Transwomen are not Women - Part 15

[Thermal]

This is a fascinating exchange to me, because you seem to be reading the intent of his message completely differently than I read the intent of his message. You read it as "We did not render help to the men, because they deserved to suffer and possibly die". I read it as "We did not render help to the woman, because she didn't need it". I will let smartcooky weigh in on which (if either) he intended, but once again it appears your automatic sympathies are for the males, not the female.

Possible, but as the woman was already re-shoed and going about her merry way, I con't think of any help she would appear to be in need of. In context, especially the way he separated the last second for effect, I'd put it at near 100% odds that it was meant to sledgehammer that he did not offer help to the only ones left who were in need of it.

I will also note that as smartcooky described it, neither man was likely at any risk of dying. Nut shots are incredibly painful, but I've never heard of one being fatal. As for head wounds, they're notorious for bleeding a lot compared to most cuts, but "a lot" is relative. If it didn't pierce the skull (and the fact that he was clearly conscious suggests it didn't, plus that's really ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ hard to do with a shoe), then "a lot" still doesn't actually put the person at risk of fatal blood loss. We aren't talking major arteries here. There ARE no major arteries on the surface of the skull. So no, they were not "left to die".

'Left to die' is a common figure of speech. I'd disagree with the head injury analysis though, unless you inspected it fairly closely and knew what you were looking at with blood 'oozing between the fingers'. That indicates that the fingers were over the face area and a substantial amount of blood coming out. Was the cooky sure that heel din't go through the eye, a couple inches away? The former EMT in me just can't walk away from someone who appears injured, even if it's just a call to emergency services to say 'hey, a couple guys are lying on road X looking pretty rough. Bye'.

They were left to suffer the consequences of their poor decisions. And I'm OK with that.

I often am too, but not when there appears to be open damage.

Lastly, given that the decision to not help the men was made in the heat of the moment, possibly in a state of confusion given the unexpected outcome of the encounter, it's odd for you to categorize it as sociopathy even given the premise that it was the wrong decision.

Body of work. smartcooky has bragged about putting transwomen in wheelchairs, and illegally arming his children with homemade chemical weapons, that they habitually deploy for relatively minor encounters (grabbing at the keys, grabbing at the arm, getting 'handsy' at a crowded bar, among other highly disproportionate responses).

I think you would consider it unfair of me to categorize your own advocacy for violence in this very thread as sociopathic.

No, I wouldn't blame you much. I wouldn't like it, but I am posting a body of work too that could fairly lead to that conclusion. And you kinda did call me a violent misogynist at one point.

You say you regret such expressions now, but you did have time to consider it before you posted, and you still made what you consider to be an error. smartcooky would have had little time to consider the correct choice at that moment, so why aren't you extending to him the same grace you request for yourself?

Because I am talking on an internet forum, where posters sometimes get a little carried away with the rhetoric. Being faced with actual people bleeding is real game time. And he has also had much time to consider his actions, yet seems pretty proud of his choice? I regretted mine upon being called on it and being asked only once if that was serious.

 

[Thermal]

<derail>"Mustn't" generally means that you have an obligation to not do, whereas I suspect you meant that you don't a have any obligation to do. This isn't a criticism of your word choice, though. Rather, I think it's a limitation of English that there isn't a concise way to express a lack of obligation. A "not must", if you will, rather than a "must not". Feels like there should be, though. Maybe olde English had one.</derail>

Carry on.

Hm. He said 'You must know X', and the refutation of "no, I must not (mustn't)", as in I had no obligation to know the value of x precisely, seemed to flow pretty naturally? The written word is not my strong suit, in any event.

 

[Ziggurat]

'Left to die' is a common figure of speech.

So is "at the mercy of".

I'd disagree with the head injury analysis though, unless you inspected it fairly closely and knew what you were looking at with blood 'oozing between the fingers'. That indicates that the fingers were over the face area and a substantial amount of blood coming out. Was the cooky sure that heel din't go through the eye, a couple inches away?

He said temple. I am going to assume this description is correct. If we don't take the account as accurate, we cannot draw any conclusions at all.

The former EMT in me just can't walk away from someone who appears injured, even if it's just a call to emergency services to say 'hey, a couple guys are lying on road X looking pretty rough. Bye'.

An admirable enough instinct, but not one everyone is obliged to have under all circumstances. Given his description, I have no reason to think either man was in serious danger, or that they were not capable of obtaining any necessary medical aid themselves. Again, either we take the account as accurate, or we don't draw any conclusions at all.

Body of work.

Your own body of work does not speak well for your relationship to violence. And on multiple occasions, you have decried the hostility exhibited in this thread. I'm presenting you with an opportunity to tone things down yourself. Why are you turning it down?

 

[Ziggurat]

Hm. He said 'You must know X', and the refutation of "no, I must not (mustn't)", as in I had no obligation to know the value of x precisely, seemed to flow pretty naturally?

It's a reasonable enough choice. My point was that English doesn't provide a concise way to make that distinction unambiguous. This was a note about the limitations of our language, not a criticism about your word choice. Yeah, I know, that's not my normal modus operandi, but here we are.

 

[Ziggurat]

Wouldn't " you needn't" do the trick?

Hmmm. I think you're right, that might do it. Kinda archaic, which is perhaps why it didn't come to my mind.

Let's bring it back.

 

[Aber]

Further, I've said that if women do object, they should be allowed to do so with no legal penalties, because that's how self policing works.

So you're sort of in favour of single-sex spaces, but not of any formal enforcement mechanism; and are equally happy for states and organisations to abolish single-sex spaces.

Strong "not my problem" vibes.

 

[Thermal]

So is "at the mercy of".

True dat. A figure of speech is made to convey a sentiment, more than be literal, and it was exactly the sentiment being conveyed that I bristled at more than it's linguistic structure.

He said temple. I am going to assume this description is correct. If we don't take the account as accurate, we cannot draw any conclusions at all.

He preceded 'temple' with 'buried deep in his'. So let's do it your way, and take his account as accurate, and draw conclusions.

The heel was buried deep in his temple. Almost no meat at all in the temple, so I'm going to have to take him at his word that the temple was in fact pierced. So now we are talking about a traumatic head injury. You pretty sure you want to do this? Cuz I actually assumed the whole story was bull ◊◊◊◊ and a sociopathic Batman fantasy from the get-go.

An admirable enough instinct, but not one everyone is obliged to have under all circumstances. Given his description, I have no reason to think either man was in serious danger, or that they were not capable of obtaining any necessary medical aid themselves. Again, either we take the account as accurate, or we don't draw any conclusions at all.

Again, we'll need to have a meeting of the minds about how you could bury a high heel deeply into a temple first. Surely we are not going to vacillate between figures of speech and taking a factual account as accurate willy-nilly, are we?

Your own body of work does not speak well for your relationship to violence.

Mine rarely extends beyond schoolyard fisticuffs, which yes, I'm more ok with than many. I don't often go much beyond that, even with my habit of waxing hyperbolically.

And on multiple occasions, you have decried the hostility exhibited in this thread.

The hostility here is personal, and directed towards a poster's online presence and persona, not their meatspace physical body.

I'm presenting you with an opportunity to tone things down yourself. Why are you turning it down?

Because I'm difficult and unpleasant. You?

 

[Matthew Best]

No, I mustn't, because I am not her ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ accountant. I ran across her yesterday while chasing down the Planet Fitness story, and she boasted a "1500% growth increase in her Spotify subscribers" since the Gold's Gym incident, which generates revenue for her and I took to be "significant". Following the links the claim is technically true, but not as dramatic as it sounds:

https://app.chartmetric.com/artist/202298

...as well as her youtube views being up by 62% and all her other money generating online jazz increasing.

Were you going somewhere with this hard hitting investigation, or is it back under the bridge with you?

I was just curious how much evidence you have before posting what seem like pretty confident statements. It seems like "not much" is the answer.

 

[Thermal]

So you're sort of in favour of single-sex spaces, but not of any formal enforcement mechanism; and are equally happy for states and organisations to abolish single-sex spaces.

Strong "not my problem" vibes.

Then think about it briefly. Self-policing puts the whole gig solidly in the 'and now it's my problem' bin, not Mr Policeman's. Guy creeping out women? I'm in, and will happily show him the door. Bigot trying to humiliate and harass a docile transwoman? Also in, and call out the bigot just as loudly.I do so love police staying out of our lives and letting us run ourselves.

 

[Ziggurat]

True dat. A figure of speech is made to convey a sentiment, more than be literal, and it was exactly the sentiment being conveyed that I bristled at more than it's linguistic structure.

Everyone, including the person who first wrote "at the mercy of", is telling you that you're wrong about what sentiment was being expressed. You should take that as a hint.

Because I'm difficult and unpleasant. You?

I consider my self difficult but pleasant. YMMV. In any case, accusing smartcooky of being a sociopath isn't going to achieve anything productive, and I suggest that you not do that. It would have sufficed to say something like "I would have stopped to make sure they didn't require medical assistance."

 

[Ziggurat]

Then think about it briefly. Self-policing puts the whole gig solidly in the 'and now it's my problem' bin, not Mr Policeman's. Guy creeping out women? I'm in, and will happily show him the door.

How will you do that? Will you use violence? What does a woman do if he's being creepy and no one wants to help her?

Bigot trying to humiliate and harass a docile transwoman? Also in, and call out the bigot just as loudly.

And how will you decide whether that guy really is being creepy, or she's just being transphobic? What even is the difference?

I do so love police staying out of our lives and letting us run ourselves.

If you decide that the guy is being creepy and decide to use force and he resists, do you think the police even can stay out of it?

And what do you do if you think she's being transphobic, but another bystander thinks the guy's being creepy, or vice versa? Do the two of you fight it out? Just argue about it, with nothing being done? Do you come to the guy's rescue if you think he's being a docile trans identifying male but the other bystander thinks he's being creepy and tries to forcefully eject him? What if there's a whole crowd that tries to eject a docile trans identifying male, do you fight knowing you will lose? Leave him to their tender mercies (it's an expression)? Call the police?

I don't think you've actually thought through what "self policing" means, or the problems that come along with it.

 

[Emily's Cat]

No, I mustn't, because I am not her ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ accountant. I ran across her yesterday while chasing down the Planet Fitness story, and she boasted a "1500% growth increase in her Spotify subscribers" since the Gold's Gym incident, which generates revenue for her and I took to be "significant". Following the links the claim is technically true, but not as dramatic as it sounds:

https://app.chartmetric.com/artist/202298

...as well as her youtube views being up by 62% and all her other money generating online jazz increasing.

Were you going somewhere with this hard hitting investigation, or is it back under the bridge with you?

You kind of come across as if you think that females who take a stand and object to males using female spaces should not be allowed to gain popularity or income, as if they should be expected to suffer for standing up for what's right. Or perhaps you think that support for Hyman's views expressed in financial ways means that their views aren't real?

Do you feel the same way about Dylan Mulvaney? Mulvaney went from being a virtually unknown and unsuccessful gay male actor to gaining all sorts of acclaim and revenue by declaring themself to be "a woman". Visits with presidents, highlighted on beer cans, magazine covers, massive increase in followers, etc.

Do you also believe that Mulvaney's entire thing must be some kind of disingenuous grift?

 

[Emily's Cat]

Your sociopathy is showing again. Even cops who shoot killers render first aid to the person they just shot. And you let a guy who had a head injury lie in the street unattended because he was what, talking trash and briefly blocking a woman's path? Kids do that on the schoolyard every day. Should they be left to die if they sustain a head wound, with blood oozing from their temples, too?

Okay, here's where your inconsistency really shines through. Just a couple of pages ago, you advocated for physically attacking and beating up males who misbehave in female spaces, and described that as being the right thing to do. But here you have a female who managed to catcher these two off guard when they were blatantly harassing the female in a way that any rational person would interpret as threatening and intimidating... and that's a bad thing? People should rush to help the aggressors and make sure they're okay here?

Seriously, what is your stance on this? When is it okay for physical force to be used to protect females, and when is it not?

 

[Emily's Cat]

<derail>"Mustn't" generally means that you have an obligation to not do, whereas I suspect you meant that you don't a have any obligation to do. This isn't a criticism of your word choice, though. Rather, I think it's a limitation of English that there isn't a concise way to express a lack of obligation. A "not must", if you will, rather than a "must not". Feels like there should be, though. Maybe olde English had one.</derail>

Carry on.

Mayn't

 

[Emily's Cat]

'Left to die' is a common figure of speech.

So is "at the mercy of"

 

[smartcooky]

Lying again. I have said I ask women how they actually feel about it in jurisdictions where it actually happens. They, surprisingly, say it's not a big deal and they have no objections,

Your personal anecdotes are not evidence.

But keep repeating the lies. It's a good look, and the repetition will surely convince the feeble minded that they must be true.

They are not lies. They are the inevitable consequence of trying to parse your real position when its continually flip-flopping.

 

[theprestige]

Seriously, what is your stance on this? When is it okay for physical force to be used to protect females, and when is it not?

Seriously:

Thermal thinks it's okay to use physical force to protect females, when he thinks he needs to mollify those of us who have noticed a documented increase in sexual harassment to females, arising from sex segregation overrides via self-ID.

And Thermal thinks it's not okay to use physical force to protect females, when he thinks it too much undermines his baseline preference for self-ID as a humanitarian policy.

 

[smartcooky]

Your sociopathy is showing again.

Bollocks

Even cops who shoot killers render first aid to the person they just shot.

They have guns and handcuffs

And you let a guy who had a head injury lie in the street unattended because he was what, talking trash and briefly blocking a woman's path?

We considered that the guy who got nutted would be able to help

Kids do that on the schoolyard every days.

Oh that makes it OK then

Should they be left to die if they sustain a head wound, with blood oozing from their temples, too?

Bwhahaha, "left to die"!!? Pull the other one.

 

[p0lka]

I think your claim is wrong. And I think your view of trust is also simplistic and unrealistic.

Now, trust and risk are related, so again, I don't think you were wrong to bring up the issue of trust. But I think your conclusions about trust, particularly in relation to EC's statements, are wrong. Risk involves not just an assessment of odds, but also an assessment of consequences, both upside and downside. So let's run through a couple fake examples to examine some relevant factors in risk evaluation and trust.

Suppose I'm at a bar, and I want to go use the bathroom while leaving a $10 bill on the counter which I want to be able to reclaim when I get back. I don't know the guy next to me, and I think there's a 1% chance that he might steal it while I'm gone. But 1% chance isn't very high and the stakes are low (an expected loss of only $0.10 and a maximum loss of only $10), so I might choose to trust him under the circumstances. But there are still other factors to consider, namely what's the cost of not trusting him. If I've got pockets I can easily shove the bill into, then the cost of not trusting him is also low, possibly lower than the expected $0.10 loss, so I might not trust him and shove the bill in my pocket. On the other hand, if I can't easily pocket the bill, if doing so is actually a significant inconvenience, then the cost of not trusting him goes up and I'm more likely to choose to trust him. So trust can actually depends on more than just the odds.

You are more trusting than me as I'd put it at 100% steal and have never left the money in the first place, also that $0.10 loss isn't a real thing as it's not poker.

What if it's the same odds but higher stakes? Let's say I want to hire a babysitter, and I think that the candidate I have to babysit my kids has a 1% chance of abducting and murdering them. The cost of not trusting may be substantially higher as well (suppose it's my last chance to see my favorite band perform before they retire), which would provide more incentive to trust than in the above example. But the potential cost is so high that even with the same odds as above, even with a higher cost of not trusting, there's still no way I'm going to choose to trust them.

And even here, we haven't touched on what affects the odds, but that's relevant to the discussion as well. Because we use information about a person to inform what we think their odds of taking a particular action might be. Does the guy at the bar look like a homeless junkie? Odds might go up. Is he someone I recognize regularly attends my church? Odds might go down. Is the potential babysitter a guy with a sketchy windowless van? Odds might go up. Is it my dentist's neice? Odds might go down.

Yes priors matter.

In regards to males in female spaces, it's hard to calculate the odds of a bad outcome with precision. And the odds of minor bad outcomes (creepy learing) are higher than the odds of extreme bad outcomes (rape). But they're higher for males than for females. They are ALSO substantially higher for males who choose to enter female intimate spaces than for males who choose to remain outside female spaces. And that's the scenario we're considering: not what happens if you randomly throw males into female spaces (an equivalent of the man/bear question), but what happens if you allow in the males who self-select to be in there. I don't know what the odds are mathematically, but there's nothing misogynistic about a woman being uncomfortable with those odds, given the range of possible bad outcomes.

Priors matter. Is there any data regarding the males who choose to enter female spaces versus the transmales who choose to enter female spaces? Is there a difference in threat between the two groups?

Now, we're still not actually done with our evaluation, though, because we still haven't evaluated the cost of not trusting. What does it cost EC to not trust males in female spaces? Well, you lose out on having males in those spaces to immediately do things that you might want a male to do. For example, if a door gets jammed, you don't have immediate access a male who might have the strength to force it open. But these situations are not only exceedingly rare, the cost is generally not that the thing can't be done, but that it takes a bit of time to go fetch the male to do them. So I don't want to claim that the cost is zero. But let's be realistic: the cost of not trusting males in female intimate spaces is really low. It might as well be zero even if it isn't actually zero.

So for EC to conclude that it's not worth the risk of admitting males really doesn't mean she's a misandrist. All it takes is a recognition that males who self-select to enter female intimate spaces do pose some risk, the potential negative consequences are not trivial, and allowing them in provides her no real benefit. All of these are factually true. None of them require misandry of any sort.

Stupid argument. On that basis if I had a starving family knocking on my door pleading for help, I would tell them to ◊◊◊◊ off as that costs nothing whereas letting them in means they might mildly interrupt my schedule or kill me in my sleep. I, as someone who cares for other people would let them in anyway, not letting them in costs something.

 

[smartcooky]

This is a fascinating exchange to me, because you seem to be reading the intent of his message completely differently than I read the intent of his message. You read it as "We did not render help to the men, because they deserved to suffer and possibly die". I read it as "We did not render help to the woman, because she didn't need it". I will let smartcooky weigh in on which (if either) he intended,

A bit of both actually.

but once again it appears your automatic sympathies are for the males, not the female.

Of course they are. Its the vein that runs through his entire shtick.

I will also note that as smartcooky described it, neither man was likely at any risk of dying. Nut shots are incredibly painful, but I've never heard of one being fatal. As for head wounds, they're notorious for bleeding a lot compared to most cuts, but "a lot" is relative. If it didn't pierce the skull (and the fact that he was clearly conscious suggests it didn't, plus that's really ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ hard to do with a shoe), then "a lot" still doesn't actually put the person at risk of fatal blood loss. We aren't talking major arteries here. There ARE no major arteries on the surface of the skull. So no, they were not "left to die". They were left to suffer the consequences of their poor decisions.

Correct

And I'm OK with that.

So were we! FAFO wasn't a thing back then but I nonetheless applied!

Lastly, given that the decision to not help the men was made in the heat of the moment, possibly in a state of confusion given the unexpected outcome of the encounter, it's odd for you to categorize it as sociopathy even given the premise that it was the wrong decision. I think you would consider it unfair of me to categorize your own advocacy for violence in this very thread as sociopathic. You say you regret such expressions now, but you did have time to consider it before you posted, and you still made what you consider to be an error. smartcooky would have had little time to consider the correct choice at that moment, so why aren't you extending to him the same grace you request for yourself?

If those two guys were prepared to act like that in public, nether of us were keen to hang around and find out what else they were prepared to do.

Lastly, smartcooky, why the hell did you have to spell your handle with a 'y'? I had to go back and change all the 'ie's when I noticed!

Its based on my nickname which I have had since I was a schoolboy, which is in turn based on my surname.