The price of bigotry

[Scooter]

I don't know if this is the study they are referring to, but it is one that popped up in a search.

[Big RR]

It may be my browser, but all I keep getting is ads blocking out the Newsweek article, so I couldn't read it.

[Scooter]

In short, someone did a study at a large private university in upstate New York, interviewed almost 500 female students of whom 15% said that they had been raped as freshmen while incapacitated by drugs or alcohol.

[Big RR]

OK, I googled it as well, and found contradictory information, some saying that 15% of freshman were raped, others saying rape or attempted rape. I am presuming the study defined rape as nonconsensual intercourse (rather than unwanted fondling or kissing as a previous study did) and does not include seduction by convincing or begging (another study defined any sex while the woman was intoxicated as rape because she was incapable of consent), but I just find the number almost unbelievable if it is limited to what I think most state laws would regard as rape. I do think far too many women are victimized this way, but 15% of college freshman seems too high IMHO.

If we include attempted, which I see as something possibly begun or threatened, but eventually stopped, I could potentially see a number like this being likely.

ETA: this is a link to an abstract of what I think is the published study--I couldn't find the full paper.

http://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054- ... 2/abstract

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well, New York... I mean...

[Big RR]

Upstate New York; probably closer to Ohio than New York City.

[Scooter]

[Econoline]

[Lord Jim]

That's really impressive...

[Lord Jim]

I'm still trying to figure out the way and wherefore of this...how this from a practical standpoint is going to be enforced...

It seems to me that the only people who could be remotely affected by this law are transgender folks and straight women...

Assuming there is such a thing as a bar or restaurant that would think it would be useful to do a "genital check"...

If the great fear here is that some one who looks like this:



might have a cunning plan for attacking small children in restaurant bathrooms, I would suggest that plan's not likely to work any way....

That sort of thing tends to draw attention....

[Lord Jim]

BTW, I have two transgender friends...

One is a "woman" who used to work for me, and the other is one of Kelly's "girlfriends"...

As a Reagan Republican it took a bit of getting used to, but I can't imagine either of them going anywhere but the ladies room...(frankly, they both look pretty hot...did I just say that out loud? )

[Econoline]

[RayThom]

I have a "woman" friend from my theatre days -- un-reassigned. Other than her hair and some clothing items I can't tell the difference. However, she can and that's all that matters. And the beat goes on.

[Scooter]

[Scooter]

[Long Run]

Of all the issues to take on . . . I don't get it. And to compound it by bringing in the ridiculous argument that it's about protecting women and girls.

[Scooter]

It worked quite well for the dog whistle crowd though, didn't it? Plus it helped to mask all the other ways they were attempting to strip away civil rights protections.

[Big RR]

Of all the issues to take on . . . I don't get it. And to compound it by bringing in the ridiculous argument that it's about protecting women and girls.

I agree the argument is pure bullshit, but it does have a logically consistency; the whole point of men and women restrooms stems from the desire to protect the privacy of the users--I would think especially women. Indeed, I have heard of cases where men were prosecuted for using a women's room, but never one where a woman was prosecuted for using a men's room. Indeed, I can think of several times when I saw a woman use the same men's room I was using (usually in a theater or other place when the line for the women's room was long, but I have never seen a man enter the women's room ever (except when the janitor was cleaning one). Surely we should be beyond such provincial notions now, but I think the play well with some crowds. Claiming it's "to protect the womenfolk" gives it a moral dimension that some will shout loudly for.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Well, yes Big RR - I think that's the disguise all right. Men have (as you say) been prosecuted for entering women's restrooms for many a year - but isn't that usually because they committed some overt offensive act while in there? As an excuse for this bill, it does not stand. (No pun intended).

It does seem clear that the main sponsor of the bill (this "keep our state straight" chap) is not really concerned with much of a disguise - his intent is right out there (so to speak).

When you come down to it, the bill is a gross act of aggression against a non-existent issue. Having used many a men's room for many a year, I have yet to be offended by any so-called LGBT person's presence (if I was even aware of it). I've certainly been standing next to more homosexual pee-ers than I'm aware of, but when I have been (assuming) that the person next to me is homosexual, it's not been any issue at all. Not one man has ever tried to peek (they'd need binoculars anyway but that's another story). And of course, this bill does not in any way prevent homosexual men from using a men's room and the same with homosexual women in women's rooms.

This bill seems to be aimed solely at preventing people with penises from using a women's room and people without a penis from using a men's room. But it doesn't even do that! A man in the process of becoming a woman (or who thinks he is one) will be peeing in the privacy of a close cubicle in the women's room - and presumably he'll be dressed as a woman, no? A woman in the process of becoming a man (or who thinks she is one) will be dressed as a man and, unless there's been a dramatic surgical intervention, will not be standing at a urinal.

For the life of me, I can't understand how this bill is even intended to operate! It is utterly impractical. Now that chap with the beard and the dress - he should be kept out of somewhere. Anything that scares children and horses requires a modicum of restraint

[Big RR]

Meade--I can't argue with any of your points (what am I saying), but it's the way the issue is being spun to get support.