"Some Feminists are Man-Haters"

[LittlePinky82]

Sure, he once had the body of a woman.
But he is a man.
(He's also not the only case of one becoming pregnant.)

I think you missed this-

< While he’s still in the midst of gender reassignment, he always assumed the male hormones he was taking would prevent pregnancy. >

 

[Revoltingest]

I think you missed this-

< While he’s still in the midst of gender reassignment, he always assumed the male hormones he was taking would prevent pregnancy. >

No, I read it.
As I see his situation, he was born a man, but with the wrong body.
He is finalizing his physical transition, & he is pregnant.
I thought you'd find it interesting too.
Ain't it great when an increasingly complicated world challenges our assumptions?

 

[LittlePinky82]

No, I read it.
As I see his situation, he was born a man, but with the wrong body.
He is finalizing his physical transition, & he is pregnant.
I thought you'd find it interesting too.
Ain't it great when an increasingly complicated world challenges our assumptions?

Lol did you miss where it said "he's still in the midst of gender reassignment" when he got pregnant? So, no, I don't think you read it. He still had his previous hormones and thus got pregnant like I would.

And no it's not interesting it's science. He was born in a body and had the proper hormones. We have technology now days in medicine that people can be who they are supposed to be and he was in the middle of changing his hormones and he got pregnant.

Technically he was still a woman with his hormones when he got pregnant. So, again, he's not a man getting pregnant. He still had enough woman hormones to get pregnant. He wasn't finished with transitioning.

 

[Revoltingest]

Lol did you miss where it said "he's still in the midst of gender reassignment" when he got pregnant? So, no, I don't think you read it. He still had his previous hormones and thus got pregnant like I would.

And no it's not interesting it's science. He was born in a body and had the proper hormones. We have technology now days in medicine that people can be who they are supposed to be and he was in the middle of changing his hormones and he got pregnant.

I didn't miss what you point out.
He's still a man.
He's pregnant.
Even ordinary folk these days use highly technical procedures to become pregnant.
Fascinating.
But enuf of this....we're going in circles now.

 

[LittlePinky82]

I didn't miss what you point out.
He's still a man.
He's pregnant.
Even more ordinary folk these days use highly technical procedures to become pregnant.
Fascinating.
But enuf of this....we're going in circles now.

No, he was in the midst of becoming one. You're still not getting it. You have to have the hormones to get pregnant. And he still had enough of his previous hormones, from being born a woman, to get them. Smh. He was born a woman but identifies as a man and had the technology with medicine to become one. As he was in the middle of transitioning his hormones he still had plenty of his previous ones to become pregnant. It's not that hard or fascinating. It's science. His body did what it was supposed to while he was becoming something else he had the ability to. No, we're not going in circles. You're not getting it. You want it to be a man having a baby and that's not the case at all. He wasn't done with his transitioning and still had his female hormones and that's why he became pregnant. Lord, it's not that hard. You don't want to be wrong. You want a man to have a baby and that didn't happen because he still had plenty of his previous hormones left. Good grief. The male hormones he was taking didn't prevent pregnancy as he was born a woman and had the hormones from his gender assignment.

 

[Revoltingest]

No, he was in the midst of becoming one. You're still not getting it. You have to have the hormones to get pregnant. And he still had enough of his previous hormones, from being born a woman, to get them. Smh. He was born a woman but identifies as a man and had the technology with medicine to become one. As he was in the middle of transitioning his hormones he still had plenty of his previous ones to become pregnant. It's not that hard or fascinating. It's science. His body did what it was supposed to while he was becoming something else he had the ability to. No, we're not going in circles. You're not getting it. You want it to be a man having a baby and that's not the case at all. He wasn't done with his transitioning and still had his female hormones and that's why he became pregnant. Lord, it's not that hard. You don't want to be wrong. You want a man to have a baby and that didn't happen because he still had plenty of his previous hormones left. Good grief.

With trans folk, this is what I "get"......
Whatever they identify as, & function in society as, is what they are.
So he's a pregnant man (no matter how unusual his circumstances).

 

[LittlePinky82]

With trans folk, this is what I "get"......
Whatever they identify as, & function in society as, is what they are.
So he's a pregnant man (no matter how unusual his circumstances).

In simple terms yes. He's technically a man because he identifies as one and everything. But his body was in the transitioning of becoming a man with the medicine. His hormones was still with female hormones. He thought the male hormones he was taking would prevent pregnancy but it didn't happen. His body was still doing what nature does. So, technically his body still had enough female hormones to get pregnant and thus it happened. Biologically he's a man still with female hormones and became pregnant just like I would because he was still in transition. So he's not a man getting pregnant. He's a man who was born in a woman's body who got pregnant.

 

[Revoltingest]

In simple terms yes. He's technically a man because he identifies as one and everything. But his body was in the transitioning of becoming a man with the medicine. His hormones was still with female hormones. He thought the male hormones he was taking would prevent pregnancy but it didn't happen. His body was still doing what nature does. So, technically his body still had enough female hormones to get pregnant and thus it happened. Biologically he's a man still with female hormones and became pregnant just like I would.

I know he was transitioning.
This was obvious in the article.
But you keep repeating this.
I don't know what point you're making.

 

[LittlePinky82]

I know he was transitioning.
This was obvious in the article.
But you keep repeating this.
I don't know what point you're making.

You're trying to make it be a person who was gender assigned as a male getting pregnant and that's just not the case. Women are still the ones who get pregnant and bear the burden. His body was still doing what it was supposed to since he was born a woman and he wasn't done transitioning.

 

[Revoltingest]

You're trying to make it be a person who was gender assigned as a male getting pregnant and that's just not the case. Women are still the ones who get pregnant and bear the burden. His body was still doing what it was supposed to since he was born a woman.

Actually, I only claim he's a pregnant man.
You're reading extra into it.

 

[LittlePinky82]

Actually, I only claim he's a pregnant man.
You're reading extra into it.

Well gee I wonder why I would? Maybe considering what this thread is about? And your previous arguments? So what exactly is your point in bringing it up?

 

[freethinker44]

I didn't know men could get pregnant now. Did I miss something there?

You don't think a pregnancy effects men? Last I checked, having a child has significant effects on a parent's life, especially if they neither planned for it nor wanted it. So yeah, women have the privilege to end unwanted pregnancies, men don't.

So you point to one person who maybe did this on tv and that's supposed to mean what? What does that have to do with something? Is Rachel Maddow the only and final spokes person for the issue and speaking on behalf of it and women? What exactly is your point with pointing to something Maddow supposedly did on tv?

At this point, you're making a strawman. This was just one anecdote, but they all do it. YOU did it. If you can't or won't refute an argument against you, that's a point for that argument.

I refuted your argument with plenty of links to people who know it more than you and I do. So there's that.

There's this-

<
“The gender gap in pay would be considerably reduced and might vanish altogether if firms did not have an incentive to disproportionately reward individuals who labored long hours and worked particular hours,” she wrote in a paper published this month in The American Economic Review.

Occupations that most value long hours, face time at the office and being on call — like business, law and surgery — tend to have the widest pay gaps. That is because those employers pay people who spend longer hours at the office disproportionately more than they pay people who don’t, Dr. Goldin found. A lawyer who works 80 hours a week at a big corporate law firm is paid more than double one who works 40 hours a week as an in-house counsel at a small business. >

From the NYTimes link.

Am I being pranked here?
"The gender gap in pay would be considerably reduced and might vanish altogether if firms did not have an incentive to disproportionately reward individuals who labored long hours and worked particular hours"
You here that women? The wage gap might vanish if you only worked as long as men.
Thank you for that source that's 100% in my favor.

<
Take elementary and middle school teachers, for example. Women hold more than 70% of the jobs, yet men still earn more for the same role. Male teachers earn a median of $1,096 a week, whereas women earn $956 -- about 87 cents to the man's dollar.

The gap is even more pronounced in some other everyday professions. In retail sales, women earn 70 cents to the dollar, and among full-time lawyers, women earn 83 cents. >

From the CNN link.

Also from the CNN link
"That's the trouble with just using the 78 cents statistic: it doesn't take into account job choice, education, experience, tenure or hours worked."
"Levo is running its third annual #Ask4More campaign, using celebrities like Sarah Silverman to raise awareness that the wage gap is very real -- and educating women on how to ask for more money."

What was another criticism of the gender wage gap? It's too broad, doesn't account for differences in job, education, experience, tenure or hours worked. And men tend to make more because women are less likely to negotiate for a higher salary.
Sounds like a sound criticism then.

<
Women working full-time in the U.S. last year earned 82.5 cents for every dollar a man earned, according to the Labor Department’s weekly wage data. There are disparities across regions and occupations.

The widest gap in weekly earnings came in the legal profession, where women earn 56.7% of what men do. But nearly all jobs have gaps, from chief executive (70%) to food preparation (90.5%). >

From WSJ.

I like how the statistic varies wildly from one source to the other. Nothing says reliable like wild variation.


From your Center for Disease Control link-

<
In the United States, an estimated 19.3% of women and 1.7% of men have been raped during their lifetimes; an estimated 1.6% of women reported that they were raped in the 12 months preceding the survey. The case count for men reporting rape in the preceding 12 months was too small to produce a statistically reliable prevalence estimate. An estimated 43.9% of women and 23.4% of men experienced other forms of sexual violence during their lifetimes, including being made to penetrate, sexual coercion, unwanted sexual contact, and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences. The percentages of women and men who experienced these other forms of sexual violence victimization in the 12 months preceding the survey were an estimated 5.5% and 5.1%, respectively.

An estimated 15.2% of women and 5.7% of men have been a victim of stalking during their lifetimes. An estimated 4.2% of women and 2.1% of men were stalked in the 12 months preceding the survey.

With respect to sexual violence and stalking, female victims reported predominantly male perpetrators, whereas for male victims, the sex of the perpetrator varied by the specific form of violence examined. Male rape victims predominantly had male perpetrators, but other forms of sexual violence experienced by men were either perpetrated predominantly by women (i.e., being made to penetrate and sexual coercion) or split more evenly among male and female perpetrators (i.e., unwanted sexual contact and noncontact unwanted sexual experiences). In addition, male stalking victims also reported a more even mix of males and females who had perpetrated stalking against them. >

I'm not sure why you bothered quoting anything from this, probably to garner sympathy and show how victimized women, but that's not what we were debating so it's a red herring. It doesn't show that women aren't favored by the justice system.
But I'm glad you quoted it because I saw something interesting in there that I didn't highlight before because I thought it might be a cheap diversion as it's kind of irrelevant in a discussion about the wage gap and justice system bias. But since you were kind enough to bring it up:
"Nationally, an estimated 1.6% of women (or approximately 1.9 million women) were raped in the 12 months before taking the survey.
while an estimated 1.7% of men were made to penetrate a perpetrator in the 12 months preceding the survey."
Wow, in the year before taking that survey, more men were raped by women, than women were raped. Doesn't really have anything to do with the current conversation, but since you brought it up....

From the USA Today link it reported the first definition was from 85 years ago. Definitions and legal terms get updated over time as they should as life moves on and things change.

Right, it took them 85 years to acknowledge that men can also be raped... because the justice system is biased against men. 2012. That's when the FBI finally recognized rape against men. Not from some backwards, pre-enlightened era, 4 years ago. Again, the justice system is biased against men.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well gee I wonder why I would? Maybe considering what this thread is about? And your previous arguments? So what exactly is your point in bringing it up?

In response to part of post #157, I thought news of a pregnant man would be interesting.

 

[LittlePinky82]

You don't think a pregnancy effects men? Last I checked, having a child has significant effects on a parent's life, especially if they neither planned for it nor wanted it. So yeah, women have the privilege to end unwanted pregnancies, men don't.


At this point, you're making a strawman. This was just one anecdote, but they all do it. YOU did it. If you can't or won't refute an argument against you, that's a point for that argument.


Am I being pranked here?
"The gender gap in pay would be considerably reduced and might vanish altogether if firms did not have an incentive to disproportionately reward individuals who labored long hours and worked particular hours"
You here that women? The wage gap might vanish if you only worked as long as men.
Thank you for that source that's 100% in my favor.


Also from the CNN link
"That's the trouble with just using the 78 cents statistic: it doesn't take into account job choice, education, experience, tenure or hours worked."
"Levo is running its third annual #Ask4More campaign, using celebrities like Sarah Silverman to raise awareness that the wage gap is very real -- and educating women on how to ask for more money."

What was another criticism of the gender wage gap? It's too broad, doesn't account for differences in job, education, experience, tenure or hours worked. And men tend to make more because women are less likely to negotiate for a higher salary.
Sounds like a sound criticism then.

I like how the statistic varies wildly from one source to the other. Nothing says reliable like wild variation.


From your Center for Disease Control link-


I'm not sure why you bothered quoting anything from this, probably to garner sympathy and show how victimized women, but that's not what we were debating so it's a red herring. It doesn't show that women aren't favored by the justice system.
But I'm glad you quoted it because I saw something interesting in there that I didn't highlight before because I thought it might be a cheap diversion as it's kind of irrelevant in a discussion about the wage gap and justice system bias. But since you were kind enough to bring it up:
"Nationally, an estimated 1.6% of women (or approximately 1.9 million women) were raped in the 12 months before taking the survey.
while an estimated 1.7% of men were made to penetrate a perpetrator in the 12 months preceding the survey."
Wow, in the year before taking that survey, more men were raped by women, than women were raped. Doesn't really have anything to do with the current conversation, but since you brought it up....


Right, it took them 85 years to acknowledge that men can also be raped... because the justice system is biased against men. 2012. That's when the FBI finally recognized rape against men. Not from some backwards, pre-enlightened era, 4 years ago. Again, the justice system is biased against men.

Last time I checked women got pregnant? And men can still easily walk away from an unwanted pregnancy unless the woman decides to take action. So, please. Spare the woe is me. You have to pay for a child you helped to create. The horror!

From WSJ- < But nearly all jobs have gaps, from chief executive (70%) to food preparation (90.5%).>

I don't know why you bothered to cite the Center for Disease Control study if you didn't want to use anything from it.

As far as women and the justice system huh maybe this has something to do with it-

Link- http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/24/untested-rape-kits-backlog-us-legislators

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/thousands-of-rape-kits-remain-untested-across-the-country/

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-foundation-rape-idUSKCN0HS22A20141003

http://www.msnbc.com/all/doj-400000-untested-rape-kits-across-us

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/2/23/bills-seek-to-tacklebacklogofuntestedrapekits.html

And let's not talk about how when women do report a crime and do a lawsuit her entire sexual history gets brought up in Court to slam her. Anything to make her not be believable and the damage that does.

Also from the Disease Control article-

< The case count for men reporting rape in the preceding 12 months was too small to produce a statistically reliable prevalence estimate. >

As far as the definition changes that's on you men. You control the justice system. Do something about it.

On edit I'm pretty much done with this thread unless there's something new. I don't do circle jerking anymore. It's obvious anything I point to you'll just find ways to dismiss it. So meh. Why should I waste my time and circle jerk?

In response to part of post #157, I thought news of a pregnant man would be interesting.

But what does it have to do with the thread?

 

[freethinker44]

Last time I checked women got pregnant? And men can still easily walk away from an unwanted pregnancy unless the woman decides to take action. So, please. Spare the woe is me. You have to pay for a child you helped to create. The horror!

Not in the US, men absolutely cannot just walk away from an unwanted pregnancy, that privilege belongs solely to women. Sometimes even when the woman decides not force child support, the courts will.

I don't know why you bothered to cite the Center for Disease Control study if you didn't want to use anything from it.

It completely supported my statement that the CDC doesn't even recognize as rape female-on-male, but it has nothing to do with anything you said so I don't see why you felt the need to pull random quotes from it.

As far as women and the justice system huh maybe this has something to do with it-

Link- http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/24/untested-rape-kits-backlog-us-legislators

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/thousands-of-rape-kits-remain-untested-across-the-country/

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-foundation-rape-idUSKCN0HS22A20141003

http://www.msnbc.com/all/doj-400000-untested-rape-kits-across-us

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/2/23/bills-seek-to-tacklebacklogofuntestedrapekits.html

You still believe women are disadvantaged in the justice system?
https://www.law.umich.edu/newsandinfo/features/Pages/starr_gender_disparities.aspx
"After controlling for the arrest offense, criminal history, and other prior characteristics, "men receive 63% longer sentences on average than women do," and "[w]omen are…twice as likely to avoid incarceration if convicted." This gender gap is about six times as large as the racial disparity"
Look at that, the justice system is sexist, towards men, than it is racist.

And let's not talk about how when women do report a crime and do a lawsuit her entire sexual history gets brought up in Court to slam her. Anything to make her not be believable and the damage that does.

That's how criminal trials work. It's the same for murder, robbery, whatever. The first thing the defense tries to do is attack the character and credibility of any witnesses or accusers. If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.

Also from the Disease Control article-

< The case count for men reporting rape in the preceding 12 months was too small to produce a statistically reliable prevalence estimate. >

Um, ok. That's completely random and doesn't appear to be relevant at all, but sure.

As far as the definition changes that's on you men. You control the justice system. Do something about it.

Are you sure that's the argument you want to go with? Because women have consistently out voted men in the US since the early 80s, so I could say if you don't like rich white men trying to keep you in the kitchen then quit putting them in office, but I don't have your it's-your-mess-you-clean-it-up attitude. I care about women's rights as well as my own, and feel fighting for everyone's rights is everyone's responsibilty, and an attack on someone else's rights is an attack on my own.

 

[9Westy9]

The Gender pay gap is like the feminist equivalent of the God of the gaps argument. "Women get paid x percent of what Men get paid, therefore sexism." If there is a wage gap, then we need to figure out the cause, not just assume it's due to sexism.

 

[MARCELLO]

I read the thread as some feminists are man eaters )))))

 

[Flankerl]

But he is a man.

Well apparently not.

 

[Revoltingest]

Well apparently not.

Yeah, there sure is a lot of argument about sex, gender, & the relationship between the two.
Various perspectives out there will try to force people into someone else's notion of how
things must be. This strikes me as oppressive. Without some objective & compelling
reason to tell them otherwise, I'll let the individuals define themselves.
(It's above my pay grade to look into their souls, & tell them who & what they are.)

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I read the thread as some feminists are man eaters )))))

Lol that's the next step in our agenda for world domination. We eat our prey after we remove every last testicle first (we throw those things away).

Btw, haters...that's a joke.