• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

This Week in Men: It's Only ATTEMPTED Rape and Voyeurism, Girls. No Worries!

No she didn't. That is your lie. Well yours and Jane's and Herin's (sp?). She said the same thing we've been saying since the start. The odds of a sexual assault in a restroom is extremely low, and there is nothing about these laws that would change the risks. Extremely low does not equal never. Restroom assaults have been happening for as long as we have had restrooms and will continue to occur, sadly. But you have shown nothing but your faulty logic to indicate any increase in the rate of these assaults. And I will remind you once again, an increase in reporting by the media does not automatically equate to an increase in actual rate.

The odds of being hit by lightening is extremely low. Do you head out to an open field and dance in a thunderstorm?
 
The odds of being hit by lightening is extremely low. Do you head out to an open field and dance in a thunderstorm?
No, but mostly because I hate getting wet. However, if I needed to cross said field during a thunderstorm, I really wouldn't worry too much about being hit, especially when compared to the odds of my being hit going into the middle of traffic. Am I going to be stupid about it? No. I am going to watch for the signs that the storm is close enough to be making strikes near me and act accordingly. Is someone absolutely safe from sexual assault in a restroom? No. Not even you are absolutely safe in the restroom, Calamity. But I keep my eyes open for suspicious activity regardless of what gender they look like.
 
She said rapes in bathrooms don't happen. Those rapes and one choking incident in women's bathrooms were right there to be seen at the top of the google page.

No I didn't. I said the risk of being sexually assaulted in a restroom is very low, almost as low as being sexually assaulted in public, which does happen, but you and others aren't suggesting that ken and women shouldn't come into contact in public.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
No, but mostly because I hate getting wet. However, if I needed to cross said field during a thunderstorm, I really wouldn't worry too much about being hit, especially when compared to the odds of my being hit going into the middle of traffic. Am I going to be stupid about it? No. I am going to watch for the signs that the storm is close enough to be making strikes near me and act accordingly. Is someone absolutely safe from sexual assault in a restroom? No. Not even you are absolutely safe in the restroom, Calamity. But I keep my eyes open for suspicious activity regardless of what gender they look like.

The smartest things to do about sexual assault in restrooms or other such places is to teach women to defend themselves, what discourages rapists and puts them at much lower risk of such things. Hell just go to the restroom with someone else whenever possible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

So one of those the guy literally held a gun to the woman's head and forced her into a single stall bathroom in a park. It can't even be considered close to he waited in the restroom, since the attack started outside the restroom which simply happened to be a convenient out of the way, private place. No law concerning whether men were allowed in a women restroom would stop or divert such an attack. Heck it doesn't even say which restroom he took her into.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
That was just for all the mansplainers on this forum who, when they read about these sorts of crimes against women, rush to post that 1.) it is VERYYYYYY rare 2.) and anyway, most of the time the sex crimes aren't REALLLLY that big a deal.

Unless they manage to control their urges (to post on this thread), you'll see what I mean. In 3-2-1....

Who on earth is claiming that sex crimes aren't a big deal?
 
The smartest things to do about sexual assault in restrooms or other such places is to teach women to defend themselves, what discourages rapists and puts them at much lower risk of such things. Hell just go to the restroom with someone else whenever possible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Actually the smart thing to do is not introduce risks where they are not needed. You can't guarantee that all women will know how to defend themselves like you can't guarantee that all men will know how to defend themselves, but you can avoid making policy that introduces unnecessary risk.
 
Last edited:
She said rapes in bathrooms don't happen. Those rapes and one choking incident in women's bathrooms were right there to be seen at the top of the google page.
Who has said that they don't happen and where did they say it?
 
Actually the smart thing to do is not introduce risks where they are not needed. You can't guarantee that all women will know how to defend themselves like you can't guarantee that all men will know how to defend themselves, but you can avoid making policy that introduces unnecessary risk.

And you can't show that no discrimination policies introduce "unnecessary risks". There is no evidence that this is true.

There are no guarantees in life. Even with laws that punish people for being in the wrong restroom, people are sexually assaulted in restrooms.

Having a restroom attendant in all restrooms would reduce sexual assaults and acts of voyeurism in public restrooms, I'm willing to bet (since it places a witness in the place at pretty much all times, who has the job of being observant), but no one wants to pay for that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
And you can't show that no discrimination policies introduce "unnecessary risks". There is no evidence that this is true.

......

But, you mean only in this case, I hope.
 
Who has said that they don't happen and where did they say it?

I believe that's been clarified. She said, "they are rare." Although, what level of "rare" is acceptable has not been defined.
 
I believe that's been clarified. She said, "they are rare." Although, what level of "rare" is acceptable has not been defined.

They are rare. Level of rarity has no bearing on the discussion since you can't show any increase in such events simply by having no discrimination laws or policies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
In what case?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Then you did mean in general? Because there are many cases, where non discrimination causes unnecessary risks.
 
Then you did mean in general? Because there are many cases, where non discrimination causes unnecessary risks.

When dealing solely with no discrimination laws (not discrimination based on things such as known history of violence or weapons possession)? That's the type of discrimination we are discussing here. I realize that there are many ways to discriminate, but in this case, we are discussing actual legal discrimination based of sex/gender/gender identity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
When dealing solely with no discrimination laws (not discrimination based on things such as known history of violence or weapons possession)? That's the type of discrimination we are discussing here. I realize that there are many ways to discriminate, but in this case, we are discussing actual legal discrimination based of sex/gender/gender identity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I was thinking of just such cases. And it is obvious that risks can be increased by introducing non-discrimination statutes. This will probably be so in very many cases. But that is trivial.
 
I believe that's been clarified. She said, "they are rare." Although, what level of "rare" is acceptable has not been defined.

Since acceptable is a subjective value that can go as low as 0, in this case, good luck finding any kind of consensus.
 
Since acceptable is a subjective value that can go as low as 0, in this case, good luck finding any kind of consensus.

Id letting men into women's restrooms going to help drive that number to zero? I argue that it will push those numbers up not down.
 
I was thinking of just such cases. And it is obvious that risks can be increased by introducing non-discrimination statutes. This will probably be so in very many cases. But that is trivial.

Prove that there is an increase in risk. Show some actual data that shows the risk increases in that specific type of location by introducing no discrimination statutes or policies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Id letting men into women's restrooms going to help drive that number to zero? I argue that it will push those numbers up not down.

But you have no evidence that it will increase. You are correlating different and very general data to try to show this, but it fails because those specifics of the particular locations we are talking about are important to why the threat of rape or sexual assault are low in occurrence in those places to begin with, and those specifics don't change by allowing transgender women or even men in.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Prove that there is an increase in risk. Show some actual data that shows the risk increases in that specific type of location by introducing no discrimination statutes or policies.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You mean to say, you have not looked at the other side of the argument? You do not know the cost-benefit analysis? But, okay. Take the employer. She must decide between two possibles of equal caliber. One is a boy and the other a girl that is protected by non-discrimination based law and cannot be let go, when she becomes pregnant. The cost difference and replacement risk is much larger for employing the girl. That means that the probability of not being employed or being employed at a lower price is higher because of the legislation. This is again increased by laws against asking about the girls family plans and contracts forbidding pregnancy.
 
Id letting men into women's restrooms going to help drive that number to zero? I argue that it will push those numbers up not down.

Your argument has no basis in fact or evidence.
 
You mean to say, you have not looked at the other side of the argument? You do not know the cost-benefit analysis? But, okay. Take the employer. She must decide between two possibles of equal caliber. One is a boy and the other a girl that is protected by non-discrimination based law and cannot be let go, when she becomes pregnant. The cost difference and replacement risk is much larger for employing the girl. That means that the probability of not being employed or being employed at a lower price is higher because of the legislation. This is again increased by laws against asking about the girls family plans and contracts forbidding pregnancy.

Umm, both genders are covered by non-discrimination and family leave laws. Neither can be terminated for taking a leave to care for a child.
 
Back
Top Bottom