Breeders co-opt the "Me Too" movement

Quote
StudioFiftyFour

It's not that I don't believe you, completeintrovert. I tend to doubt human beings when they make claims. Let's see the evidence. If they can't provide the evidence... why should I believe it? I have no independent access to the event being described.

No worries, I know what you’re saying. I understand that while honesty is something I value and try to uphold, my values can’t be assumed to be shared by everyone. I also understand, and agree, that legal action can’t be taken against people without evidence. I was just trying to say that I don’t like the assumption being made by some men, {I know, #notallmen} that this whole fiasco is the fault of the women involved.

Lock him up or put him down.
Stolen from Shiny.

Quote
contemplativeintrovert

No worries, I know what you’re saying. I understand that while honesty is something I value and try to uphold, my values can’t be assumed to be shared by everyone. I also understand, and agree, that legal action can’t be taken against people without evidence. I was just trying to say that I don’t like the assumption being made by some men, {I know, #notallmen} that this whole fiasco is the fault of the women involved.

Absolutely. And I understand what you are saying, too. And I'll reiterate that the main objective should be to put guilty sex offenders in prison.

And by the way, I am much more likely to believe a woman or man from the general public, than a Hollywood halfwit who profited from sexual exploitation, and now wants to virtue signal to millions upon millions of innocent Americans who've never committed any sexual crime that #TimesUp.

What hypocrites!

Totally off-topic, just talking about #MeToo in general.

One of the big problems is that so often there is no proof. I'm not talking about the levels some famous people have gone to, which rely on the complacency of people around them, but of the sort of stuff the rest of us deal with on a fairly regular basis. To that end, I see the #MeToo movement, when names are not used, as a way of making people aware of the scope of the problem. One of my friends was shocked to see that so many women he knew had posted it, including many women he considered strong, and this led to him asking others, and in the end he found that not one of his female friends or relatives had not experienced sexual harassment (at minimum, many had experienced sexual assault or rape).

I don't see any attention-whoring or persecution when names aren't given. The main function is to make people aware of just how prevalent the problem is. Which is not the same thing as saying that every man has done something: if every waitress has had her butt groped by a customer, it doesn't mean that every customer is a butt-groper. It just means that there are enough of them, and so minimal consequences for the act, that the experience of having your butt groped is widespread among waitresses. It demonstrates that existing mechanisms aren't working to protect people from this.

I am not arguing that the burden of proof ought to be changed in legal cases. It is a foundation of the system that guilt must be proven. Therefore the best approach is to change people's attitudes, so that others will call a person out if they observe these things, and it will come to be considered unacceptable to do it. Of course it is already considered unacceptable by many, but there's still a lot of locker room culture in the mainstream.

I know so many people who wouldn't dream of doing such things themselves...but they might ignore it if a friend does it, or laugh if they see it in a movie...or assume that someone who tells them about an experience is exaggerating because it conflicts with their own experiences... It is these people that I want to realize just how big the problem is, because they are the ones who already agree with the basic premise that it is wrong, but they are blind to the scale of the problem and also don't think about how their actions might contribute to a culture where some people feel completely free to do what they want to others.

Quote
craftyzits

Quote
StudioFiftyFour

Quote
craftyzits

On this I must disagree with you. Tests on transmen and transwomen have shown that their brains are different from women and men. These tests showed that the brain actually decides if your female, or male. In a transman, you will see a male brain inside a female body. Transwomen have male brains. Your gender's between your ears.

The human gender and genitals are decided when a baby is an embryo. Sometimes, things zig when they should zag and gender can get a little tumbled, or a lot tumbled in babies who are born intersexed (born with male and female genitals).

Let's assume you are correct. What you are stating is that whatever a person thinks is essentially, empirical truth. (This, in spite of every cell containing male or female DNA, specifically.)

My contention lies not within a person's belief structure, but in (some) people's insistence that society be turned upside-down to accommodate a belief structure that is empirically untrue. If a woman wants to dress like a man, or vice versa, or get hormone therapy, cosmetic surgery, whatever... I'm good with that. I think people need to pursue happiness as they see fit. The problem lies when anyone (of ANY sexual preference, gender, race, whatever....) insists that others must go along with and validate their beliefs.

There are people in society who believe that they are Santa Claus, important political figures, and celebrities. And yes, they truly believe this. The electrical impulses in their brains are telling them that this is true. Would you agree that their belief is empirically untrue? Would you argue that the rest of society should simply go along with it? If so... why?

And if a person can be (legally) transgendered... what about trans-racial? Trans-age? Trans-species? I'm not making the case that these examples should be permitted, but from an ethical and legal standpoint I can't see how you can have one legal standing (transgender) but not these others, particularly when the belief comes from within one's own consciousness, and not one's DNA.

The DNA of transpeople is different than your average man/woman because of an error made in the womb when they were tiny embryos.

Quote

There are people in society who believe that they are Santa Claus, important political figures, and celebrities. And yes, they truly believe this. The electrical impulses in their brains are telling them that this is true. Would you agree that their belief is empirically untrue? Would you argue that the rest of society should simply go along with it? If so... why?

This describes mental illness, another problem with the human brain.

Transpeople truely are the gender they feel they are even if they may have been born with a certain set of genitals. The reason why is they suffer from a birth defect that effects both DNA and brain. The mentally ill you describe don't have effects written within their DNA, WHEREVER THAT DNA IS. That DNA in their big toe says I am the gender opisite of what my genitals say I am.

People are born litterally with genital evidence of such mistakes, they can have both vagina and micropenis for example. My theory is that being trans is a form of Intersex, a zig when a zag was needed. Blood tests of Transpeople have shown that their hormones reflected were in fact their chosen gender.

Do you have the articles that you got this information from?

The reason I ask this is because there articles out there debunking this male/ female brain theory and that intersex people are a whole other category then trans. Genetically intersex people can have a whole laundry list of health issues depending on the type of chromosomal issue (XXY, XXXY, XXX etc) that range from heart issues to lowered intelligence to protein folding mishaps, and so on. I seriously doubt people with malformed penises or enlarged clitorises will be delighted to be called something other then their actual medically verified sex, and what 'trans' actually does is basically just endorsing stereotypical gender behaviors. Ever notice they tend to do exaggerated 'female' behaviors and dress or act overly emotional because it's what women are 'supposed' to be like?

From reading about detransitioners, many said it was an issue about them being male or female that made them initially reject their biological sex, often because of trauma (like rape) or mama giving off not so subtle signs that she wanted a girl when she got a boy. True trans, people who have been psychologically evaluated and have had long standing and severe issues from very young are very rare. From these, there are many of these that hate the whole current 'trend' of any behavior or inclination being labeled as trans, and most are under no illusion that they are anything other then chromosomally male or female.

Quote
nightfire

Quote
craftyzits

Quote
StudioFiftyFour

Quote
craftyzits

On this I must disagree with you. Tests on transmen and transwomen have shown that their brains are different from women and men. These tests showed that the brain actually decides if your female, or male. In a transman, you will see a male brain inside a female body. Transwomen have male brains. Your gender's between your ears.

The human gender and genitals are decided when a baby is an embryo. Sometimes, things zig when they should zag and gender can get a little tumbled, or a lot tumbled in babies who are born intersexed (born with male and female genitals).

Let's assume you are correct. What you are stating is that whatever a person thinks is essentially, empirical truth. (This, in spite of every cell containing male or female DNA, specifically.)

My contention lies not within a person's belief structure, but in (some) people's insistence that society be turned upside-down to accommodate a belief structure that is empirically untrue. If a woman wants to dress like a man, or vice versa, or get hormone therapy, cosmetic surgery, whatever... I'm good with that. I think people need to pursue happiness as they see fit. The problem lies when anyone (of ANY sexual preference, gender, race, whatever....) insists that others must go along with and validate their beliefs.

There are people in society who believe that they are Santa Claus, important political figures, and celebrities. And yes, they truly believe this. The electrical impulses in their brains are telling them that this is true. Would you agree that their belief is empirically untrue? Would you argue that the rest of society should simply go along with it? If so... why?

And if a person can be (legally) transgendered... what about trans-racial? Trans-age? Trans-species? I'm not making the case that these examples should be permitted, but from an ethical and legal standpoint I can't see how you can have one legal standing (transgender) but not these others, particularly when the belief comes from within one's own consciousness, and not one's DNA.

The DNA of transpeople is different than your average man/woman because of an error made in the womb when they were tiny embryos.

Quote

There are people in society who believe that they are Santa Claus, important political figures, and celebrities. And yes, they truly believe this. The electrical impulses in their brains are telling them that this is true. Would you agree that their belief is empirically untrue? Would you argue that the rest of society should simply go along with it? If so... why?

This describes mental illness, another problem with the human brain.

Transpeople truely are the gender they feel they are even if they may have been born with a certain set of genitals. The reason why is they suffer from a birth defect that effects both DNA and brain. The mentally ill you describe don't have effects written within their DNA, WHEREVER THAT DNA IS. That DNA in their big toe says I am the gender opisite of what my genitals say I am.

People are born litterally with genital evidence of such mistakes, they can have both vagina and micropenis for example. My theory is that being trans is a form of Intersex, a zig when a zag was needed. Blood tests of Transpeople have shown that their hormones reflected were in fact their chosen gender.

Do you have the articles that you got this information from?

The reason I ask this is because there articles out there debunking this male/ female brain theory and that intersex people are a whole other category then trans. Genetically intersex people can have a whole laundry list of health issues depending on the type of chromosomal issue (XXY, XXXY, XXX etc) that range from heart issues to lowered intelligence to protein folding mishaps, and so on. I seriously doubt people with malformed penises or enlarged clitorises will be delighted to be called something other then their actual medically verified sex, and what 'trans' actually does is basically just endorsing stereotypical gender behaviors. Ever notice they tend to do exaggerated 'female' behaviors and dress or act overly emotional because it's what women are 'supposed' to be like?

From reading about detransitioners, many said it was an issue about them being male or female that made them initially reject their biological sex, often because of trauma (like rape) or mama giving off not so subtle signs that she wanted a girl when she got a boy. True trans, people who have been psychologically evaluated and have had long standing and severe issues from very young are very rare. From these, there are many of these that hate the whole current 'trend' of any behavior or inclination being labeled as trans, and most are under no illusion that they are anything other then chromosomally male or female.

The evidence was shown in a film that I couldn't copy.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/think-gender-comes-down-to-x-and-y-chromosomes-think-again/article24811543/

The above link explains many situations where what you see between the legs is not biologically what you're looking at. Also, we must not overlook that there are MILLIONS of cases out there of people showing mild symptoms of these syndromes. There are other issues out there that medical science hasn't uncovered yet too.

+++++++++++++

Passive Aggressive
Master Of Anti-brat
Excuses!

Quote
StudioFiftyFour

Quote
kittehpeoples
I hate the idea of moos co-opting the metoo movement's efforts as much as I disliked when men tried to do it, too. You're all right that equating womanhood with motherhood demeans us.

(Yes, I know men get sexually assaulted, and it is equally terible. But this movement isn't/wasn't about men, yet there were some, insisting that women stand aside and let them be heard. In other words, just another Tuesday....)

I don't agree with you, at least in part. I want all people to be heard. Men and women alike.

Did I say men shouldn't be heard? No. I said men being assaulted is equally terrible. But the metoo movement wasn't just about sexual assault, it was about women being sexually assaulted. I'm glad that men are coming forward, and I think the death penalty should be considered in at least some rape cases. But metoo was a women's movement, and it's always disconcerting when any oppressed group tries to do something like this and their oppressors demand to have a place and a voice in the movement. Support is great. Displacement isn't.

Quote
kittehpeoples

Did I say men shouldn't be heard? No. I said men being assaulted is equally terrible. But the metoo movement wasn't just about sexual assault, it was about women being sexually assaulted. I'm glad that men are coming forward, and I think the death penalty should be considered in at least some rape cases. But metoo was a women's movement, and it's always disconcerting when any oppressed group tries to do something like this and their oppressors demand to have a place and a voice in the movement. Support is great. Displacement isn't.

I'm not speaking specifically of male sexual assault. I am however communicating that "being heard" in the sense of due process is the supreme objective here, for the accusers and the accused.

Who is being oppressed anyway? Millionaire actresses who prostituted themselves for financial gain, and are now playing the victim card because it's the trendy thing to do? Outrageous! Generally speaking they traded sex in exchange for money, power, and fame, and didn't give a damn about whether or not other women would be victimized.

Following due process is the best method we have for charging, trying, and convicting dangerous people. Getting them off of the street and behind bars is an outcome we can all logically get behind. #Hashtags and online outrage is not moving us in that direction. They move us in the direction of lawlessness and mob rule.

Quote
StudioFiftyFour


Following due process is the best method we have for charging, trying, and convicting dangerous people. Getting them off of the street and behind bars is an outcome we can all logically get behind. #Hashtags and online outrage is not moving us in that direction. They move us in the direction of lawlessness and mob rule.

When I told my friend that the accused should have due process, she was against it becuz the statute of limitations was up in some cases. I said as much as I don't want women used/abused, that is just too bad then. I think my friend and her friend I just met that day thought I was crazy. Nothing I said got thru to them. "things change" was the only thing on their minds. I tried to have them understand, Would YOU want to be judged on something YOU did 25 yrs ago, especially if it is just this person said, that person said, and then lose your job over it? IAnd, just be judged in the media and not a court of law. (My friend does work in the legal field too.) If it was something criminal, the statute protects ALL people from being accused while memories fade, and witnesses die. And, we are treating an pinch on the ass as something just as bad as an out and out rape. No one has any prospective. I don't want women suffering any of this stuff, but I'm not going for overkill and the jugular just to prove some point.

Quote
cfuter

When I told my friend that the accused should have due process, she was against it becuz the statute of limitations was up in some cases. I said as much as I don't want women used/abused, that is just too bad then. I think my friend and her friend I just met that day thought I was crazy. Nothing I said got thru to them. "things change" was the only thing on their minds. I tried to have them understand, Would YOU want to be judged on something YOU did 25 yrs ago, especially if it is just this person said, that person said, and then lose your job over it? IAnd, just be judged in the media and not a court of law. (My friend does work in the legal field too.) If it was something criminal, the statute protects ALL people from being accused while memories fade, and witnesses die. And, we are treating an pinch on the ass as something just as bad as an out and out rape. No one has any prospective. I don't want women suffering any of this stuff, but I'm not going for overkill and the jugular just to prove some point.

Here's the thing... advocating in favor of due process and the rule of law is in no way anti-woman or pro-rape. It's quite the opposite. It's pro-woman, pro-man, and anti-rape. What goes through the legal system is the crime itself and the question of did it or did it not happen. If it did, punishments are proscribed. If it cannot be proven, the acquitted walks free.

The opposite of due process is mob rule. With mob rule, rapists AND non-rapists will end up being severely punished! That's not what we are looking for. What we want is as many rights and freedoms afforded to every individual that can possibly be afforded. AND we want protections from mob rule and tyrannical government. Why? Because societies change. Norms change. Centuries ago rape wasn't seen as a very serious crime. Now it is. But who's to say what will be in place 100 years from now? The #TimesUp torches-and-pitchforks crowd that wants to lump together child rape with inappropriate comments and everything in between might not be en vogue a generation from now. There may be a counter reaction, and perhaps an ugly one.

When you stand with due process for ALL people, you stand for logic and reason. You stand with some of the worlds' all-time great thinkers and philosophers. You stand for preserving the dignity of people as a whole.

If you stand with the Hollywood-Halfwit-Hypocrite-Reactionaries, that's fine, but understand that there's not very much deep thought or logic coming from them. And if society and our legal system bend the way they want it to, don't be surprised when eventually there is some torches-and-pitchforks mob (online or real) targeting YOU some day, for some perceived transgression real or imaginary.

Quote
StudioFiftyFour

Quote
cfuter

When I told my friend that the accused should have due process, she was against it becuz the statute of limitations was up in some cases. I said as much as I don't want women used/abused, that is just too bad then. I think my friend and her friend I just met that day thought I was crazy. Nothing I said got thru to them. "things change" was the only thing on their minds. I tried to have them understand, Would YOU want to be judged on something YOU did 25 yrs ago, especially if it is just this person said, that person said, and then lose your job over it? IAnd, just be judged in the media and not a court of law. (My friend does work in the legal field too.) If it was something criminal, the statute protects ALL people from being accused while memories fade, and witnesses die. And, we are treating an pinch on the ass as something just as bad as an out and out rape. No one has any prospective. I don't want women suffering any of this stuff, but I'm not going for overkill and the jugular just to prove some point.

Here's the thing... advocating in favor of due process and the rule of law is in no way anti-woman or pro-rape. It's quite the opposite. It's pro-woman, pro-man, and anti-rape. What goes through the legal system is the crime itself and the question of did it or did it not happen. If it did, punishments are proscribed. If it cannot be proven, the acquitted walks free.

The opposite of due process is mob rule. With mob rule, rapists AND non-rapists will end up being severely punished! That's not what we are looking for. What we want is as many rights and freedoms afforded to every individual that can possibly be afforded. AND we want protections from mob rule and tyrannical government. Why? Because societies change. Norms change. Centuries ago rape wasn't seen as a very serious crime. Now it is. But who's to say what will be in place 100 years from now? The #TimesUp torches-and-pitchforks crowd that wants to lump together child rape with inappropriate comments and everything in between might not be en vogue a generation from now. There may be a counter reaction, and perhaps an ugly one.

When you stand with due process for ALL people, you stand for logic and reason. You stand with some of the worlds' all-time great thinkers and philosophers. You stand for preserving the dignity of people as a whole.

If you stand with the Hollywood-Halfwit-Hypocrite-Reactionaries, that's fine, but understand that there's not very much deep thought or logic coming from them. And if society and our legal system bend the way they want it to, don't be surprised when eventually there is some torches-and-pitchforks mob (online or real) targeting YOU some day, for some perceived transgression real or imaginary.

I tried explaining all this to the two women I was with, and said, it isn't the wild west, where one person says, Billy musta did it, he has red paint on his hands and I just painted my barn, then everyone drags him to a tree to hang him. I tried to tell them someday what they are doing today might suddenly be illegal yrs from now and someone could drag them to the tree next, but they were having none of it.