Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

God damn, but you're bad at communications.

I see that "you're ◊◊◊◊ at communicating" is the new "you are confused".

"At the mercy of" something DOES NOT mean the object of the phrase is literally motivated by mercy towards the subject of the phrase, or that they could only act a certain way out of mercy. It means that the object of the phrase has complete power over the subject that is "at their mercy". It's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ idiom, and a common one at that. It has nothing to do with motivation, it is entirely and solely a description of a power dynamic.

You need to google what "complete power over the subject" means. That's the part I am bristling against.

And it's true. You haven't actually even disputed it.

Of course it's not true. It's one of the most misogynistic things I can imagine you could say. Yet the thing is, I believe you. You really have the starting assumption that you have complete control and power over women. It fits right in to the rest of your narrative, with you assuming that women are your property that you are protecting from another man's gaze.

You say I am bad at communicating, and I am. But not in this debate. Here, your starting assumptions are so far removed from mine that you claim you can't make sense of them. So let's explore that a little.

"Complete control". Hm. Why do you assume men have complete control over women? Because we are generally stronger and more aggressive and violent? Ok. But that doesn't convey complete control. Like, if I walk past a smaller or weaker guy on the street, do I have complete power and control over him? You could argue that I could create a situation where I could introduce complete control, but I don't think even you, with your endless word games, would say I had that complete control as a given, I'd probably need to be a bit of a psychopath to initiate any, at the least. And that's what EC's post implies- that men are basically psychopaths. We do not have "complete control" over women, and only theoretically have some partial degree of control over them that we would have to arrange first. Hell, we could easily argue that most women have just as much if not more control over men, for a variety of social and economic reasons, which pack far more power and control whallop than the caveman fantasy you seem so enamoured of. Power is exerted in many different ways out here beyond your Stepford Wife imaginings, "Complete control" would need to encompass them. I have a feeling the majority of women out there have far more power and control over others than you deign to grant them.

 

[Ziggurat]

You need to google what "complete power over the subject" means. That's the part I am bristling against.

Bristle all you want. It's still true.

Of course it's not true. It's one of the most misogynistic things I can imagine you could say.

Wait... is it misogynistic, or misandrist? Even your accusations are incoherent and contradictory.

Yet the thing is, I believe you. You really have the starting assumption that you have complete control and power over women.

Me personally? No, I don't.

Men as a class? We do, if we choose to exert it. In developed western societies, we do not, and that's a good thing. In places like Afghanistan, they do. The results of exerting that power are worse for everyone (though not equally so), so I'm very glad we don't do that, but you're kidding yourself if you don't understand what it is that distinguishes us from such societies.

It fits right in to the rest of your narrative, with you assuming that women are your property that you are protecting from another man's gaze.

That's nothing like my narrative. I don't want women to be my property. In western societies, they aren't men's property. And that's a good thing.

But the reason they aren't is because men choose not to make them their property, which is a good thing. Again, in places where men DO choose to make women their property, then they ARE their property. That's a bad thing, but that's what happens. And the women are powerless to resist that, and you've got to be ignorant or an idiot to deny it. Afghan women aren't oppressed because they want to be. It's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up narrative on your part to blame them for their condition.

You say I am bad at communicating, and I am. But not in this debate. Here, your starting assumptions are so far removed from mine that you claim you can't make sense of them. So let's explore that a little.

You got my starting assumption completely wrong. As usual.

But maybe in this case it's not because of bad communication skills. Maybe it's just bad thinking.

"Complete control". Hm. Why do you assume men have complete control over women? Because we are generally stronger and more aggressive and violent? Ok.

Yes.

But that doesn't convey complete control. Like, if I walk past a smaller or weaker guy on the street, do I have complete power and control over him? You could argue that I could create a situation where I could introduce complete control, but I don't think even you, with your endless word games, would say I had that complete control as a given,

Again, you're confusing individual interactions with group interactions. You as an individual in this society don't have complete control over a weaker individual, because other individuals can and often will intervene if you try to forcefully exert that control.

When men as a class agree to forcefully exert that control over women as a class, who intervenes? Nobody. Because nobody can.

And that's what EC's post implies- that men are basically psychopaths.

It implies nothing of the sort. Quite the reverse: it demonstrates that most men AREN'T psychopaths (at least in western liberal countries) because we DON'T choose to exert such control. But that's a collective choice we have made. It is both the morally and practically correct choice, but we can look around the world and see examples of societies which didn't make that same choice.

The fact that you got the implications of her claim completely backwards is yet another demonstration of how little actual thinking you've done on this subject.

Power is exerted in many different ways out here beyond your Stepford Wife imaginings

Physical force has always been, and will always be, the ultimate power. You may not like that state of affairs, but it's just reality, and nothing you or anyone else can ever do can possibly change that. It's dictated by the laws of physics, and it's delusional to deny that. Other forms of power ONLY exist by agreement. I'm in favor of their existence, I'm a fan of resorting to forms of power other than physical force, but none of these other forms can negate physical force, only marshal physical force to its side (again, by agreement). And physical force can negate any other form of power. There's nothing Stepford Wife about that. You could call it Hobbesian if you like, but it's still true.

 

[p0lka]

Oh, I know perfectly well what it means. That's not the problem. The problem is that you don't understand what EC means.

As I posted previously, 'Well yeah, there's three different states. There's trust, then there's not trust, then there's active distrust.',....... which do you think EC belongs to?

 

[p0lka]

You give him too much credit. I think he honestly doesn't even know what the idiom "at the mercy of" means.

'We are at the mercy of white people', what does that sound like?

edit: go duck duck go or google 'at the mercy of' and see what you find.

 

[Ziggurat]

As I posted previously, 'Well yeah, there's three different states. There's trust, then there's not trust, then there's active distrust.',....... which do you think EC belongs to?

That's a very badly phrased question. If you're asking about whether I or anyone else trusts her (which is what the literal reading of your post suggests, though probably not what you intended), that's not relevant. And if you're asking about how much she trusts others, why would it be only one category? I'm sure there are people she trusts, not trusts, and actively distrusts. So it's probably all three. You could narrow it down by specifying which person or person's you want to know EC's trust level of, but you didn't do so in this post. I could venture a guess, but I'd rather you actually specify, so as to avoid further confusion.

 

[Ziggurat]

'We are at the mercy of white people', what does that sound like?

edit: go duck duck go or google 'at the mercy of' and see what you find.

I already did.

Do you think she's wrong? If so, why? Or is it just that it sounds bad? Because I don't give a ◊◊◊◊ if it sounds bad. I care if it's true, and in this case, I think it is. Some truths are quite uncomfortable, but that's no justification for denying them.

 

[Ziggurat]

A trans-identifying male in the women's bathroom of a Planet Fitness was caught whacking off.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2007990639397679375

Thermal will be along shortly to notify us that this isn't actually a problem, and that if the woman who witnessed this didn't want to share a bathroom with a masturbating male, she shouldn't have gone into that bathroom at all.

 

[theprestige]

Remember when Thermal et. al. were trying to gaslight us into believing that trans-predators engaging in offensive activities would be expelled on that basis, no need to ban them a priori?

[ETA: Redundant link removed]

Turns out if you're a trans-identifying male at Planet Fitness, you're allowed to masturbate in the women's facilities, and if a woman complains, *she* gets banned. Once again, the thing that would never happen is happening.

ETA: ninja'd by Zig.

 

[gnome]

Actually I would prefer to see a link, over a simple image and headline. Where can I read the details?

 

[Ziggurat]

Actually I would prefer to see a link, over a simple image and headline. Where can I read the details?

It's not an image, it's a video. In the video, you can clearly see the shadow of the male inside the bathroom stall, and the motion of that shadow is pretty clearly him masturbating for an extended period of time. After being confronted (also in the video), he claims he was just drying off after having used the women's shower. Nobody dries off like that.

He was jerking off.

 

[theprestige]

Ninja'd again.

 

[Thermal]

Bristle all you want. It's still true.

Wait... is it misogynistic, or misandrist? Even your accusations are incoherent and contradictory.

I meant what I said. For you to say that is misogynistic. It shows contempt for women, which goes beyond simple sexism. For her to say it, there's a shade of difference that might be more misandric. But I didn't say anything about her. I said YOU, and clearly.

You really need to expand your contrarianism beyond saying I'm incoherent. You're repeatedly ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ it up, not me.

Me personally? No, I don't.

Men as a class? We do, if we choose to exert it. In developed western societies, we do not, and that's a good thing. In places like Afghanistan, they do. The results of exerting that power are worse for everyone (though not equally so), so I'm very glad we don't do that, but you're kidding yourself if you don't understand what it is that distinguishes us from such societies.

That's nothing like my narrative. I don't want women to be my property. In western societies, they aren't men's property. And that's a good thing.

But the reason they aren't is because men choose not to make them their property, which is a good thing. Again, in places where men DO choose to make women their property, then they ARE their property. That's a bad thing, but that's what happens. And the women are powerless to resist that, and you've got to be ignorant or an idiot to deny it. Afghan women aren't oppressed because they want to be. It's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊ up narrative on your part to blame them for their condition.

You got my starting assumption completely wrong. As usual.

But maybe in this case it's not because of bad communication skills. Maybe it's just bad thinking.

Yes.

Again, you're confusing individual interactions with group interactions. You as an individual in this society don't have complete control over a weaker individual, because other individuals can and often will intervene if you try to forcefully exert that control.

When men as a class agree to forcefully exert that control over women as a class, who intervenes? Nobody. Because nobody can.

It implies nothing of the sort. Quite the reverse: it demonstrates that most men AREN'T psychopaths (at least in western liberal countries) because we DON'T choose to exert such control. But that's a collective choice we have made. It is both the morally and practically correct choice, but we can look around the world and see examples of societies which didn't make that same choice.

The fact that you got the implications of her claim completely backwards is yet another demonstration of how little actual thinking you've done on this subject.

Physical force has always been, and will always be, the ultimate power. You may not like that state of affairs, but it's just reality, and nothing you or anyone else can ever do can possibly change that. It's dictated by the laws of physics, and it's delusional to deny that. Other forms of power ONLY exist by agreement. I'm in favor of their existence, I'm a fan of resorting to forms of power other than physical force, but none of these other forms can negate physical force, only marshal physical force to its side (again, by agreement). And physical force can negate any other form of power. There's nothing Stepford Wife about that. You could call it Hobbesian if you like, but it's still true.

That was a lot of words to say "no, we absolutely don't have complete control, but we probably could get together and make that happen".

 

[Ziggurat]

I meant what I said. For you to say that is misogynistic. It shows contempt for women, which goes beyond simple sexism. For her to say it, there's a shade of difference that might be more misandric. But I didn't say anything about her. I said YOU, and clearly.

Me and EC are saying the exact same thing. Except you claimed she's being prejudiced against men for saying it, and I'm prejudiced against women for saying it. That's not any more coherent.

You really need to expand your contrarianism beyond saying I'm incoherent.

First off, you keep being incoherent, so I'm going to keep pointing it out. Secondly, I've explained why you're wrong, in detail. You claim that you want substantive discussions, but when I provide that, what do I get? Instead of actual engagement on the substance, I get this ◊◊◊◊, which is basically an objection to explaining my point:

That was a lot of words to say "no, we absolutely don't have complete control, but we probably could get together and make that happen".

Probably could?

No. Men OFTEN get together and make that happen. It's a rather regular occurrence throughout history, and is STILL the case in many parts of the world. It's not a hypothetical, it's a reality. Furthermore, as someone who claims to use hyperbole to make your own points, your criticism that it's not strictly true on an individual level is also hypocritical.

 

[Thermal]

A trans-identifying male in the women's bathroom of a Planet Fitness was caught whacking off.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2007990639397679375

Thermal will be along shortly to notify us that this isn't actually a problem, and that if the woman who witnessed this didn't want to share a bathroom with a masturbating male, she shouldn't have gone into that bathroom at all.

Wrong again. Dude was doing a lewd and lascivious behavior thing. That's a crime, and I don't know why no one called police. Bunch of guys in that women's room, too. I thought for sure it was going to end with a WorldStar moment.

The women were right to complain. They men were not right in letting him walk away uninjured. This video was from May, according to the videoer who appeared in the comments.

I'd object more to his being in the women's room showering openly than in a stall whacking off privately, but that's me.

 

[Thermal]

Me and EC are saying the exact same thing. Except you claimed she's being prejudiced against men for saying it, and I'm prejudiced against women for saying it. That's not any more coherent.

You're not remotely saying the same thing. Her fear of men fuels her viewpoint, and your contempt of women fuels your agreement that them women better damn right be in fear of your complete control.

First off, you keep being incoherent, so I'm going to keep pointing it out.

No, it's just your monthly buzz phrase. You do it over and over. Little dull, come to that.

Secondly, I've explained why you're wrong, in detail. You claim that you want substantive discussions, but when I provide that, what do I get? Instead of actual engagement on the substance, I get this ◊◊◊◊, which is basically an objection to explaining my point:

Your 'engagement' was long form bull ◊◊◊◊. You tapdanced around the core poiint: Men. Do. Not. Have. Complete. Control. Over. Women. No amount of verbose philosophical waxing changes that.

Probably could?

No. Men OFTEN get together and make that happen. It's a rather regular occurrence throughout history, and is STILL the case in many parts of the world. It's not a hypothetical, it's a reality.

Yes, men used to keep slaves too. We're in 21st century America now (you, me, and Emily's Cat anyway) and that ain't the situation anymore. I don't care what Attila the Hun did in the context of this discussion.

Furthermore, as someone who claims to use hyperbole to make your own points, your criticism that it's not strictly true on an individual level is also hypocritical.

I use colorful expressions out of habit, worded to make it clear they are not soberly delivered (the flippancy conveyed by 'them thar tranny freaks' shouldn't have to be explained to you). Your and ECs claim is not delivered with tongue in cheek.

Is that 'incoherent' again? Are you 'confused'?

 

[Ziggurat]

You're not remotely saying the same thing. Her fear of men fuels her viewpoint, and your contempt of women fuels your agreement that them women better damn right be in fear of your complete control.

You are the only one of us who has expressed contempt for women. And I never said that women in western countries should be afraid of total male control, that's another one of your straw men.

Your 'engagement' was long form bull ◊◊◊◊.

And yet, you can't actually refute it, only impugn my alleged motives.

You tapdanced around the core poiint: Men. Do. Not. Have. Complete. Control. Over. Women.

They do in some places, like Afghanistan. And they could everywhere.

Yes, men used to keep slaves too.

Used to? Men still do. Slavery has not vanished from the world any more than the oppression of women has.

We're in 21st century America now (you, me, and Emily's Cat anyway) and that ain't the situation anymore.

Sure, but why isn't it the case here anymore when it still is elsewhere? Is it because American women are stronger than Afghan women? No. Is it because American men are weaker than Afghan men? No. Can you figure it out yet?

No, probably not.

I don't care what Attila the Hun did in the context of this discussion.

You don't have to care, but not caring won't make what EC said false.

I use colorful expressions out of habit, worded to make it clear they are not soberly delivered

And EC used an idiomatic expression that you clearly didn't understand and still don't really.

Is that 'incoherent' again? Are you 'confused'?

Not at all. You're just wrong, as usual. And you can't argue without using straw men, as usual.

 

[Ziggurat]

Wrong again. Dude was doing a lewd and lascivious behavior thing. That's a crime, and I don't know why no one called police.

Maybe because trans identifying males are allowed in the bathroom, and they don't want to get in trouble for kicking him out without being 100% confident about what he was doing. If sex segregation was actually enforced, they wouldn't need to make that determination in order to eject him

And note what you have just conceded: a crime took place, but it wasn't reported to the police. Once again, we see you don't actually think about this topic, because this has obvious implications for your appeals to crime statistics.

It's also hilarious to me that you're saying that they should have beaten him up, after you tried to lecture me about how it's illegal to forcibly eject someone. As we see time and time again, you have no consistency.

 

[John Freestone]

We're in 21st century...

Good job!

 

[Thermal]

Maybe because trans identifying males are allowed in the bathroom, and they don't want to get in trouble for kicking him out without being 100% confident about what he was doing. If sex segregation was actually enforced, they wouldn't need to make that determination in order to eject him

Dude, there was a line of guys there harassing and cursing at him (it was ok they were hanging out in the girls room because... they were vigilantes? Off duty Penis Police?). They were not 'confused' about anything.

And note what you have just conceded: a crime took place,

I'd assume so? Although TBH, I'm not entirely sure. He wasn't doing anything in full open view of others. In fact, it was only by the one young woman looking at the bottom of the interior stall long enough and closely enough to see his shadow that the guy got popped. I dunno about you, but I'm not normally focusing on looking under occupied stalls like that. I kinda avert my eyes away before I take notes on shadows and video them.

but it wasn't reported to the police.

Talk to the videoer (and sole witness) who left with her boyfriend without notifying the cops. Police are in an awkward position to do anything at all if the only witness takes off, and management is left saying to the cops "well she was here a minute ago... no officer, we didn't actually see him doing anything, and he denies it, bit I thought I saw a video that of course you can't see. Whaddaya mean you can't arrest him?"

Once again, we see you don't actually think about this topic, because this has obvious implications for your appeals to crime statistics.

I never thought all crimes get reported. Say, you forgot to level that criticism at each and every crime stat presented by everyone on your side. I told them you would be along presently to browbeat them as well, what with you not being a hypocrite and all. Don't let me down.

It's also hilarious to me that you're saying that they should have beaten him up, after you tried to lecture me about how it's illegal to forcibly eject someone.

Correct. And?

As we see time and time again, you have no consistency.

Breaking out the crayons: you said a property owner/agent could remove a trespasser by force. No, they can't. They can call police, and police can do what they see fit to do. The owner has no right or authority to lay hands on anyone, or he would be a criminal.

Slapping a perv around is just garden variety morally justifiable criminality, which I also support. Not legal by any stretch, but I didn't claim it was.

See? Not that complicated. And it's why I don't buy your endlessly befuddled act.

 

[smartcooky]

I see that "you're ◊◊◊◊ at communicating" is the new "you are confused".

When everyone keeps telling you that your communication skills are crap, and you keep telling everyone that they are all confused, that tells you its a "you" problem, not a "they" problem.