Barber Shop might be up on Human Rights Charges

I've heard Chris Rock and plenty of other comedians make jokes about black people.
Cosby's problem was that he didn't say anything funny, he just sounded like a cranky old man.

 

Cosby is free to say what he wants (see: free speech). He just has to be open to the fact that people may respond negatively to what he has to say.
--- merged: Sep 10, 2014 at 6:34 PM ---

Replying to you this much is more pixels than I care to spend.

 

I imagine white people will be able to make jokes about black people a couple years after the abhorrent racial disparities that favor white people cease to exist.

As for the OP, I think in the US, organizations that are clubs can discriminate based on whatever, and that organizations that are businesses cannot. That's why the US still has male-only golf clubs. Not that I could understand why anyone would want to hang around with dudes who golf.

I have found that discussions about which sorts of discrimination are allowable are always tainted by people who act like history ended yesterday, and that consequently, there is no relevant historical context to inform why certain groups might be justified in discriminating more than others. You know, the type of people who think the ability to quote a single line from an MLK speech constitutes a thorough comprehension of race relations in the US.

 

maybe we should start looking at trans gender as a mental disorder. they aren't men, they will never be men no matter how much they identify as a man with hormones/surgery. it's like michael jackson trying to look white. he wasn't born white, and no amount of plastic surgery would ever make him white. i dont consider the lgbt movement the same as the civil rights movement. a man using a women's restroom because he identify's as a woman is insanely dangerous. i remember being at a bar where a man (looked like no hormone no surgery, dress as a woman man) was using the woman's restroom. the women at the bar were so creeped out they wouldn't go in there without 3 or 4 female friends. a person born a man dressed as a female is capable of terrible crimes if we go along with this political correctness crap.

 

What comedians say isn't really relevant to the issue, but could warrant a different one I suppose. Comedians can say whatever they want about any group, they only face public criticism. This is a legal issue.
--- merged: Sep 11, 2014 3:27 AM ---

Could you elaborate on this comparison? I'm not sure how it applies.

Why? What distinguishes it of being less worthy?

Relevant: 15 Experts Debunk Right-Wing Transgender Bathroom Myth | Research | Media Matters for America

 

Dude, it is insanely dangerous in that there is an insane amount of danger that some women might get dangerously creeped out.

 

lets be honest, a man can dress up as a woman who doesn't even identify as a woman and do terrible things. a woman dressing up as a man is a total joke as far as creeping on men and raping them.

 

Statistically speaking, hetero dudes are a much greater threat to women then trans dudes.

 

you missed the point, a hetero dude can creep/rape women in this PC world while identifying as a trans to gain access to the places they go like women's restrooms.

 

"Stranger Danger" rapes are so rare as to be pushing statistical irrelevance for most considerations, virtually all rapes are acquaintance rapes and of those a little under 50% of all rapes per year are committed by women against men. That men are some kind of uniquely dangerous predatorial monster and women are feckless victims is sexist bullshit.

 

50% of rapes are women on men? citation needed...although i agree with your last statement.

 

I mean, they could, yeah. But a hetero guy can do that regardless of the presence of real trans people. Or they could just not bother and follow some women into the bathroom. It's not like there's alarms. Hell, I've wandered into a female bathroom by accident before, and somehow all the people steadfastly guarding women's bathroom safety failed to stop me.

I mean I know this is getting a little off topic, but it's like you think that there is something specifically about trans people that makes them more likely to commit sexual harassment/assault. And/or that because non-trans people could abuse the rights of trans people, they shouldn't have the rights in the first place.

 

The CDC's National Intimate partner and Sexual Violence Survey has recorded a virtually equal number of forcible penetrations and forcible envelopments per year since 2010. The only difference is female->male rape is not categorized as "rape" due to the publicly admitted prejudice of one of the major researchers that works on the NISVS.

 

You're missing the point: a hetero dude doesn't even have to identify as trans to assault someone in a woman's bathroom.

Do you have any evidence of an epidemic of fake trans men assaulting women in bathrooms, or are you just projecting fear here?
--- merged: Sep 11, 2014 at 1:27 AM ---

Do you have a citation for this? I'm honestly curious.

The CDC's most recent report using NISVS data is here: Prevalence and Characteristics of Sexual Violence, Stalking, and Intimate Partner Violence Victimization — National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey, United States, 2011

It uses 2011 data, which seems to call into question the significance of the "since 2010" portion of things. This report puts the lifetime incidence of the types of "other forms of sexual violence" for men at slightly more than half of that for women (23.4% for men vs 43.9% for women). When you factor rape in the penetrative sense, the lifetime rates go up to 25.1% for men vs. 63.2% for women. These quantities are hardly virtually equal.

 

Go to Table 1 and compare the 12 month rates of Rape and Other - Made to Penetrate.
Rape: 1,929,000
Other: 1,921,000

Now think about this: 2010 and 2011 alone have 3,188,000 male victims forcibly enveloped. The entire lifetime total is a little over twice that at 7,610,000. Which means that we've very likely already recorded more victims than the lifetime total suggests should exist, a result that's absurd on its face.

Widom and Morris 1997 showed that while 64% of women with documented child sex abuse considered their experiences to be abuse only 16% of men felt the same way due to much higher rates of rationalization later in life. If you combine that with the equally disproportionately worse underreporting rate for male victims, and the similarly disproportionate rate at which female perpetrators get away with their crimes then that can explain the lifetime statistics.

There's also the issue that Mary Koss has a documented history of academic fraud in order to produce profoundly overinflated rates of female victimization, dating back to the original Ms. Magazine survey whose conclusions over 70% of the survey participants themselves rejected.

Even without any that however it's still prima facie absurd to have equal rates of victimization year after year and yet still claim that one group outweighs the other, it's saying 2+2=5 for women and 2+2=4 for men.

 

You're looking at rates in the last year. I'm looking at rates over the course of a person's lifetime. Clearly there could not have been equal rates of victimization year after year, or the "last twelve months" figures would have the same imbalance as the lifetime figures. The two figures from the two time frames tell different stories and with the lifetime rates, one group clearly, substantially outweighs the other.

Perhaps the "last twelve months" figures show suggest a trend, but a few years of annual data generally can't provide statistically significant evidence of a trend. What the data do show is that if you take into account the whole-life experiences of the people who are alive today women have experienced drastically more sexual violence than men.

 

I've literally addressed every single one of those points already. You've got to stop ignoring the content of my posts beyond the bare minimum necessary to find something to latch onto and disagree with.

For example you say:

But you completely ignore that I've already proven the lifetime statistics for men are mathematically impossible:

1,267,000 million envelopments were recorded in the 2010 NISVS. 1,921,000 in 2011's. Even if we assume the exact same recorded rate that would mean 7,030,000 forcible envelopments just from 2010 until 2014. 7,030,000 out of the claimed 7,610,000 lifetime total. All in the last four years. That means that out of every single man that was raped in the US all but 580 thousand of them were raped in the last four years.

It also means that in one more year we'll have recordeda total of 8,951,000 rapes from 2010 until 2015. 8,951,000... even though the entire lifetime total is supposed to only be 7,610,000. Do you get why the lifetime figures are bullshit now?

Then there's your failure to understand the basics of representative samples and lifetime/yearly data.

That's not how it works. You can't have year-by-year figures that are equal and unbalanced lifetime figures. You can't say that "5 men and 5 women were raped this year" every single year for year after year but then turn around and claim that more women are raped in their lifetime than men. Those rapes need to happen sometime, they don't just appear. And you can't say it's an age thing either because humans aren't born every 25 years in perfect sample groups. Year-by-year figures include people of varying ages representative of the national population, otherwise the entire study is by definition not representative and thus not valid.

The only way to have such unbalanced lifetime figures is either a flaw in the study itself, or previous years which had the extra rapes in them. So unless you want to try and claim that there was a year somewhere before 2010 that had ten thousand extra female rapes in it or something asinine like that there's no valid statistical explanation this.

There are however valid structural explanations:

And a valid political one:

She has publicly published work saying she does not believe that men are raped by women because "men choose to engage in unwanted sexual intercourse". She has a profound ideological bias.

 

So I'm trying to figure out here, are you saying that all these cases of male rape are by woman?
Because the impression I'm getting from the figures is that a pretty high percentage is males on male.
The 6.7 % of male victims being forced to penetrate the assaulter kind of makes your case a bit fat fetched.
Now if you're talking about statutory, I might be able to see something but were completely off the thread at that point.

 

Another thread, buried.