"Trans-Misogyny" Is A Misnomer And Bathroom Restrictions Unjustified

A lot of people seem to think the recent hatred and distrust of MTF transgender people is a new and unique thing. There's plenty of writings and speeches about how trans people are being uniquely singled out and persecuted regarding bathroom usage just for being trans.

What they don't seem to realize is that this is merely the extension of the same old chivalrous notion (as well as modern social justice rhetoric) that men are inherently a threat to women and women need to be protected from them.

There's the usual social justice scapegoating going around about how "misogyny" and "male homophobia" are the culprits, but at the same time we hear about how much more hostile people are toward somebody "not a real woman" trying to enter a "female space" than anybody (male, female, trans, straight, gay, etc.) trying to enter a "male space."



In fact, some people will plainly state that they have "never" experienced any significant issue in a men's bathroom as a homosexual and/or trans person, but are regularly treated in a very hostile manner and even threatened with violence by both men and women when attempting to use a women's bathroom.

If this were really "misogyny" and "male homophobia" one should expect to see the opposite - women, homosexuals and anybody else who was "not a real man" would be unwelcome in the men's bathroom, while women would be plenty welcoming within "their" space.

What we have here is not a fear, hatred and distrust of "not straight cis-male" people by men, but a fear, hatred and distrust of "not straight cis-female" people by and on behalf of women. That is why the problem presents the way it does. The women who balk at the idea of trans people using the women's bathrooms aren't displaying "misogyny and male homophobia" and the men who balk at the idea of trans people using the women's bathrooms while simultaneously not caring about a trans person, homosexual, or even genetic female using the men's bathroom aren't displaying "misogyny and male homophobia" either. What they are actually displaying is closer to "chivalrous misandry." They are displaying a fear, hatred, or distrust of "not female" people regarding their perceived "threat to women."

People need to wise up and start understanding that all prejudice is inherently interconnected and any promotion of hatred or distrust of any demographic will inherently impact all demographics negatively in one way or another. The same gender hatred the social justice warriors have been promoting all this time is now working against them. The fabricated "constant risk" of sexual assault and domestic violence, the fabricated "almost exclusively male perpetration" of sexual assault and domestic violence, and the rampant rationalization of the hate and distrust of all men as "inherently threatening to women" has created an environment where many people feel it is perfectly reasonable to bully, threaten, assault, or even legislate a "man in a dress" trying to enter a "female safe space."

This is not "trans-misogyny." If anything, it's closer to "trans-misandry."

Otherwise, you may as well label trans exclusionary radical feminists as "misogynists" - it's the same basic reasoning being used in both cases.




It turns out, though, that women perpetrate things like sexual assault and domestic violence at rates comparable to men.  Specifically when it comes to arguments like "men are going to use the opportunity to prey on women" and "I don't want a man in the bathroom with little girls" they just don't hold water, because women also prey on women.

http://www.curvemag.com/Curve-Magazine/Web-Articles-2010/Lesbian-on-Lesbian-Rape/

Because many people define rape at penetration by a penis, woman-to-woman rape is not acknowledged or taken seriously. But in fact, it is estimated that one out of three lesbians have been sexually assaulted by another woman.

In April 2009, Melissa Huckaby, a Sunday-school teacher, was arraigned for the rape and murder of Sandra Cantu, an eight-year-old playmate of Huckaby’s own daughter in Tracy, Calif.

And many studies actually suggest that, statistically speaking, women are more commonly the perpetrators of sexual assault and abuse of children.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/svjfry09.pdf

Sexual Victimization In Juvenile Facilities Reported By Youth, 2008-2009 Approximately 95% of all youth reporting staff sexual misconduct said they had been victimized by female staff. In 2008, 42% of staff in state juvenile facilities were female.

http://archive.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cb/pubs/cm06/cm06.pdf 

Child Maltreatment 2006 (Page 75)
For  FFY 2006, 57.9 percent of the perpetrators were women and 42.1 percent were men.

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/cb/cm11.pdf 

Child Maltreatment 2011 (Page 68)
More than one-half (53.6%) of perpetrators were women and 45.1 percent of perpetrators were men.

Now, it should go without saying, but I'm not suggesting there's no risk of anybody being victimized by a person of the opposite sex who took advantage of trans-inclusive bathrooms to facilitate predation.  What I am suggesting is that whatever risk does exist, not only has it been wildly exaggerated, but people should be equally concerned with same-sex predation, so bathroom gender exclusivity is simply not a practical solution.

Fighting the imaginary wage gap, one armpit at a time

Pandering

Have you seen these ads? How could you not, when they're dominating every single commercial break on TV lately?

"...for nearly two years Flint's water was poisoned..."

and now that I'm running for president I'm making a stink about it - not any time over the last two years before it was big in the news when it would have actually been helpful, but only now when I want to pretend I care about more than my own personal grab for power.  When my campaign is over you can rest assured I'll go right back to not caring the least bit about the Flint water crisis.

"...but there are so many examples..."

Really? Name some.

Why The Illegal NSA Data Collection Doesn't Actually Worry Me

I'm sure you've heard by now all about the illegal spying and data collection by the NSA.  A lot of people seem very concerned that their privacy has been violated and worried about being harassed, exposed, etc.

Here's why it's not a big concern of mine:

Yes, our information is being illegally mined, collected and stored somewhere for the NSA to access whenever they want.  Yes, as a matter of principal such illegal data mining should be halted and those responsible for breaking the law prosecuted.

However, with so much information to deal with how likely is it they're going to notice any specific one of us in the clutter?  Statistically, you probably have a better chance of randomly pointing to a spot in the picture and having your finger land on Waldo than the NSA actually taking enough interest in you to bother accessing any of their stored data about you specifically.  Personally, I'm not going to be losing sleep over my name being in some insurmountably massive NSA database where it's likely no human will ever lay eyes on it, even if it is an illegal invasion of my privacy.

Are We Equal?

While the message of "we should stop this" is good, the "are we equal" question is actually a wasteful and even offensively dismissive distraction.

Every culture where female genital mutilation is practiced, male genital mutilation is also practiced, so the answer there would be "yes, you are equal." In terms of number of victims worldwide, male genital mutilation has many more, though, so the answer there would be "no, not equal, you are less commonly mutilated."

Asking "are we equal?" makes zero argument for stopping female genital mutilation.

Where female genital mutilation is outlawed, male genital mutilation is still legal, so the answer there would be "no, not equal, you are more protected." In those cases, would they want to be equal?

Asking "are we equal?" makes zero argument for stopping female genital mutilation.

In addition, they use the same old "female genital mutilation is much worse than male circumcision" argument, which serves no purpose besides suggesting one should get attention and the other shouldn't.

Again, "are we equal?" is a pointless question, because not only does it not provide any argument against female genital mutilation, but they obviously don't want to be equal, or they wouldn't portray the issue as "horrible genital mutilation" for one sex and "just circumcision" for the other.

I am of course all for ending genital mutilation, but people need to think through things before they go making videos which don't provide intelligent arguments and attempt to trivialize the issue regarding anybody not within their pet demographic.

What I wish I had said...

I attended a lecture about infant male genital cutting yesterday and afterward I found myself being asked questions about my interest in the subject by somebody writing an article on it. One of the lines of questioning went something like this:

Interviewer: So, you oppose the practice based on how it violates the child's right to body integrity?

Me: Yes.

Interviewer: Are there any other reasons?

I didn't have a good answer for that one, because there was just too much to say in response. Everything covered throughout the entire lecture was another reason, from myths that clearly have no factual or rational basis forming the foundation of the pro-cutting position, to the attempted imposition of moral "pre-punishment" and sexual control the mutilation represents, to the procedure being in violation of every modern medical ethics measure, to the dishonest way it is marketed, to the shitty way the legal system handles the subject, to the fact that it can be viewed as violation of the child's religious freedom, etc.
However, this is what I wish I had said:

Other reasons?

Isn't that one enough?

A cosmetic surgery which drastically changed the function and appearance of my genitals was forced on me without my consent. The mutilation left me with virtually zero fine touch sensation and greatly, severely diminished erogenous sensation of any type, from what I gather, possibly much less even than many other mutilated men. The mutilation also left me with damage to vital subcutaneous structures resulting in consistent pain and ever-present risk of further, much more severe complications in the future. The only real option I have for resolving the most concerning damage and corresponding pain is additional surgery, which carries risks of its own and is probably as likely to make things worse as it is to improve anything.

I will spend my entire life not knowing what it is like to look down and see my genitals the way they were meant to appear. To feel the sensations I was meant to feel. To experience sex without at least as much pain involved as pleasure. To not have to put substantial effort into the sometimes futile attempt to acheive orgasm, not just within a specific timeframe, but at all.

I will spend my entire life "playing through" the discomfort, disfigurement, disfunction and dysmorphia that I was never given the option to refuse, simply because the people who were supposed to be looking out for my interests apparently thought their perverted aesthetic preferences about a helpless infant's genitals were more important than my right to not have normal, healthy parts of my body crushed, ripped and cut off without my consent.

And the real kicker is, mine was considered a "successful" mutilation, because I was lucky enough not to be one of the victims to bleed to death, or contract a fatal infection, or lose much more of my genitals to the procedure than was intended, or end up with any number of other more severe deformities than I did.

Isn't a person's right to decide for themself whether they want to be subjected to such an unnecessary violation of their body enough reason to oppose the practice, so somebody else has the opportunity to choose whether they risk going through the rest of their life dealing with the same things I do...or worse?

I guess it likely wouldn't have made much difference to say it.
Probably would have been a bit too long of a quote to make it into the article anyway.

"That other place has cheaper gas..."

I'm really sick of hearing this pointless monologue.  If you are too, here's some simple figures you can toss out the next time somebody goes off on a rant about "which place has cheaper gas."

Let's be generous and assume your car gets 20 MPG driving in the city.

Let's also assume a median estimate of 10 gallons you're putting in your tank.

And gas right now is around $3 per gallon, where different stations around town likely have about 5¢ total difference in price.  For the benefit of the doubt, we'll assume the highest price is the one closest to you.



Now, if you shop around and find the absolute lowest price in town, the difference in price will be a total of 50¢.

If you drive even just 2 miles out of your way to get there, you're already losing money just at the pump alone. Round trip = 4 miles, 4 miles being 1/5 of 20 miles, 1/5 of $3 is 60¢, 60¢ subtracted from 50¢ = -10¢.  For every mile out of your way beyond that, subtract another 30¢. (3 miles = -40¢, 4 miles = -70¢, 5 miles = -$1, etc.)

In addition, let's assume you make a menial wage of $9 per hour.

If you figure in time as well (for example if you have to clock out of work while doing this) you could easily spend 10 to 15 minutes driving that 2 miles out of your way to get gas, losing another $1.50 to $2.25.

So in total, you're looking at between $1.60 to $2.35 (or the equivalent of more than half a gallon of gas) that you're losing by seeking out a lower price, even with very conservative estimates.



When you go to put gasoline in your car, quit annoying people by incessantly nit-picking about where it's a little cheaper and just fill up at the closest place.  In the end, you're actually saving money by not worrying about it.

Men vs Women Re: "Gendered" Crime

I've written about "gendered crime" before, but it occurs to me that there's another angle to consider here.

For a moment, let's forget about the statistics, the estimates, the convoluted gender theory.  Let's pretend that the differences in figures that "gendered crime" proponents like to use can't be explained by simple reporting/measurement bias.  Let's just consider some basic, necessary conditions for "gendered crime" to be a real thing.

The claims:

Women commit these crimes at a significantly lower rate than men do.

Men don't have to worry about being raped/assaulted by women the way women have to worry about being raped/assaulted by men.

The conditions:
#1. Women are inherently not as capable as men - that is, women cannot commit these crimes on an equal level to men, because they lack the ability to do so.  Women are inferior to men.
-or-
#2. Women are inherently better people than men - that is, women have all the same ability to commit these crimes on the same level, but simply choose not to.  Women are superior to men.



If there is a "significant difference" in risk and perpetration of "gendered crime" then one of those two conditions must be true.  If they are both false, that inherently means there is no "significant difference" based on the popular "because gender" prejudice. (and suggests you should probably take a closer look at where those claims come from)  So, if you're one of the "gendered crime" proponents, please tell me which of those two conditions you think is responsible for the "significant difference" in "gendered crime."  In your mind, are women inferior to men, or are women superior to men?

Reporting a rape to the police is too traumatic for women.

You've probably seen this argument, right?

"The police don't take them seriously and end up re-victimizing them, so expecting them to be able to report the crime to the police is unrealistic!"

And that's why we need to expedite the process of punishing somebody accused of rape without having to go through that pesky "police report/evidence collection/trial" process, especially since women never just blow things out of proportion, right?






The answer to a system perceived to be dysfunctional isn't to make the system more dysfunctional by trying to remove the checks and balances which keep it from being abused, but to make it less dysfunctional by trying to get it to function more effectively with those checks and balances still in place.

Africa Prediction: Female Genital Mutilation Increased as AIDS Prevention

No, I'm not advocating any type of genital mutilation.
If you clicked on the title to rip me a new one for being such a horrible person, too bad. I hate the idea just as much as you do. I'm simply predicting that it will happen.

With that disclaimer out of the way, let's get to the actual content.

How can I make such a prediction?
How can the two possibly be linked?
How can that even be possible?
Why do I suspect that's where things are headed?

I'll tell you, but first, let me tell you when it started.

Now.
Well, not exactly, but we'll get to that in a bit. However, let me tell you why now is important.

As you may have heard, three groundbreaking studies have recently concluded that circumcision of males prevents HIV transmission. This seems like great news, because a simple snip of the foreskin will make a huge dent in the epidemic, right?

Wrong.

What you may not have heard is that all three of those studies were designed by known male circumcision advocates - and later manipulated, specifically to conclude that circumcision was the answer, in contradiction to the actual data. Here's how:

• In all three studies, the circumcised group had to abstain from sexual activity for a period of time, while the uncircumcised group were free to maintain normal sexual activity. Obviously, the circumcised group contracted fewer cases of HIV, because they were not having sex. Abstinence was the only relevant variable at that point.

• In all three studies, when the circumcised group started sexual activity again, they actually started catching up in number of HIV infections to the uncircumcised group, demonstrating that if anything, they may have been contracting the infection more readily than the uncircumcised group. This does not at all suggest circumcision is an effective preventative measure.

• All three studies were terminated early, before the numbers could equalize, even though in one of the three studies the circumcised group had come close to matching the number of infections as the uncircumcised group. This demonstrates that when things didn't go the way they were hoping, the circumcision advocates running these three studies decided it was best to cut them short, before the results could prove the theory wrong. They then announced their findings to the world and the "Circumcise Africa!" campaign was born.

Pretty sneaky, huh?

How does this relate to Female Genital Mutilation?
Hold on, I'm getting there. First, let me tell you what I think will happen next and where it came from.

Next, they will start routinely circumcising infant boys.

It is reasonable to assume that male circumcision will progress in Africa in a similar manner to the way it did in the USA - That is, it started as a way to "protect" certain people at risk for diseases - in the USA it was "masturbation, infection, venerial disease, cancer, blindness, insanity, death..." and a whole huge list of other afflictions the foreskin was blamed for causing. The issue actually started a long time ago in the USA. It then became a "preventative" measure which was routinely performed on infants, because it was promoted as "harmless and even beneficial." "Harmless and beneficial? Why not just get them right out of the womb to make it easier?" I suspect this is the next stage in the progression of genital mutilation in Africa.

But, you still haven't told me how this relates to FEMALE Genital Mutilation!
OK, now I'll tell you.
The answer is, The Stallings Study.

That's right. There was a study, claiming that female circumcision decreased the chances of contracting HIV. It exists. It happened. It is out there, waiting for concerned (or motivated) Africans to find and interpret however they want to.

Results
The crude relative risk of HIV infection among women reporting to have been circumcised versus not circumcised was 0.51 [95% CL =0.38

In fact, this study makes the specific assertion that female genital mutilation, not male is the main statistical difference in relative risk:

Both circ vs male only = 0.56 Relative Risk Estimate
Both circ vs neither = 0.55 Relative Risk Estimate
Male circ vs neither = 0.97 Relative Risk Estimate

But how could that be?
It's actually very simple. It's probably true. It's probably true for the same reason those three "groundbreaking" male circumcision studies found an initial difference between the two groups: decreased sexual activity. When a woman receives little or no pleasure (possibly even intense pain, depending on the specific procedure) from sexual activity, she is less likely to participate in sexual activity, therefore lowering her risk of contracting HIV. The question is, do you think the Africans who heard "male circumcision prevents AIDS" and didn't bother to question why will be more concerned with the reason why female circumcision has been shown to have the same effect, or do you think "female circumcision prevents AIDS" will be enough once again?

But they'd never go THAT far, would they?
They already do. Female Genital Mutilation is happening in Africa right now. On top of that, "more advanced" cultures have now told them that cutting off parts of genitals is not only the answer to the AIDS epidemic, but is even a good thing for the person's general health. "Civilized" people advocating circumcision + lower risk of HIV for circumcised females? At some point, somebody is going to add 2 + 2 and get 4. When that happens, a whole new wave of "preventative" Female Genital Mutilation will begin. Last I heard, women contracting HIV from rape and then infecting other men was considered a major cause in the spread of the disease, so why wouldn't they try to do everything they possibly could to prevent women from contracting it? Remember, these are also the people who are advocating putting all homosexuals to death. Do you really think they're going to stop short of female children in the effort to solve the epidemic, when they already cut the genitals of female children, or do you think they'll just do it more?

What if we just hide that study?
Even without that one particular study, how long do you think it will take for the people who advocate Female Genital Mutilation to find other studies, or pick up on the statistics and start doing studies themselves? Hell, even without medical justification, people are already doing it, so why wouldn't the advocates decide to do the same kind of shifty study that was done to promote male genital mutilation? The notable thing is, this may even encourage them to suggest the less invasive forms be intensified to increase the "benefit" of the procedure. Women who would have otherwise only been subjected to the lesser forms of genital cutting may instead be subjected to the forms which are designed to make any sexual activity as unpleasant as possible.

Who's to blame for this? What can be done to stop it?

Who's to blame?

You are.

Every person who has not stood up for a child's right to genital integrity, whatever form they may be in, has contributed to the idea that it is acceptable to mutilate children.

Every person who has participated in the "circumcision" of infants, whether they be a medical professional or not, has perpetuated the tradition of mutilation.

Every mother or father who did not protect their child from being cut when they were able has let that child become yet another victim, instead of an example.

Every person who has said Male Genital Mutilation is "not the same thing" has contributed to the environment which lets people not only condone, but advocate genital mutilation in Africa.

Every male who is angry about having his basic human rights violated and yet refuses to speak out is contributing to the silence which allows ignorance.

And every person who has been witness to somebody claiming genital mutilation in any form is a human rights violation and still couldn't be bothered to read an article and pass on a link to somebody else is guilty of maintaining that ignorance.

What can be done?
People need to be taught that proper hygiene, safe sex practices and medicine are preferable and more effective methods of controlling disease than genital mutilation. We need to start advocating the benefit of condoms and safe sex education, the dangers of rape (even for the perpetrator) and the sanctity of genital integrity for everybody.

Sadly, I think the seed has been planted already in Africa and the idea of cutting genitals to prevent AIDS will invariably result in the mutilation of more children, both boys and girls, than would otherwise be subjected to such abuse. In my opinion, the only way to convince the people in Africa that genital mutilation is wrong, is if the rest of us "civilized" societies can agree that ALL genital mutilation is wrong, be they female, male, or intersexed genitals. Every child must be protected from non-therapeutic genital surgery before any child can truly be safe. Then, when we tell Africa we were wrong to suggest it in the first place and plead for them to stop mutilating their own children, they won't simply look at us and say "Why shouldn't we, when you still do?"

Originally written 12-27-2011