Banning ‘Woke’ Words in State Documents, Arkansas Governor Signs Executive Order

[icehorse]

There doesn't appear to be any need for this supposed dread that you've not even demonstrated the existence of. This supposed dread is misplaced. Sorry if you think it's callous and selfish to point that out.

Send any woman who dreads using public washrooms to me and I'll have a little discussion with them and point out to them that it's overhyped and apparently unjustified so they can move on with their lives. However, I'm not even sure this dread exists in the first place. This appears to just be an exercise in fear-mongering.

You have such broad shoulders to take on such a mission. You can start here, and tell this journalist how wrong she is:

What women know and men don’t: Women have an ever-present fear of being attacked

 

[SkepticThinker]

tell us how male perps will somehow ignore this new opportunity...

I showed you the data. You waved it away.
You've shown ... well, nothing to show that what you're asserting is being borne out in reality.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I showed you the data. You waved it away.
You've shown ... well, nothing to show that what you're asserting is being borne out in reality.

Clearly we don't understand. Studies conducted over years of analysis are irrelevant. What matters is the very small number of individual instances of bad things happening. That's how we determine broad social prescriptions and policies, apparently.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You have such broad shoulders to take on such a mission. You can start here, and tell this journalist how wrong she is:

What women know and men don’t: Women have an ever-present fear of being attacked

And you have the gall to accuse OTHER people of "virtue signalling".

Rather than doing this blatant virtue signalling and strawmanning, how about engaging with SkepticThinker's actual argument that fears around trans people using women's spaces are unfounded? Y'know, the thing that all the evidence you have been shown and rejected because of your dogmatism suggests?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Nope, you're still not getting it. Sure, the trans population is small and the gender **** population is smaller still.

But the impact that the gender ****ers can have on normalization is significant. As I'm sure you know, radical extremists can shift overton windows, correct?


I'm not demonizing trans people. I do think the gender ****ers are being quite selfish however.

So.... basically everyone else is selfish here. But not you.

And AGAIN, this is not about feeling uncomfortable. This is about feeling legitimate fear.

You've yet to demonstrate any legitimate fear.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Clearly we don't understand. Studies conducted over years of analysis are irrelevant. What matters is the very small number of individual instances of bad things happening. That's how we determine broad social prescriptions and policies, apparently.

Right?

 

[F1fan]

In this conversation my ONLY problem is with biological males entering women's safe spaces.

That sounds sinister, something that we would see in conservative men who lack the ability to respect women, not trans. Like frat boys breaking into a sorority to cause mayhem. But this isn't what you are arguing. You are trying to vilify trans women (born biologically male) who are seeking transition and acceptance by society. You have some gripe that you are not articulating, or perhaps you don't have one, just have a prejudice that you have to embellish as a problem.

I race bikes, and in the fall and winter we do what is called cyclocross, a hybrid of road and offroad competition. About 10 years ago one of the male racers came out as trans, Chris, and went through treatment for transition. A few folks in the racing community knew about this, but I hadn't heard of it until I saw Chris racing in a woman's race. Do you know what the reaction was by everyone in the midwest racing community was? Acceptance. And support. I don't know the current USA Cycling or UCI rules for trans athletes in championship events, but I do know there has been broad acceptance of trans athletes in cycling. My personal view is that trans athletes not be eligible for medals, at least in woman's racing. For example if a state has a state championship road race only citizens of the state are eligible for medals. So the state champion might finish 5th overall. I could see federations of sports have a trans set of medals IF there comes a time when there are enough trans athletes competing.

I understand the need for there to be separate genders in high level sport. But heck, even in road racing upper tier woman are allowed in men's races. I've been beaten in races numerous times by bad *** women racers. I think that is pretty cool. I know there are a small number of female athletes who are against trans people competing. Their number is very small. And I can see their arguments for championshi events. As i noted there is a solution by adding a category.

Anything else you might think, you're making up.

It's not what I am making up. It what you are exaggerating and NOT explaining. You have a gripe. I'm still not sure why you have this gripe against trans people.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Frequently, that's not how society works. Frequently, we use our noggins to make likely predictions about how an action might turn out, and we sometimes advert tragedies before they might transpire.

It's not complex: ANY ACTIONS by ANY PEOPLE that make it normal for men to enter women's safe spaces are to be avoided.


FFS - this has NOTHING to do with fear of trans people!

No, no. It's about "dread"

 

[SkepticThinker]

It exists.
I was at the gym maybe a couple months ago and several tv screens are on, one if them Fox, who's hyping an upcoming Hannity show about the problems and risks transwomen pose to school aged cis women at school, and the creepy pervs had a camera on this presumably high school girl's butt as she walked in the bathroom.

Oh good grief.

 

[icehorse]

You are trying to vilify trans women (born biologically male) who are seeking transition and acceptance by society. You have some gripe that you are not articulating, or perhaps you don't have one, just have a prejudice that you have to embellish as a problem.

I am not. If you think I am, find the post where I said any such thing.

And again... My gripe is with the idea that it becomes NORMAL for men to enter women's safe spaces. A few posts back I linked to an article about just such an occurrence. The reason that man was allowed to enter the women's locker room was because of the gym's "gender self identification policy". This is an example of exactly what my gripe is.

The staff at the gym were unable to act because it's becoming NORMAL for men to enter women's safe spaces.

So what's your answer? "Too bad for women?"

I understand the need for there to be separate genders in high level sport. But heck, even in road racing upper tier woman are allowed in men's races. I've been beaten in races numerous times by bad *** women racers. I think that is pretty cool. I know there are a small number of female athletes who are against trans people competing. Their number is very small. And I can see their arguments for championshi events. As i noted there is a solution by adding a category.

As a rule across society, we support "punching up" and we do not allow "punching down". It's great to see women competing successfully against men. But not the other way around. It's great if a 10 year old can compete with 14 year olds. But we do not allow 14 year olds to compete with 10 year olds. Do you understand the punching up vs punching down pattern I'm describing?

 

[F1fan]

I am not. If you think I am, find the post where I said any such thing.

Oh, that's easy, it's your next comment...

And again... My gripe is with the idea that it becomes NORMAL for men to enter women's safe spaces.

Here it is. The issue isn't men, like frat boys, entering the women's locker room.

The issue is how to manage trans people in a society that is split on being accepting and tolerant of diversity to those with a giant stick up their *** regarding gender identity. You are clear which side you are on, and offer solutions that further intolerance and garm against trans people. And why? Only because you represent a side that is intolerance and unaccepting for ideological reasons, for tradttion, and unable to adapt to a changing society. Your solution is to simply reject them comptetely, not even cooperate with a solution that does not harm them.

A few posts back I linked to an article about just such an occurrence. The reason that man was allowed to enter the women's locker room was because of the gym's "gender self identification policy". This is an example of exactly what my gripe is.

Yeah, there's going to be fringe examples of intolerant cotizens who have giant sticks up their ***.

As I noted i am a competitive cyclist. Guess what, there are people in society that think bikes should NOT be allowed on public roads. They want bikes banned. Bike riders are not a huge segment of the population but to ban bikes would harm them. There are people who want all gun laws nullified. And you cite some fringe examples who don't want trans people to have access to basic things in society. There will always be fringe groups against anything. The trans issue hapvens to be a conservative issue that they have used to expoit their audience. It used to be gays, but they are getting more accepted and not as useful to the right wing. You seem to be under that influence. You offer no actual thrreat or problem for society. Adjustments always mean some pressure on our minds, and trans people is an example of how conservatives are struggling.

The staff at the gym were unable to act because it's becoming NORMAL for men to enter women's safe spaces.

Then they need to make adjustments.

So what's your answer? "Too bad for women?"

No, reasonable adjustments. You want to say "Too bad for trans". How about making adjustments we can all live with instead of vilifying a growing group of citizens? You don't even seem willing to talk about solutions.

As a rule across society, we support "punching up" and we do not allow "punching down".

Unless it's trans folks, eh?

It's great to see women competing successfully against men. But not the other way around. It's great if a 10 year old can compete with 14 year olds. But we do not allow 14 year olds to compete with 10 year olds. Do you understand the punching up vs punching down pattern I'm describing?

Hey, it's never going to be 100% fair. Most sports have 10 year or 5 year age groups. Is it fair that a 59 year old has to compete with a 50 year old? Not really, but those are the rules. Sports federations will assess and adopt rules that are the best compromise, and integrating trans athletes is the newest challenge. Dismissing them as a real category targets them, and harms them. I suggest that you find a way to compromise and let go your prejudice.

 

[Soandso]

I never said that. I think trans people probably ought to have individual safe spaces.

So all of the schools, gyms, restaurants, or every other establishment that only has "male" or "female" facilities in the whole of the US are supposed to do what? Build another series of restrooms, locker rooms, and other things such as that? Sounds expensive and impractical. All to make some people feel a little more comfortable while "biological males" are segregated away from them

Until that future that never comes about happens, what are trans people supposed to do with the actual system of male and female spaces we use currently? That's the real question

 

[Soandso]

You appear to have decided that there is only one correct answer.

I have convictions on this issue, yes, just like everyone else

And if anyone disagrees, you feel free to insult them.

Insulting people is against the forum rules, so I try to avoid that. I can be prone to calling behavior out when I see it and call a spade a spade if someone's behavior leads me to believe that they lean in a certain direction

Maybe I'm wrong. If so, please tell me how I'm wrong

That's quite authoritarian of you.

Authoritarian? Are people not supposed to have opinions?

How about you try to steelman my position. You don't have to agree with it.

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure what your position is in regards to solutions because you kind of move around a lot or outright don't respond to questions I've asked or points I've made. For example, when I was discussing a point with you earlier, you said:

Nope, you're still not getting it.

So then I asked you to clarify

Then explain exactly what I'm not getting

And then you didn't respond to that. I can only work with the information that I have, so maybe you can paint a clearer image of what your position actually is

 

[icehorse]

The issue is how to manage trans people in a society that is split on being accepting and tolerant of diversity to those with a giant stick up their *** regarding gender identity. You are clear which side you are on, and offer solutions that further intolerance and garm against trans people. And why? Only because you represent a side that is intolerance and unaccepting for ideological reasons, for tradttion, and unable to adapt to a changing society. Your solution is to simply reject them comptetely, not even cooperate with a solution that does not harm them.

You are ascribing claims of me that are directly the opposite with what I've said.

Please do not do that any more - thanks.

No, reasonable adjustments. You want to say "Too bad for trans". How about making adjustments we can all live with instead of vilifying a growing group of citizens? You don't even seem willing to talk about solutions.

And again, the exact opposite of what I've been saying.

I'm trying to have a civil conversation. Please do not misquote me or try to predict what you think I really mean. I mean exactly what I've been saying and no more. I have no secret agenda here.

thanks

 

[icehorse]

So all of the schools, gyms, restaurants, or every other establishment that only has "male" or "female" facilities in the whole of the US are supposed to do what? Build another series of restrooms, locker rooms, and other things such as that? Sounds expensive and impractical. All to make some people feel a little more comfortable while "biological males" are segregated away from them

Until that future that never comes about happens, what are trans people supposed to do with the actual system of male and female spaces we use currently? That's the real question

Hey! Thanks for an actual civil response. I think yours is a good question, not easy to answer. But one thought is this, in society we try to make reasonable accommodations when practical. We do NOT for example re-work all of our doors because a few people are over 6' 6". Same with how we make cars. If you're over 6' 6", lots of things are inconvenient.

Does that mean we're all tall-phobes and bigoted against tall people?

Honestly, I'm not entirely sure what your position is in regards to solutions because you kind of move around a lot or outright don't respond to questions I've asked or points I've made

Well there are a few points being discussed at the same time here. I believe that I have been consistent in terms of each individual point. If you're not sure what my positions are, just ask, and I'll clarify.

 

[icehorse]

Perhaps this article can help clear things up:

A system of gender self-identification would put women at risk

 

[SkepticThinker]

Hey! Thanks for an actual civil response. I think yours is a good question, not easy to answer. But one thought is this, in society we try to make reasonable accommodations when practical. We do NOT for example re-work all of our doors because a few people are over 6' 6". Same with how we make cars. If you're over 6' 6", lots of things are inconvenient.

As a society, we do actually do stuff like that though.
There was a time when there were no wheelchair ramps, or accessible parking spaces, and access to buildings, etc. which I'm sure caused huge hindrances to people confined to wheelchairs, in their ability to go about their lives and travel freely and experience the same quality of life as anybody else.
What did we, as a society do? We created regulations that called for businesses to build wheelchair ramps, and create accessible parking, to create designated washrooms that are accessible to wheelchair users, etc. In other words, we "re-worked" all of our existing facilities to accommodate a greater amount of people - a "few" who rely on wheelchairs to get around.

This isn't like, some weird foreign concept or something.

Does that mean we're all tall-phobes and bigoted against tall people?


Well there are a few points being discussed at the same time here. I believe that I have been consistent in terms of each individual point. If you're not sure what my positions are, just ask, and I'll clarify.

They did just ask for you to clarify.

 

[F1fan]

You are ascribing claims of me that are directly the opposite with what I've said.

Please do not do that any more - thanks.

I noticed you don’t clarify where i am wrong. And others have the same impression of your views as I do, so could it be that you aren’t being clear, or are confused about what you mean?

And again, the exact opposite of what I've been saying.

I'm trying to have a civil conversation. Please do not misquote me or try to predict what you think I really mean. I mean exactly what I've been saying and no more. I have no secret agenda here.

thanks

Same as above. If we are not understanding your views then its on you to clarify. That you don’t seems to suggest you are trying to save face. So as civil discussions go, clarify what I got wrong.

 

[icehorse]

The issue is how to manage trans people in a society that is split on being accepting and tolerant of diversity to those with a giant stick up their *** regarding gender identity. You are clear which side you are on, and offer solutions that further intolerance and garm against trans people. And why? Only because you represent a side that is intolerance and unaccepting for ideological reasons, for tradttion, and unable to adapt to a changing society. Your solution is to simply reject them comptetely, not even cooperate with a solution that does not harm them.

In order to clear up any confusion, I think I need to take this one step at a time. I'm not ignoring your other points. So...

There are two distinct at risk groups being discussed: women and trans people. So far, so good?

==

Late addition to the post above:

The way I'm defining the term zero-sum is that there are situations in which for one side to win, the opposing side must lose. Games like checkers are an example.

But some situations do not have to be zero-sum, both sides can come out without losing anything. IMO, the current situation that we're discussing is zero-sum. Trans women gain access, but women lose security. (I understand that many of my opponents disagree that women are losing anything.)

My position is that we need to abandon the current zero-sum solution, and look for a win-win. A solution that benefits trans people without damaging the rights of women.

Does my position make sense? (I'm not asking if you agree, I'm asking only if you understand.)

 

[Soandso]

But one thought is this, in society we try to make reasonable accommodations when practical. We do NOT for example re-work all of our doors because a few people are over 6' 6". Same with how we make cars. If you're over 6' 6", lots of things are inconvenient.

Yes, lots of things are inconvenient, like having to share the same space as trans people in restrooms - otherwise, where are they supposed to go to the bathroom? Like I said, this is the real question and I hope you can give me a grounded, practical response on this

Does that mean we're all tall-phobes and bigoted against tall people?

Building things according to the majority isn't bigoted, it's practical. Actively Restricting who gets to use things is where the opportunity for bigotry comes in. No one is trying to stop tall people from going into bathrooms because some shorter people are fearful of them