Riley Gaines Assaulted by Trans Activists at San Francisco State University

[I am Groot]

35 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

1. That is not a legitimate cost consideration.

You don't get to make that decision for women.

35 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

2.  They are, but for the trolls who decry a climate conspiracy, a New World Order conspiracy, and favour invading the US Capitol or calling for the Governor General to take over the government.

All of this is unrelated to the points I made that unweaving support for 'the law', 'the environment' and 'trade' are not intelligent or logical.

35 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

3. I think that governments, being run by lawyers and politicians, are bad at management.  The system needs a tune up, anyone can see that.

But the decisions on environmentalism, trade and law are made by these people. And rarely in the best interests of the environment, trade or justice.

[Perspektiv]

2 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

Where trans folks and trans activists are violently attacking folks frequently (once an hour or so) and they are being conveniently ignored by the big bad media. This is unprovable hence why you say it. 

Its hard to violently attack people, when the simple threat of it, silences most. 

Ever heard of a panipticon prison concept? 

Banks use this concept all the time. A monitor at the entrance, shows you an image of yourself entering. It psychologically controls your behavior not only letting you know you're being watched. It shows you it. 

Suicides are reduced at train stations that employ similar tactics, such as having reflective mirrors near tracks. Knowing you are being watched (or the illusion of it), controls behavior. 

Why does this matter? 

Why do you think the reactions to people publicly speaking against anything trans has always been overkill? Withering, even. The common tactic, was forcing the celebrity not only to apologize, but somehow to take a path to redemption via revisiting their beliefs or something to that effect.

Similar to the Panopticon prison, people wanting to publicly comment are reminded of celebrities forced to apologize. Humiliated. Socially shamed, only to have to beg for redemption.

Why would anyone within their right minds speak against such a voice? Publicly no less?

Dave Chapelle made a trans joke, and activists overreacted. Demanded an apology. He refused. 

Every single city he was to perform, the pressure was blistering, to cancel the show. Venues that didn't, had guests interviewed almost having to justify their attendance. Death threats were abundant.

Even though he ultimately sold out show, the damage was done. No comedians would dare to offend this community, and face that level of backlash. It wasn't worth it. That's the point. 

You want data showing violence, but will find little, because most will be petrified to publicly speak out. 

This is a form of social control I have only experienced in communist or socialist countries.

Where what you say out in public, is carefully put out there. 

To say there isn't a fear, would be ridiculous.

Who do you know would be willing to correctly define the word woman?

Who do you know would correctly or even approximately mention how many genders that there are?

This is fear based.

Woman, has become a hot potatoe word.

Going against a trans activist with logic gets you doxxed and your family or home threatened.

There is a reason some news don't show this. 

But to deny it happens, showcases bias at best. 

Supporting the suppression of freedom of speech, at worst.

[impartialobserver]

10 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Its hard to violently attack people, when the simple threat of it, silences most. 

Ever heard of a panipticon prison concept? 

Banks use this concept all the time. A monitor at the entrance, shows you an image of yourself entering. It psychologically controls your behavior not only letting you know you're being watched. It shows you it. 

Suicides are reduced at train stations that employ similar tactics, such as having reflective mirrors near tracks. Knowing you are being watched (or the illusion of it), controls behavior. 

Why does this matter? 

Why do you think the reactions to people publicly speaking against anything trans has always been overkill? Withering, even. The common tactic, was forcing the celebrity not only to apologize, but somehow to take a path to redemption via revisiting their beliefs or something to that effect.

Similar to the Panopticon prison, people wanting to publicly comment are reminded of celebrities forced to apologize. Humiliated. Socially shamed, only to have to beg for redemption.

Why would anyone within their right minds speak against such a voice? Publicly no less?

Dave Chapelle made a trans joke, and activists overreacted. Demanded an apology. He refused. 

Every single city he was to perform, the pressure was blistering, to cancel the show. Venues that didn't, had guests interviewed almost having to justify their attendance. Death threats were abundant.

Even though he ultimately sold out show, the damage was done. No comedians would dare to offend this community, and face that level of backlash. It wasn't worth it. That's the point. 

You want data showing violence, but will find little, because most will be petrified to publicly speak out. 

This is a form of social control I have only experienced in communist or socialist countries.

Where what you say out in public, is carefully put out there. 

To say there isn't a fear, would be ridiculous.

Who do you know would be willing to correctly define the word woman?

Who do you know would correctly or even approximately mention how many genders that there are?

This is fear based.

Woman, has become a hot potatoe word.

Going against a trans activist with logic gets you doxxed and your family or home threatened.

There is a reason some news don't show this. 

But to deny it happens, showcases bias at best. 

Supporting the suppression of freedom of speech, at worst.

Well, I can only go from what I see and observe. Telling me that I should believe something that can't be shown nor proven... surely, you can see the problem with that. I am not pro or anti-trans... honestly do not care. However this idea that these confrontations happen every day and everywhere... does not pass my sniff test. 

[Hodad]

4 hours ago, I am Groot said:

Dude, if I can say "I'm a woman" and just for the hell of it go explore womens changing rooms and join a women's sports league it's not hard won. 

Who says it's social progress that we have 250lb men beating up 150lb women in sports leagues? Many would call that social regression. Who says it's progress that a hairy, bearded man can stand in a women's change room with an erection and ogle the women because he SAYS he's a woman? Many would call that perversion. 

Many would call those completely fictional scenarios.

[Hodad]

3 hours ago, Rebound said:

Sure. I’m not against a man calling himself a woman or whatever. Live and let live. I don’t care.
 

But we have Men’s and Women’s sports for a reason: In nearly all categories, women cannot evenly compete against men. Therefore, if a man changes his gender to female, she should not be able to compete in organized competitive sporting activities in the woman’s category.  I think it is absolutely unfair competition. 

I'm mostly fine with this, though there may be a more nuanced position regarding puberty something something. Perfectly happy to let sports authorities and medical experts determine what is fair and safe for competitive sports. That's their entire function in society.

Edited April 12, 2023 by Hodad

[Hodad]

2 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Its hard to violently attack people, when the simple threat of it, silences most. 

Ever heard of a panipticon prison concept? 

Banks use this concept all the time. A monitor at the entrance, shows you an image of yourself entering. It psychologically controls your behavior not only letting you know you're being watched. It shows you it. 

Suicides are reduced at train stations that employ similar tactics, such as having reflective mirrors near tracks. Knowing you are being watched (or the illusion of it), controls behavior. 

Why does this matter? 

Why do you think the reactions to people publicly speaking against anything trans has always been overkill? Withering, even. The common tactic, was forcing the celebrity not only to apologize, but somehow to take a path to redemption via revisiting their beliefs or something to that effect.

Similar to the Panopticon prison, people wanting to publicly comment are reminded of celebrities forced to apologize. Humiliated. Socially shamed, only to have to beg for redemption.

Why would anyone within their right minds speak against such a voice? Publicly no less?

Dave Chapelle made a trans joke, and activists overreacted. Demanded an apology. He refused. 

Every single city he was to perform, the pressure was blistering, to cancel the show. Venues that didn't, had guests interviewed almost having to justify their attendance. Death threats were abundant.

Even though he ultimately sold out show, the damage was done. No comedians would dare to offend this community, and face that level of backlash. It wasn't worth it. That's the point. 

You want data showing violence, but will find little, because most will be petrified to publicly speak out. 

This is a form of social control I have only experienced in communist or socialist countries.

Where what you say out in public, is carefully put out there. 

To say there isn't a fear, would be ridiculous.

Who do you know would be willing to correctly define the word woman?

Who do you know would correctly or even approximately mention how many genders that there are?

This is fear based.

Woman, has become a hot potatoe word.

Going against a trans activist with logic gets you doxxed and your family or home threatened.

There is a reason some news don't show this. 

But to deny it happens, showcases bias at best. 

Supporting the suppression of freedom of speech, at worst.

You've really jumped the shark on this one. The tone of your post implies that social pressure is something newly weaponized by trans activists. It's not new, not expected--hell, not even dominated by the left. Think about the the threats--the ever present threats--and the actual violence against the queer community (not to mention the extreme social pressure) that has forced closeting and repression in most societies. Anti-trans activists organize large scale, formalized boycotts of individuals and businesses who support trans rights (see Target). If anything, trans activists and allies have taken a small-scale play from the opposition playbook in gathering enough momentum to apply social pressure. 

[Perspektiv]

8 minutes ago, Hodad said:

The tone of your post implies that social pressure is something newly weaponized by trans activists.

Its not pressure. Its bullying. Wide scale.

Hate crimes vs the LGBTQ community, were isolated events. Socially frowned upon. But committed by a minute minority.

Most people couldn't care less about a gay couple, or transgendered individual.

Where people started to care, are when we were told we are to believe something like a trans woman, is no different than a biological woman--or else.

This is when the push back became a bit heavier, and in my opinion--rightfully so.

[Perspektiv]

2 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

Well, I can only go from what I see and observe.

So if you don't see racism, it doesn't exist? That's horrible logic.

[Michael Hardner]

3 hours ago, I am Groot said:

1. You don't get to make that decision for women.

2. ...rarely in the best interests of the environment, trade or justice.

1. You were the one who listed it.  I was replying to you.

2.  Ok, so you're really condemning government across the board here.  I don't think I can add anything here.

[Hodad]

6 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

Its not pressure. Its bullying. Wide scale.

Hate crimes vs the LGBTQ community, were isolated events. Socially frowned upon. But committed by a minute minority.

Most people couldn't care less about a gay couple, or transgendered individual.

Where people started to care, are when we were told we are to believe something like a trans woman, is no different than a biological woman--or else.

This is when the push back became a bit heavier, and in my opinion--rightfully so.

You cannot possibly have thought this through. LGBTQ people are more likely than any other group to be targeted by hate crimes, usually VASTLY more likely. The phrase "gay bashing" exists for a reason. Nobody dragged Matthew Shepard behind a truck because he had brown hair. 

Come on.

[Perspektiv]

4 minutes ago, Hodad said:

LGBTQ people are more likely than any other group to be targeted by hate crimes, usually VASTLY more likely.

I'm not denying the hate crimes. Being targeted by more hate crimes doesn't mean its a significant percentage of the population committing the acts. Like I said, on a social scale, a microscopic percentage of the population are committing these acts. Statistics prove this point.

You misconstrued my point. There is a problem. The scale of it isn't as vast as activists wish for you to think.

Top targets for hate crimes, if considering north America, would be race. Where is the demands for this to stop? Social pressure? What about religious belief, like being Jewish?

Where is the social rush to rapidly end it. Cancel culture?

Some things aren't written, so you must read between lines to get them.

This has nothing to do with rights. Its social control.

 

[Rebound]

10 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

Its not pressure. Its bullying. Wide scale.

Hate crimes vs the LGBTQ community, were isolated events. Socially frowned upon. But committed by a minute minority.

Most people couldn't care less about a gay couple, or transgendered individual.

Where people started to care, are when we were told we are to believe something like a trans woman, is no different than a biological woman--or else.

This is when the push back became a bit heavier, and in my opinion--rightfully so.

Some babies are born with deformed genitals and the doctor cannot determine the child’s gender.

What do you say about that? There have been cases where doctors guessed at a gender, and when the child hit puberty, they were decisively wrong. 

[Rebound]

15 hours ago, West said:

What I have to say about that is that it doesn't prove your point that someone born with a penis is a woman just because they like wearing makeup and heels. 

Now what do you have to say about space aliens driving cadillacs.

You still are evading the question. 
 

Uncomfortable? Yes. But nature is nature.  

[Perspektiv]

1 hour ago, Rebound said:

Some babies are born with deformed genitals

Thats a boy or a girl. Just because deformations or disorders occur, don't mean new genders are invented.

The vast majority of children born like this will associate with one gender. 

Sure, you can invent genders to make people feel better, but softening language to the tune of changing it based on feelings vs evidence, won't change reality.

This talking point is used, to silence people. You said it yourself. Its a deformity. I prefer anomaly, as there shouldn't be a stigma just for being different, but to state there are additional genders due to this, is ridiculous. It doesn't add genders.

This isn't an "aha!" moment.

Your logic, is telling me that black people aren't black. Saying the word itself, is racist and then refusing to describe my skin color altogether because its "complicated".

Uh, it's not. That skin color is malleable. Then pointing to black people being born albino, which again, is an anomaly which affect their skin color. They aren't white. 

Want proof? Let one have a baby. What color do you think the baby will be? Here's a hint. It won't be purple. 

Some use the same logic on trans women. "Aha!...biological women at times can't have kids too..same difference!"

Uh, no. My ex wife couldn't bear children, but she had a vaginal canal, fallopian tubes, a uterus and the ability to lactate that only a biological woman can have. Of course, again-anomalies occur. It doesn't make her any less a woman than an albino black person stops being black just because their skin tone is white.

You're essentially using rare anomalies to generalize your argument. People like this if left unchallenged, will then turn to men being able to give birth, which is physically impossible unless you're a biological woman who identifies as a man. Heck, many are now stating that trans women have periods. Some buy tampons. Next will be demanding vaginal pap smears.

Same argument that has black people stating police kill more black people than any other race, when statistics quickly disprove this.

This line of debate hopes to silence while sensionalizing "facts" in order to silence debate. 

I will stick to what I was taught in school on gender, as is demonstrable, vs trying to confuse people into submission.

[impartialobserver]

12 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

So if you don't see racism, it doesn't exist? That's horrible logic.

But there is data on that. Game. Set. Match.

[Perspektiv]

10 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

But there is data on that. 

There is also data on limitless genders. Your point? 

Data can be manipulated in any way you wish. 

Pro Marijuana websites will point to its positives. Some advocating against will point to its negatives.

Both are using data. 

Riley Gaines data is seen as transphobic. What about it is transphobic? Be specific. 

Data that goes against hers, is inclusive.

Both use accurate data. 

Racism is prevalent, but when a black unarmed person  is shot by police, data tries to make us believe this is an epidemic.

White people being shot by police, dwarf black people. They also commit far less crime per capita, hence those numbers. Where's the data on the news?

[impartialobserver]

2 minutes ago, Perspektiv said:

There is also data on limitless genders. Your point? 

Data can be manipulated in any way you wish. 

Pro Marijuana websites will point to its positives. Some advocating against will point to its negatives.

Both are using data. 

Riley Gaines data is seen as transphobic. What about it is transphobic? Be specific. 

Data that goes against hers, is inclusive.

Both use accurate data. 

Racism is prevalent, but when a black unarmed person  is shot by police, data tries to make us believe this is an epidemic.

White people being shot by police, dwarf black people. They also commit far less crime per capita, hence those numbers. Where's the data on the news?

There is data about the last topic that you post.. It may not be the easiest to sift through. By data, this is not google searches followed by articles which are mostly subjective opinions. I work in the world of raw data and know how to sift the mess better than most. 

Trans activists attacking folks and then it disappearing.. this is the mark of a conspiracy theorist who knows that there is no objective data to support their conclusion. We are supposed to just trust you because you are passionate... Yeah, does not work with me. 

[Deluge]

On 4/8/2023 at 11:47 AM, Rebound said:

Gaines is a bigot, and she went to the center of gay rights activism to speak out against gay rights… 

Violence is definitely never justifiable, and the perpetrator needs to go to jail… but maybe Gains was trying to provoke violence to get attention for herself? 

I don't think so. If you need to address a problem, you go to the heart of the problem. Her speech was probably an appeal to keep men out of women's sports. 

Edited April 12, 2023 by Deluge

[Hodad]

12 hours ago, Perspektiv said:

I'm not denying the hate crimes. Being targeted by more hate crimes doesn't mean its a significant percentage of the population committing the acts. Like I said, on a social scale, a microscopic percentage of the population are committing these acts. Statistics prove this point.

You misconstrued my point. There is a problem. The scale of it isn't as vast as activists wish for you to think.

Top targets for hate crimes, if considering north America, would be race. Where is the demands for this to stop? Social pressure? What about religious belief, like being Jewish?

Where is the social rush to rapidly end it. Cancel culture?

Some things aren't written, so you must read between lines to get them.

This has nothing to do with rights. Its social control.

 

The portion of the population actually committing hate crimes isn't really the issue. The actual crimes committed are a good barometer for how tolerant or intolerant society is of any given trait or behavior. Only a small subset of people are going to act violently on their biases. 

And are you really trying to nominally compare hate crimes against ALL races (every human has a "race") against hate crimes against the very small LGBTQ population?  Suffice it to say that they are more likely to be victimized than any given race or religious affiliation. Nobody is organizing nationwide boycotts of Target stores for Jewish bathrooms.

It just seems silly and shallow to complain about trans activists applying social pressure when the social pressure against trans rights is larger, better organized and got started hundreds of years earlier. Like, is it really "bullying" when a struggling minority group applies social pressure to try to stake out some expectation of decent treatment. 

Are you gonna tell me how Rosa Parks and the bus boycott were bullying the city of Montgomery? Was that "cancel culture" in action? Were the people protesting Strom Thurmond's speeches the bullies practicing cancel culture, or were the bullies those picking on a numerically powerless minority?

[Perspektiv]

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

The actual crimes committed are a good barometer for how tolerant or intolerant society is of any given trait or behavior.

Not really. I feel safe as a black person, as does my wife who is Asian, even though there have been spikes on hate crimes on people who look like us. Especially so, for people who look like her.

We understand that those crimes are isolated, and don't reflect the vast majority of experiences we have had. The vast majority would be disgusted, and the outcry would be heavy handed--a better measuring stick.

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

the very small LGBTQ population? 

There is a concentration of crimes that predominantly and overwhelmingly affects three demographics. Black, Asian and Jewish. 

The size of the demographic doesn't matter. The fact the crime is happening to anyone, should. 

Sorry, am not of the train of thought that a smaller demographic is more important based on size. Should be based on crime. Hate crimes don't belong, period. 

Protecting the vulnerable should be a blanketed statement.

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Nobody is organizing nationwide boycotts of Target stores for Jewish bathrooms.

Am eluding to the worst type of hate crime. Physical assault. Race overwhelmingly is the leading target. 

Being rejected from a woman's washroom because you don't pass in the slightest and still have male genitalia is exactly why enabling and normalizing mental illness doesn't work. Anyone outside of their circle, will see a man. Still doesn't justify assault, but most would let them know they were in the wrong washroom.

Clearly what we are doing doesn't work.

1 hour ago, Hodad said:

Are you gonna tell me how Rosa Parks and the bus boycott were bullying the city of Montgomery?

Sure, if she identified as a white male and demanded to be seen as such or you could get doxxed,  lose your job or be seen as transphobic. 

Otherwise you are fighting for basic human rights that they did not have vs fighting to normalize mental illness (being trans).

[Rebound]

4 hours ago, Deluge said:

I don't think so. If you need to address a problem, you go to the heart of the problem. Her speech was probably an appeal to keep men out of women's sports. 

If you think black people don’t have the right to exist, are an abomination against God, and you’ve said so publicly… good luck with your plans to go to Harlem, stand on a podium and say so.  
 

I agree, however, that transgender athletes should be required to participate in sports in accordance with their birth assigned gender, unless it was mis-diagnosed at birth. 

[Rebound]

4 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

There is data about the last topic that you post.. It may not be the easiest to sift through. By data, this is not google searches followed by articles which are mostly subjective opinions. I work in the world of raw data and know how to sift the mess better than most. 

Trans activists attacking folks and then it disappearing.. this is the mark of a conspiracy theorist who knows that there is no objective data to support their conclusion. We are supposed to just trust you because you are passionate... Yeah, does not work with me. 

Gaines posted a video… in which nobody attacked her. Then she said she was stuck in a closet for three hours with a bunch of uniformed police who couldn’t defend her. It’s not a likely story. 
 

But to be clear: If somebody hit her, that person should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. It doesn’t matter that Gaines was obviously looking for trouble and publicity and was trying to deliberately upset people… if you cross the line and get violent, you go to jail. 

[Deluge]

6 minutes ago, Rebound said:

If you think black people don’t have the right to exist, are an abomination against God, and you’ve said so publicly… good luck with your plans to go to Harlem, stand on a podium and say so.  
 

I agree, however, that transgender athletes should be required to participate in sports in accordance with their birth assigned gender, unless it was mis-diagnosed at birth. 

I don't have a problem with blacks in general, so that first part of your post is irrelevant. One would have to be insanely racist to go and say such things. 

[Rebound]

Just now, Deluge said:

I don't have a problem with blacks in general, so that first part of your post is irrelevant. One would have to be insanely racist to go and say such things. 

Just as one would have to be insanely transphobic to say the same things about trans people. 
 

Where’s your “liberty and freedom”? Let them be! Why do you even care if a man wants to wear a dress and call himself Donna? Unless… the only reason I can think of is… your sexuality somehow feels threatened by that? 

[Deluge]

11 minutes ago, Rebound said:

Just as one would have to be insanely transphobic to say the same things about trans people. 
 

Where’s your “liberty and freedom”? Let them be! Why do you even care if a man wants to wear a dress and call himself Donna? Unless… the only reason I can think of is… your sexuality somehow feels threatened by that? 

Wrong. Blacks are biologically black; trans are not biologically trans. Blacks are not insane for saying they're black. Trannies ARE insane for saying they're the opposite sex. 

I AM letting them be. What I'm not letting them be is my kid's story teller during story hour. If they want to read stories to other people they can read stories to consenting individuals. If they want to share their pronouns with other people, they can do that in gay/tranny/woke friendly places. 

Edited April 12, 2023 by Deluge