ADVERTISEMENT

Happy for all participating in Women's marches around the world

Gender equity issues are not about either women's rights or women's issues. The libs have managed to screw up the notion of gender, so that nobody knows what the heck it means any more. I know about sex discrimination, Title VII, The Equal Pay Act, Title IX and the general constitutional law about individual rights which obviously includes women. Trump can't do anything to affect any of this law. Period! Those snowflakes who believe that Trump will reverse a body of law that has developed over a half a century are dumbing down the whole idea of anti-Trumpism to the point that it means nothing.
Sounds like you have litigated a few sex discrimination cases. Is this the cred you possess? I am truly interested to hear your perspective but when you start with using slurs like snowflake and say "libs have managed to screw up the notion of gender" you go negative cred wise. I have some interest in this topic as well though so would be interested to hear you explain.

Please do tell us about how much protection the transgender community has and should enjoy against discrimination under Title VII according to you.. Tell us how the EEOC together with the courts have been evolving protection against sex discrimination into protection against gender discrimination that protects the transgendered. Tell us about how North Carolina and Texas and Jeff Sessions will see and enforce the law differently from Obama's EEOC. .

While you are at it, tell us how cut and dried sex is as a scientific concept. Tell us about how sex came to be in the Civil Rights Act anyway and about the extensive and deep discussion (not) that Congress had on the topic before the word sex was included. Maybe mention that in the early days after the Civil Rights Act was passed the word sex was treated by the courts as almost a joke. But then courts do what they do and try to figure out just what the hell the legislature could have meant by sex. The evolution of the court's interpretation of the nature of the protections provided under the Civll Rights Act is one of most uplifting chapters in our national history. It demonstrates not only that the arc ot the moral universe bends towards justice but the way the courts have helped us bend it by making us accountable for our words.

It is a weird and funny thing that the guy who put sex into the Civil Rights Act was an ardent segregationist. Maybe he was trying to kill the bill or maybe he was trying to protect white women...People with bad intentions sometimes produce good outcomes...but mostly not.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy01
It is a weird and funny thing that the guy who put sex into the Civil Rights Act was an ardent segregationist. Maybe he was trying to kill the bill or maybe he was trying to protect white women
This is the generally accepted explanation, but the truth is probably very complicated. Howard Smith himself had a long history of supporting women's rights, and always claimed that he offered the amendment sincerely. In his speech on the floor, he did argue that white women specifically would get the short end of the stick, because employers looking to make sure they wouldn't be accused of violating the law would hire a black woman over a white woman.

Conservative lawmakers also had pro-business reasons to favor equal rights for women. Employers had to deal with a wide array of laws that treated women in the workplace differently (such as limiting their hours per week). In the realities of the post-WW2 labor force, getting these laws overturned would make it easier for employers to hire women, thus expanding their pool of potential workers. In fact, unions were strongly opposed.

Here's an interesting article from a noted feminist academic on the topic:

http://www.jofreeman.com/lawandpolicy/titlevii.htm
 
So here's my Sister March experience in Indy today. Don't have numbers, but in the thousands. The diversity of the crowd was obvious, with everything from babies to 80 year olds, more men and children than I expected. There were women in hijabs, and every color in the rainbow. I wasn't really sure what to expect, but I was actually surprised at the tone of the rally. It was truly much more about working together to accomplish goals, and not just a giant Trump hate fest. There were probably a dozen speakers , each one having a different topic. There was a rabbi, a representative, an activist of LGBT, a minister, Planned Parenthood, and transgender youth, a law student from Mexico that come into the country illegally, and a couple others. I'd say the main focus was not on reproductive rights, but on working together at the grass roots to get involved. Whether it's running for office , calling your representatives, volunteering at your local office, working with Women4Change. There were no hateful chants, no lock him up. Singing of the National Anthem and I am Woman Hear me Roar ! Topics , besides reproductive rights, included climate change, supporting LGBT communities and rights, how to stand up against bullies,hate crimes preventing and reporting, and supporting those of other or no religions.
All around the rally areas were tables to sign up to work and volunteer with a variety of issues and groups. One of my friends brought her daughter and they had a workshop for children called Camp Congress , where they learned the campaign election process, voted, wrote a law, and voted it into action. She was really impressed. Be happy to answer any questions. Haven't talked to any friends from other places except D.C., but have friends in lots of places today marching.
This Washington march was billed as women-led movement bringing together people of all genders, ages, races, cultures, political affiliations and backgrounds.

I know as one of those old white men you have so much disdain for and the fact that as a man I truly don't understand a woman's feelings etc I still have a couple of questions. By the way the most notable and personally admired people I have known in my 70 years have been largely women.

Why were the pro-life groups not welcome? Why isn't it possible to be both pro-life and a feminist? One group the New Wave Feminist weren't welcome and dis-invited and with some of the organizers comments after they were dropped off it became apparent pro-life was considered almost obscene. The leaders/organizers in the walk insisted that being pro-life and feminist is impossible, and that New Wave Feminists is “anti-woman,” “misogynist,” “nauseating” and worse which is wrong.

Don't Pro-life feminists come from all walks of life, all racial and socioeconomic backgrounds including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals, Muslims, atheists and Christians as well?

And many of these groups not welcomed were anti-Trump as well.

As a woman can you explain to this old white fool why pro-life women are not welcomed in this movement or at the very least why the organizers scorned them? As I understand it many pro-life women decided to show up anyway but they weren't welcome to do so. Are they not as much of a woman as you or the organizers of the Washington march? Why are they anti-woman? Is simply the fact that they hold such a high value for the life of the unborn that they are out of touch and should be discriminated against, dismissed and put down?

My wife worked from the age of 15 till retirement at 69. She is not what you would term as religious but does believe. She retired from Civil Service with 30+ years and competed against men and did well and was promoted often and paid well accordingly. She retired a supervisor and earned a very nice income. She is a very independent lady and although not and activist type feminist she will defend her gender vigorously. Having said all of that she is pro-life with exceptions. Does this make her any less of a woman than you or these organizers of the big Washington March?

The wife would not have attended the March in a million years for varied reasons.

I personally think that the celebs didn't do anything of a positive nature for the walk either. Several of them speaking about treating women with dignity and representing them with some of their actions, history, movies, etc is amusing.

You said the gathering that you attended had a main focus of reproductive rights. Can't a woman who is Pro-life have and understanding of these rights and support much of it or is the right to abortion so compelling that women who don't feel as strongly about it are to be scoffed at and ridiculed?

As and old white male with no desire for world domination by the male sex I would simply like your thoughts....seriously.
 
Conservative lawmakers also had pro-business reasons to favor equal rights for women. Employers had to deal with a wide array of laws that treated women in the workplace differently (such as limiting their hours per week). In the realities of the post-WW2 labor force, getting these laws overturned would make it easier for employers to hire women, thus expanding their pool of potential workers. In fact, unions were strongly opposed.

Here's an interesting article from a noted feminist academic on the topic:

http://www.jofreeman.com/lawandpolicy/titlevii.htm
Thanks for the link. I meant to convey that history in my post. Did Smith mean to kill the Civil Rights Bill? He was ardently opposed. Did he support rights for women independently of the bill? He introduced an Equal Rights Amendment on multiple occasions. It seems he was just as sincere in his support for white women's rights as he was in his opposition to rights for non-whites. The association of the segregationists with the women's rights movement is an interesting and complicated one for sure. Since women of color are also women let's say Smith's support of women's rights was "mixed".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#Women.27s_rights

Certainly, Congress didn't have any kind of careful discussion of what discrimination based on sex might mean as part of the legislative history. So the courts have been left to puzzle it out.
 
This Washington march was billed as women-led movement bringing together people of all genders, ages, races, cultures, political affiliations and backgrounds.

I know as one of those old white men you have so much disdain for and the fact that as a man I truly don't understand a woman's feelings etc I still have a couple of questions. By the way the most notable and personally admired people I have known in my 70 years have been largely women.

Why were the pro-life groups not welcome? Why isn't it possible to be both pro-life and a feminist? One group the New Wave Feminist weren't welcome and dis-invited and with some of the organizers comments after they were dropped off it became apparent pro-life was considered almost obscene. The leaders/organizers in the walk insisted that being pro-life and feminist is impossible, and that New Wave Feminists is “anti-woman,” “misogynist,” “nauseating” and worse which is wrong.

Don't Pro-life feminists come from all walks of life, all racial and socioeconomic backgrounds including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals, Muslims, atheists and Christians as well?

And many of these groups not welcomed were anti-Trump as well.

As a woman can you explain to this old white fool why pro-life women are not welcomed in this movement or at the very least why the organizers scorned them? As I understand it many pro-life women decided to show up anyway but they weren't welcome to do so. Are they not as much of a woman as you or the organizers of the Washington march? Why are they anti-woman? Is simply the fact that they hold such a high value for the life of the unborn that they are out of touch and should be discriminated against, dismissed and put down?

My wife worked from the age of 15 till retirement at 69. She is not what you would term as religious but does believe. She retired from Civil Service with 30+ years and competed against men and did well and was promoted often and paid well accordingly. She retired a supervisor and earned a very nice income. She is a very independent lady and although not and activist type feminist she will defend her gender vigorously. Having said all of that she is pro-life with exceptions. Does this make her any less of a woman than you or these organizers of the big Washington March?

The wife would not have attended the March in a million years for varied reasons.

I personally think that the celebs didn't do anything of a positive nature for the walk either. Several of them speaking about treating women with dignity and representing them with some of their actions, history, movies, etc is amusing.

You said the gathering that you attended had a main focus of reproductive rights. Can't a woman who is Pro-life have and understanding of these rights and support much of it or is the right to abortion so compelling that women who don't feel as strongly about it are to be scoffed at and ridiculed?

As and old white male with no desire for world domination by the male sex I would simply like your thoughts....seriously.
My wife and daughter both attended the March. My daughter said that on the plane ride back she was wearing her pussy hat and she encountered a woman on the plane who was wearing a Trump windbreaker. She said the woman in the jacket asked her why she had marched. My daughter said she was marching for women rights. The woman growled back, "you didn't march for me." So it goes.

Given that the march had as its focus women's rights including the right to safe and legal abortion, having a group that is specifically opposed to that right is problematic. We had a discussion of this at the beginning of this thread. I too am interested to hear what Zeke and any other women who attended the march might think. Would also be interesting to hear your wife's take on the other side.
 
My wife and daughter both attended the March. My daughter said that on the plane ride back she was wearing her pussy hat and she encountered a woman on the plane who was wearing a Trump windbreaker. She said the woman in the jacket asked her why she had marched. My daughter said she was marching for women rights. The woman growled back, "you didn't march for me." So it goes.

Given that the march had as its focus women's rights including the right to safe and legal abortion, having a group that is specifically opposed to that right is problematic. We had a discussion of this at the beginning of this thread. I too am interested to hear what Zeke and any other women who attended the march might think. Would also be interesting to hear your wife's take on the other side.

Just a question, how seriously would you take a protestor wearing a penis hat? Say he was marching for father's or men's rights...but he is wearing a big penis on his head...or is dressed up like a giant penis. Would you want a guy like that to claim he was marching for all men? Nevermind the fact that you may not agree with his position to begin with...but just the optics of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Lucy01
My wife and daughter both attended the March. My daughter said that on the plane ride back she was wearing her pussy hat and she encountered a woman on the plane who was wearing a Trump windbreaker. She said the woman in the jacket asked her why she had marched. My daughter said she was marching for women rights. The woman growled back, "you didn't march for me." So it goes.

Given that the march had as its focus women's rights including the right to safe and legal abortion, having a group that is specifically opposed to that right is problematic. We had a discussion of this at the beginning of this thread. I too am interested to hear what Zeke and any other women who attended the march might think. Would also be interesting to hear your wife's take on the other side.

The poor southern farmer in the 1860's said they were fighting for their "rats" too. But they were generally thought of as being lemmings. What women's rights is your daughter concerned about? If she thinks the POTUS, no matter who he or she is, can take away any rights she either doesn't understand basic civics or is really marching simply to protest Trumpism and is using "rights" as a way to dress it up a bit.

I understand the "right" about abortion, so if that is all you daughter is thinking of, she should say she is marching for abortion instead of dressing that up with "rights".
 
Last edited:
Just a question, how seriously would you take a protestor wearing a penis hat? Say he was marching for father's or men's rights...but he is wearing a big penis on his head...or is dressed up like a giant penis. Would you want a guy like that to claim he was marching for all men? Nevermind the fact that you may not agree with his position to begin with...but just the optics of it.
They are literally pink pussy-cat hats. They have ears. You can read about the project here. https://www.pussyhatproject.com/
Pussy is a word with multiple meanings: cat, slang for vagina, derogatory term for a weakling or pushover (e.g., snowflake). As slang or a derogatory term it devalues women and justifies domination in a variety of forms from bullying to rape. Trump, when he says that he can grab women's pussies gets at both of these things objectifying women and bullying others. The pussy hat is a protest against those two things. It is a figurative kick in the balls to a would be rapist plus a public calling out of the attack. Seems like it felt very empowering to a lot of the participants women and men.
 
http://www.justjared.com/2017/01/22...mens-march-participants-sing-powerful-anthem/
Here's a video of all the privileged white women Crazy knows we're at all these marches. These ladies all look like they all just hopped out of their Mercedes to hit the street. And this is the kind of diversity I saw in Indy also.

Zeke, you know I can go pull any stock photo of that March and the majority of the participants are going to overwhelmingly be white women. That is not even a debatable point.

And you do not have to drive a Mercedes to be privileged. I do not but I get my White male privelege thrown in my face all the time by the type of people who frequent these type of marches.
 
They are literally pink pussy-cat hats. They have ears. You can read about the project here. https://www.pussyhatproject.com/
Pussy is a word with multiple meanings: cat, slang for vagina, derogatory term for a weakling or pushover (e.g., snowflake). As slang or a derogatory term it devalues women and justifies domination in a variety of forms from bullying to rape. Trump, when he says that he can grab women's pussies gets at both of these things objectifying women and bullying others. The pussy hat is a protest against those two things. It is a figurative kick in the balls to a would be rapist plus a public calling out of the attack. Seems like it felt very empowering to a lot of the participants women and men.

The cat hat is a bit more innocuous....Given the women dressed like the female anatomy I saw at the marches, I think you could understand how one might misinterpret what type of hat you were talking about.
 
The poor southern farmer in the 1960's said they were fighting for their "rats" too. But they were generally thought of as being lemmings. What women's rights is your daughter concerned about? If she thinks the POTUS, no matter who he or she is, can take away any rights she either doesn't understand basic civics or is really marching simply to protest Trumpism and is using "rights" as a way to dress it up a bit.

I understand the "right" about abortion, so if that is all you daughter is thinking of, she should say she is marching for abortion instead of dressing that up with "rights".
The southerners fighting white superiority in the 1960s weren't thought of as lemmings, they were thought of as bigots. Which they were.

As for my daughter, she is concerned about gender equity among other things. That includes, for example, rights for the transgendered which obviously go beyond abortion rights. You were dismissive of gender above so I suspect we should go there if we want to understand what the current fight is about. http://www.lambdalegal.org/issues/transgender-rights
But this fight is pretty much the same as the last one and the one before it. Those people who enjoy rights that they refuse to give to others battle with those who would claim equal rights. The "conservative" side claims the group asking for the same rights the conservatives possess do not merit those rights effectively because they are not fully human on some dimension. The "liberal" side says those asking for the rights are fully human and the rights should extend to all. Over and over, the same fight, throughout history. The conservatives seem to be slowly losing this argument but with lots of terrible interruptions and backsliding.
 
The cat hat is a bit more innocuous....Given the women dressed like the female anatomy I saw at the marches, I think you could understand how one might misinterpret what type of hat you were talking about.
It is an extension of the same ideas I talked about. I expect the more explicit and outrageous versions you saw reflect a greater sense of outrage on the part of those wearing the costumes.

Have you had your pussy grabbed? Obviously not. Been raped? Probably not, Been bullied? Almost certainly. Most of us grew up in a time in which bullies were common and we were taught to either fight back or take it stoically. Under no circumstances should you show vulnerability. Don't be a pussy...right? Turns out that way of dealing with bullies leaves the culture of bullying in place. Turns us all into bullies and victims. One bully might get pushed out but the next one comes in. These marchers think nobody should have to take it--pussy or not. Crazy, right?
 
The "conservative" side claims the group asking for the same rights the conservatives possess do not merit those rights effectively because they are not fully human on some dimension.

Why didn't you post this a couple of days ago? If I had known the mental filter you employed when reading my posts I never would have engaged in a serious discussion with you. You wasted a lot of my time.
 
Why didn't you post this a couple of days ago? If I had known the mental filter you employed when reading my posts I never would have engaged in a serious discussion with you. You wasted a lot of my time.
You get out what you put in. For my part, I put in a great deal, and therefore got something useful out of the exchange. I am sorry you feel differently. I will miss the discussions with you.
 
Why didn't you post this a couple of days ago? If I had known the mental filter you employed when reading my posts I never would have engaged in a serious discussion with you. You wasted a lot of my time.
Now that we are talking again, I am sincerely interested in where you are coming from on the sex and gender issue that you always seem just on the edge of telling me about but never do. I think the current hot battlefront in the culture wars is exactly on gender. Do transgendered people enjoy protection under Title VII protections against sex discrimination? As I understand it, the law is far from settled AND the position of the Obama administration is likely much different than the position Trump will pursue under Sessions.
 
Now that we are talking again, I am sincerely interested in where you are coming from on the sex and gender issue that you always seem just on the edge of telling me about but never do. I think the current hot battlefront in the culture wars is exactly on gender. Do transgendered people enjoy protection under Title VII protections against sex discrimination? As I understand it, the law is far from settled AND the position of the Obama administration is likely much different than the position Trump will pursue under Sessions.

Full and complete transgender people have the full protection of Title VII. Many who went nuts over the North Carolina law didn't know what they were talking about because that law did not apply to completed sex changes. The confusion comes up for those in the transition pipeline. We have that confusion socially, medically, and legally. That area needs work. For me, 100% self-identification is no answer; there needs to be some measure of objectivity; but even that is situational. Bathrooms at Starbucks are all non specific. I don't think anybody cares. Locker and showers where young girls are present is a different story. The one size fits all self identification that some communities are trying to enact is nuts--in my view.
 
Full and complete transgender people have the full protection of Title VII. Many who went nuts over the North Carolina law didn't know what they were talking about because that law did not apply to completed sex changes. The confusion comes up for those in the transition pipeline. We have that confusion socially, medically, and legally. That area needs work. For me, 100% self-identification is no answer; there needs to be some measure of objectivity; but even that is situational. Bathrooms at Starbucks are all non specific. I don't think anybody cares. Locker and showers where young girls are present is a different story. The one size fits all self identification that some communities are trying to enact is nuts--in my view.
Well that helps. Your last sentence puts you at odds I expect with many of the marchers. It is also turf that is the current battlefield. I think many of the marchers, and me, would argue that anatomy is going to be no use here. Nobody asks, or ought to ask, whether you are "man" enough to use the men's restroom. Nobody ought to ask whether you are "woman" enough to use the women's room. People look more different than alike...My advice? Don't stare.

I agree we certainly have confusion socially and legally,, but scientifically and medically we are getting a much better understanding that sex is about as clear as race from a scientific perspective and gender comes in a bunch of flavors. All of this is going to send lots of people into spasms of "ooh that is icky" which is characteristic of the culture wars when it comes to sex for about the last 30 years. Lot's of people, not liberals typically according to Jonathan Haidt, conflate stuff they find icky with what they think is immoral. Lima beans make me ill so I expect to find a biblical injunction somewhere banning them. No doubt there is a minister somewhere who can find the relevant passage for me. But morality and law based on repugnance just doesn't hold up very well--Jonathan Haidt notwithstanding. The problem is that the ick factor spikes up temporarily and then subsides. On top of that none of this is anything like a disturbance for most young people these days. Let's not make law or harm people because of ick.
 
Well that helps. Your last sentence puts you at odds I expect with many of the marchers. It is also turf that is the current battlefield. I think many of the marchers, and me, would argue that anatomy is going to be no use here. Nobody asks, or ought to ask, whether you are "man" enough to use the men's restroom. Nobody ought to ask whether you are "woman" enough to use the women's room. People look more different than alike...My advice? Don't stare.

I agree we certainly have confusion socially and legally,, but scientifically and medically we are getting a much better understanding that sex is about as clear as race from a scientific perspective and gender comes in a bunch of flavors. All of this is going to send lots of people into spasms of "ooh that is icky" which is characteristic of the culture wars when it comes to sex for about the last 30 years. Lot's of people, not liberals typically according to Jonathan Haidt, conflate stuff they find icky with what they think is immoral. Lima beans make me ill so I expect to find a biblical injunction somewhere banning them. No doubt there is a minister somewhere who can find the relevant passage for me. But morality and law based on repugnance just doesn't hold up very well--Jonathan Haidt notwithstanding. The problem is that the ick factor spikes up temporarily and then subsides. On top of that none of this is anything like a disturbance for most young people these days. Let's not make law or harm people because of ick.

Let's role play. What will you tell a 13 year-old girl who is forced to shower with a grown strange man?

BTW, I think we are way past the bathroom issue, if it ever was an issue. Single-holers are no problem for anyone.
 
Let's role play. What will you tell a 13 year-old girl who is forced to shower with a grown strange man?

BTW, I think we are way past the bathroom issue, if it ever was an issue. Single-holers are no problem for anyone.
I would tell her if your looking at someone in the women's restroom you are looking at a woman. Be polite and don't stare. If some person acts inappropriately towards you then find an adult you trust and be safe. Texas is getting ready to pass its own bathroom bill as I understand. We aren't beyond it but, in fairness, I can't even believe we are getting to it in my lifetime. Things don't always go forward though. Take a look at the trajectory of LGBTQ issues in Russia and Eastern Europe over the past 30 years...totally opposite direction to the path we have taken. I don't think I am alone is worrying that a significant amount of the pro-Putin feeling emerging on the right is not just affection for a "strong-man" but affection for someone who is is very upfront about being anti-gay.
 
I would tell her if your looking at someone in the women's restroom you are looking at a woman. Be polite and don't stare. If some person acts inappropriately towards you then find an adult you trust and be safe. Texas is getting ready to pass its own bathroom bill as I understand. We aren't beyond it but, in fairness, I can't even believe we are getting to it in my lifetime. Things don't always go forward though. Take a look at the trajectory of LGBTQ issues in Russia and Eastern Europe over the past 30 years...totally opposite direction to the path we have taken. I don't think I am alone is worrying that a significant amount of the pro-Putin feeling emerging on the right is not just affection for a "strong-man" but affection for someone who is is very upfront about being anti-gay.

This is no surprise. You are identifying with the person with the penis and giving that priority. I think your priorities are wrong.
 
This is no surprise. You are identifying with the person with the penis and giving that priority. I think your priorities are wrong.
You didn't mention anything about penises before but since you do maybe you should know that there are people with penises that are not men and men who do not have penises. Nature is wildly creative when it comes to endowing people with apparatus or not.
 
This Washington march was billed as women-led movement bringing together people of all genders, ages, races, cultures, political affiliations and backgrounds.

I know as one of those old white men you have so much disdain for and the fact that as a man I truly don't understand a woman's feelings etc I still have a couple of questions. By the way the most notable and personally admired people I have known in my 70 years have been largely women.

Why were the pro-life groups not welcome? Why isn't it possible to be both pro-life and a feminist? One group the New Wave Feminist weren't welcome and dis-invited and with some of the organizers comments after they were dropped off it became apparent pro-life was considered almost obscene. The leaders/organizers in the walk insisted that being pro-life and feminist is impossible, and that New Wave Feminists is “anti-woman,” “misogynist,” “nauseating” and worse which is wrong.

Don't Pro-life feminists come from all walks of life, all racial and socioeconomic backgrounds including lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender individuals, Muslims, atheists and Christians as well?

And many of these groups not welcomed were anti-Trump as well.

As a woman can you explain to this old white fool why pro-life women are not welcomed in this movement or at the very least why the organizers scorned them? As I understand it many pro-life women decided to show up anyway but they weren't welcome to do so. Are they not as much of a woman as you or the organizers of the Washington march? Why are they anti-woman? Is simply the fact that they hold such a high value for the life of the unborn that they are out of touch and should be discriminated against, dismissed and put down?

My wife worked from the age of 15 till retirement at 69. She is not what you would term as religious but does believe. She retired from Civil Service with 30+ years and competed against men and did well and was promoted often and paid well accordingly. She retired a supervisor and earned a very nice income. She is a very independent lady and although not and activist type feminist she will defend her gender vigorously. Having said all of that she is pro-life with exceptions. Does this make her any less of a woman than you or these organizers of the big Washington March?

The wife would not have attended the March in a million years for varied reasons.

I personally think that the celebs didn't do anything of a positive nature for the walk either. Several of them speaking about treating women with dignity and representing them with some of their actions, history, movies, etc is amusing.

You said the gathering that you attended had a main focus of reproductive rights. Can't a woman who is Pro-life have and understanding of these rights and support much of it or is the right to abortion so compelling that women who don't feel as strongly about it are to be scoffed at and ridiculed?

As and old white male with no desire for world domination by the male sex I would simply like your thoughts....seriously.
Where did I say the gathering I attended had a main focus of reproductive rights? I think I said there were about a dozen speakers with multiple topics. I actually attended with a friend who is prolife, and neither one of us knew anything about the controversy from the DC organizers, my guess is most people did not. The focus on many of these marches is going to be reproductive rights, because Trump has already made it clear what some of his plans are. Remember when he famously said that women who had abortions needed some type of punishment? Most of us do. I don't think either men OR other women have the right to tell me what to do with my body. Where was anyone scoffed or ridiculed for thinking otherwise and why would anyone think someone was "less of a woman" for not attending?
The aftermath of this is amusing. From both men and women who weren't there. The marches , which undeniably drew millions of women were 100% peaceful and for the most part positive and empowering. For some reason, people feel very threatened by that. I can't explain other women, just as I could never possibly look into the head and explain a woman that would vote for Trump. I saw a journalist write that you live in a huge bubble if you don't have at least one friend or relative that went to a march. So find one and see what they have to say about it. I can only give my observation of the March I was at.
 
Zeke, you know I can go pull any stock photo of that March and the majority of the participants are going to overwhelmingly be white women. That is not even a debatable point.

And you do not have to drive a Mercedes to be privileged. I do not but I get my White male privelege thrown in my face all the time by the type of people who frequent these type of marches.
Of course the majority of women were white. The majority of women in the country are white. In Indianapolis at least , and from pictures I've seen, there were many women of color also. If you looked through all those stories and pictures I posted and still came out with your opinion that these were privileged women, I don't know what to tell you. I'll just say again, that lots of men seem very threatened by this march for some reason.
 
You didn't mention anything about penises before but since you do maybe you should know that there are people with penises that are not men and men who do not have penises. Nature is wildly creative when it comes to endowing people with apparatus or not.

Again, the identification really doesn't matter to the 13 year old girl who you would force to shower with a guy who has a beard and a penis. She can't control that person's stares at her and she won't know what he identifies as.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Aloha Hoosier
I would tell her if your looking at someone in the women's restroom you are looking at a woman. Be polite and don't stare. If some person acts inappropriately towards you then find an adult you trust and be safe. Texas is getting ready to pass its own bathroom bill as I understand. We aren't beyond it but, in fairness, I can't even believe we are getting to it in my lifetime. Things don't always go forward though. Take a look at the trajectory of LGBTQ issues in Russia and Eastern Europe over the past 30 years...totally opposite direction to the path we have taken. I don't think I am alone is worrying that a significant amount of the pro-Putin feeling emerging on the right is not just affection for a "strong-man" but affection for someone who is is very upfront about being anti-gay.
So some dude that looks like you or me walks into the women's locker room shower where a 13 year old girl is and we're supposed to think that's A-OK? We're supposed to tell the 13 year old girl that this is no big deal, just don't stare? She's the only one in there besides this dude and we're supposed to tell her not to worry, he might just be a transwoman? We're supposed to think this dude's (or person that may or may not consider himself trans, but looks like a dude regardless) comfort is more important than the 13 year old girl's? I think that's nuts.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IUJIM and IUCrazy2
Your patience is impressive.
Again, it really doesn't matter to the 13 year old girl who you would force to shower with a guy who has a beard and a penis. She can't control that person's stares at her and she won't know what he identifies as.
You keep changing the scenario...hard to keep up. Let's see, you have added a beard, a penis and creepy stares.

If anything someone is doing in the shower makes you feel at all threatened including creepy stares get out and find a safe adult. But don't feel threatened just because someone has some unusual facial hair or appendages. It is a big world and nature just doesn't obey many rules. Be polite and don't stare.

Now, what if they have a beard, a penis, a peg leg, a hook for a hand, a parrot and say rrrrrrrrrrrr alot. What then?
 
So some dude that looks like you or me walks into the women's locker room shower where a 13 year old girl is and we're supposed to think that's A-OK? We're supposed to tell the 13 year old girl that this is no big deal, just don't stare? She's the only one in there besides this dude and we're supposed to tell her not to worry, he might just be a transwoman? We're supposed to think this dude's (or person that may or may not consider himself trans, but looks like a dude regardless) comfort is more important than the 13 year old girl's? I think that's nuts.
Growing up is learning to distinguish the unusual from the alarming. Part of how people look is intentional, part isn't. Pay attention to the intentional part to see if you should be threatened and be tolerant of the unintentional part because nature knows no bounds.
 
Growing up is learning to distinguish the unusual from the alarming. Part of how people look is intentional, part isn't. Pay attention to the intentional part to see if you should be threatened and be tolerant of the unintentional part because nature knows no bounds.
None of that answered my questions. We're talking about young girls and grown people that look just like us guys.
 
None of that answered my questions. We're talking about young girls and grown people that look just like us guys.
No, it's not. That's what some of you try to force the conversation into, but it's a tiny portion of the real life situations. In most cases, trans women look like women and trans men look like men, and visiting the bathroom or locker room of their "biological sex" would be the thing that causes issues.
 
You keep changing the scenario...hard to keep up. Let's see, you have added a beard, a penis and creepy stares.

If anything someone is doing in the shower makes you feel at all threatened including creepy stares get out and find a safe adult. But don't feel threatened just because someone has some unusual facial hair or appendages. It is a big world and nature just doesn't obey many rules. Be polite and don't stare.

Now, what if they have a beard, a penis, a peg leg, a hook for a hand, a parrot and say rrrrrrrrrrrr alot. What then?

No I am not changing the scenario. I am looking at the issue through the mind of the female youngster who you are asking to expose herself in front of a person with all male physical appearance. There is no other scenario in my posts. Your "nature has no bounds" argument has no application to me. Somebody's rights take priority. I come down on the side of the youngster. Kids naked in the shower is neither the time nor the place to start a re-education program.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IUCrazy2
No, it's not. That's what some of you try to force the conversation into, but it's a tiny portion of the real life situations. In most cases, trans women look like women and trans men look like men, and visiting the bathroom or locker room of their "biological sex" would be the thing that causes issues.
I'm not trying to force the conversation into anything. I'm addressing one part of it. My questions for that situation are totally valid and I'd like to have some answers to them.

For the record, I think the bathroom part of it is pretty silly. If a transwoman goes into the women's bathroom and uses a stall, no one knows and no one cares. Same with a transman. However, saying it's perfectly OK for a transwoman to go into a YMCA communal shower and take a shower with a bunch of women is OK is totally different. That's putting the feelings of one person over those of many. No one here can deny that a transwoman that looks like any of us guys walking into the communal shower isn't going to make most (probably all) of the women and girls in that shower extremely uncomfortable. Why is their discomfort not worthy of any consideration?
 
No, it's not. That's what some of you try to force the conversation into, but it's a tiny portion of the real life situations. In most cases, trans women look like women and trans men look like men, and visiting the bathroom or locker room of their "biological sex" would be the thing that causes issues.

You are missing the whole point. We are only talking about a person identifying as a sex different from their physical appearance. Thiose who have a completed sex change procedure are not part of this discussion.
 
None of that answered my questions. We're talking about young girls and grown people that look just like us guys.
The problem is to advise young adults about what to do about strange looking people in the bathroom? You want them to learn how to differentiate unusual from dangerous.

But anyway, let me try to follow your scenario. First, I have never pictured you before. I like you so a friendly image that comes to mind is Tim Conway in his role as Ensign Charles Parker in McCale's Navy. So now I am trying to picture Ensign Parker taking a shower in the women's bathroom when a 13 year old girl walks in. Threatening doesn't come to mind. As I envision it Tim Conway looks a lot more put out of shape than she does. In fact, Tim Conway was one of the funniest guys I ever saw. I can hardly help laughing. Anyway, so suppose the girl comes into the women's shower and sees Tim Conway in there what should she do? Well, be polite and don't stare. Try not to fall over in hysterics.

Really, we might as well ask what should she do if she see's Jack Nicholson in there in his role from the shining. GET OUT! GET OUT!
 
You are missing the whole point. We are only talking about a person identifying as a sex different from their physical appearance. Thiose who have a completed sex change procedure are not part of this discussion.
There are a lot of people who haven't completed a sex change procedure, but still present as their identified gender. What to do with them? Where do you think this person would cause the most discomfort?
a63-800x430.jpg

The idea that there are a bunch of people who look like men who want to use the women's locker room (or vice versa) is a straw man, invented by bigots to defend their absurd proposals.
 
I'm not trying to force the conversation into anything. I'm addressing one part of it. My questions for that situation are totally valid and I'd like to have some answers to them.

For the record, I think the bathroom part of it is pretty silly. If a transwoman goes into the women's bathroom and uses a stall, no one knows and no one cares. Same with a transman. However, saying it's perfectly OK for a transwoman to go into a YMCA communal shower and take a shower with a bunch of women is OK is totally different. That's putting the feelings of one person over those of many. No one here can deny that a transwoman that looks like any of us guys walking into the communal shower isn't going to make most (probably all) of the women and girls in that shower extremely uncomfortable. Why is their discomfort not worthy of any consideration?
Who says their discomfort isn't worthy of any consideration? No one. We have to look at all sides of these issues, but you choose to highlight the most absurd possibility as the only one that matters.
 
The problem is to advise young adults about what to do about strange looking people in the bathroom? You want them to learn how to differentiate unusual from dangerous.

But anyway, let me try to follow your scenario. First, I have never pictured you before. I like you so a friendly image that comes to mind is Tim Conway in his role as Ensign Charles Parker in McCale's Navy. So now I am trying to picture Ensign Parker taking a shower in the women's bathroom when a 13 year old girl walks in. Threatening doesn't come to mind. As I envision it Tim Conway looks a lot more put out of shape than she does. In fact, Tim Conway was one of the funniest guys I ever saw. I can hardly help laughing. Anyway, so suppose the girl comes into the women's shower and sees Tim Conway in there what should she do? Well, be polite and don't stare. Try not to fall over in hysterics.

Really, we might as well ask what should she do if she see's Jack Nicholson in there in his role from the shining. GET OUT! GET OUT!
I don't look like Conway, but that doesn't matter. You're not taking this seriously so we don't need to keep going.
 
Who says their discomfort isn't worthy of any consideration? No one. We have to look at all sides of these issues, but you choose to highlight the most absurd possibility as the only one that matters.
I disagree. You both are not taking their discomfort into consideration. You're both saying they should just get over their discomfort because the person that looks like a male but identifies as a female needs to be able to do what make her comfortable. What do you call that that position if it's not "suck it up, buttercup," with the "buttercup" in this case being an average female?
 
ADVERTISEMENT