

Women's rest rooms are all stalls and no urinals, while men's are a mixture.

b48621b63d531d85109c2dd06d27e3c9.jpg

Link to comment
6 hours ago, Stargazer said:

He's not saying that. It isn't what he wrote, either. Maybe re-read it? 

Women's rest rooms are all stalls and no urinals, while men's are a mixture.

b48621b63d531d85109c2dd06d27e3c9.jpg

Yes, that illustrates it nicely. If a men's bathroom were to be converted to all genders, since urinals are placed closest to the entrance (and are sometimes nothing more than a tile wall with a gutter), a woman entering such a bathroom would be have to walk past the urinals to get to a stall. One or more urinals might then be "occupied", so to speak, and this might cause embarrassment for both males and females. It wouldn't bother some men, but others might be quite bothered. But I have a feeling that most every woman in the situation would be uncomfortable.

Thus, @Ipod Touch, it is more logical and appropriate for a woman's restroom to be appropriated for an all-gender restroom.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, I Was About to Say... said:

Thus, @Ipod Touch, it is more logical and appropriate for a woman's restroom to be appropriated for an all-gender restroom.

But all-gender means man, woman, and "non-binary."  And given that most men who claim to be transgender do not have SRS, it stands to reason that "all-gender" will include both male and female genitals.  So in this case, where is a biological female who does not want to be in the presence of male genitals go?  She can't go to the men's room because, penis.  She can't go to the all-gender room because penis.  See what I mean by women and girls getting a raw deal here? If a man/boy wants to be in a space free from the opposite sex, they can.  But it is becoming increasingly difficult for women and girls to retain this same basic privilege.  This social and political movement seems to overwhelmingly prioritize male bodies over female bodies.  

Related:

image.thumb.png.b8c7236fc9bed0d84be7c2db7d6de630.png

 

Edited by Ipod Touch
Link to comment
10 hours ago, I Was About to Say... said:

Uh, no? What gave you that idea, in what I wrote? Nevermind.

It was tongue in cheek because there are stalls for privacy. The arrangement is irrelevant.

10 hours ago, I Was About to Say... said:

Yes, that illustrates it nicely. If a men's bathroom were to be converted to all genders, since urinals are placed closest to the entrance (and are sometimes nothing more than a tile wall with a gutter), a woman entering such a bathroom would be have to walk past the urinals to get to a stall. One or more urinals might then be "occupied", so to speak, and this might cause embarrassment for both males and females. It wouldn't bother some men, but others might be quite bothered. But I have a feeling that most every woman in the situation would be uncomfortable.

Thus, @Ipod Touch, it is more logical and appropriate for a woman's restroom to be appropriated for an all-gender restroom.

And here we have it. It is better to disrupt women than men just because. You are presenting the same discomfort women feel but saying it is better for women to have to feel it. I am stymied why placement of urinals matters if someone who identifies as a man walks in. They are fellow men, right? They wouldn't be embarrassed and the feelings of anyone else is irrelevant. So what is the problem?

Link to comment
11 hours ago, I Was About to Say... said:

Yes, that illustrates it nicely. If a men's bathroom were to be converted to all genders, since urinals are placed closest to the entrance (and are sometimes nothing more than a tile wall with a gutter), a woman entering such a bathroom would be have to walk past the urinals to get to a stall. One or more urinals might then be "occupied", so to speak, and this might cause embarrassment for both males and females. It wouldn't bother some men, but others might be quite bothered. But I have a feeling that most every woman in the situation would be uncomfortable.

Thus, @Ipod Touch, it is more logical and appropriate for a woman's restroom to be appropriated for an all-gender restroom.

Why does there need to be a wall of urinals?  A lot of toilets in business premises and pretty much every private home manages without a urinal.  Put stalls there as well.  You could even put a urinal in a stall.  

Edited by sheilauk
Link to comment

This is Danielle. We shouldn’t feel alarmed at all if Danielle walks into a women’s bathroom. It’s obvious Danielle is a woman. You can tell because uhhhh… 

Because Danielle says so. And it would be scary for Danielle to use a men’s bathroom because Danielle might get assaulted by a man due to looking like a woman in transition.

Link to comment
22 hours ago, I Was About to Say... said:

NB: I am not a newbie, I am a regular and long-term board member who has created this identity in order to contribute to this topic anonymously, because it involves behavior that only God knows about. Oddly, my usual identity here is anonymous anyway, so this secondary identity is just one layer deeper in anonymity? :) I won't be using this identity other than for this topic.

 

We do not allow sock puppets. I will not ban this name if you stop using it. You are risking your primary account if you are using the same IP. 

Link to comment
5 hours ago, juliann said:

It was tongue in cheek because there are stalls for privacy. The arrangement is irrelevant.

Sorry, it didn't sound tongue in cheek. It sounded like you didn't read what I wrote.

5 hours ago, juliann said:

And here we have it. It is better to disrupt women than men just because. You are presenting the same discomfort women feel but saying it is better for women to have to feel it. I am stymied why placement of urinals matters if someone who identifies as a man walks in. They are fellow men, right? They wouldn't be embarrassed and the feelings of anyone else is irrelevant. So what is the problem?

Not at all. To designate a women's restroom as "all-gender" is cheaper; it costs nothing, other than changing the signage. Modifying a men's restroom to allow for better privacy of the patrons would need to feature the replacement of the urinals with stalls. This costs a fair amount, as the plumbing is significantly different.

You write as if you take what I wrote as advocacy in the conversion of women's restrooms to all-gender. All I was suggesting is that ameliorating expense might be why women's restrooms might be more likely to be converted to all-genders. And I suggested that both males and females might feel uncomfortable with a open urination fixture in connection with a member of the opposite sex who might walk past while seeking a stall.

Do you always assume bad faith on the part of those you disagree with? And I don't even know what you're disagreeing with -- for myself I am utterly opposed to all-gender restrooms except where absolutely necessary -- as all I was doing was suggesting a rational possible reason for the conversion of women's restrooms instead of men's. If you want to assume malice on the part of whoever the heck decides these things, have at it, but leave me out of it. Please.

 

Link to comment
3 hours ago, Chaos said:

We do not allow sock puppets. I will not ban this name if you stop using it. You are risking your primary account if you are using the same IP. 

Hi Chaos! :D 

I was going to ask you to ban this account anyway, once I was done with this topic. I created the sock puppet in order to preserve full anonymity in connection with a point raised in the thread, and having raised that point the account has no further utility.

The board rules do not allow arguing with mods, either, but I am not arguing with you when I point out that I am actually not violating a board rule with this account. The board rule reads as follows: "BANNED BEHAVIORS include but are not limited to: Creating another user name (sock puppet) to get around suspension or banning".  Since I'm not trying to get around a banning or suspension I didn't think I was violating the rule. The quoted rule does not absolutely forbid sock puppets. If that is the intent of the rule, to ban all sock puppets, then perhaps it should be re-worded. 

In either case, feel free to ban this account. I'm done with it.

Thanks ever so much!

 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, sheilauk said:

Why does there need to be a wall of urinals?  A lot of toilets in business premises and pretty much every private home manages without a urinal.  Put stalls there as well.  You could even put a urinal in a stall.  

I have no argument with going all-stalls. I would prefer it, in fact. Having lived a long life dealing with public restrooms in many countries, the "wall of urinals" is a common feature. As a female, you would be unfamiliar with the ubiquity of it. This goes back to biblical times, in fact. It was a common expression to colorfully refer to males. See 1 Kings 16:11:

11 ¶ And it came to pass, when he began to reign, as soon as he sat on his throne, that he slew all the house of Baasha: he left him not one that pisseth against a wall, neither of his kinsfolks, nor of his friends.

OK, now I really have to depart this discussion. Best regards to you all!

Link to comment
2 hours ago, I Was About to Say... said:

I have no argument with going all-stalls. I would prefer it, in fact. Having lived a long life dealing with public restrooms in many countries, the "wall of urinals" is a common feature. As a female, you would be unfamiliar with the ubiquity of it.

I do know how ubiquitous banks of urinals are. You might be surprised by how many male bathrooms I've been in!   

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...