Canadian Politics Today

It was part and parcel of the continuing message progressives have been delivering for some time now. Whether it's imaginary '**** culture' on campuses

If you think that "**** culture" is imaginary, I invite you to read about the Steubenville case, or Clinton-nemesis Ken Starr and his efforts to cover up **** at Baylor University.

or the plethora of protective rules and regulations around normal human interactions. Progressives claim women are equals but they want them treated and coddled and encouraged like infants.

I don't think anything in the comics Mike linked to are calls for rules and regulations.  I think they were an attempt to point out blatant double standards.  I think the real criticism of the cartoons Mike linked to isn't that they're wrong, but rather that they're so obviously true that one wonders why they even need be pointed out. (answer: they need be pointed out because there are dolts to whom they're not obvious.)

 -k

Anyway, it seems as if "body blitz trans" has virtually disappeared from the radar of news items so I am thinking this controversy may have been a tempest in a tea pot.

Nonetheless.

I want to get back to the question of "gatekeeping", which I mentioned in previous posts.

I think as the notion of "chicks with dicks" becomes normalized, it will be exploited.  We have already seen this, as Christian kooks have been encouraging biologically male individuals to hang out in the womens' rest room at Target stores in the US, supposedly to "protect women".  Whether it be from individuals with an ideological axe to grind, or from mooks out for a lark, or from perverts, the idea of biologically male individuals entering women-only safe-spaces *will* become an issue.

And despite the insistence of trans-women and their allies, I think that it is reasonable that some degree of "gate-keeping" be established for biologically male individuals wanting to enter women-only safe spaces.

I don't think some frat-boys should be able to say "I identify as female today" and be taken at their word.

 -k

If it is ruled that trans women must be allowed into female-only safe spaces, I think it's reasonable to request some means of assuring women that the biologically male people entering their safe space are actually trans women, as opposed to kooks or people with an axe to grind or frat-boys out for a lark.

 -k

If you think that "**** culture" is imaginary, I invite you to read about the Steubenville case, or Clinton-nemesis Ken Starr and his efforts to cover up **** at Baylor University.

All large institutions try to cover up bad news.

That a drunken girl would be sexually abused by a bunch of drunk/half drunken boys is hardly an example of **** culture. Where is the 'culture' which encourages ****? Even in my time, where getting a girl drunk to 'persuade her' was considered fair game, nobody, even among **** teenage boys, thought **** was acceptable (they just didn't think getting them drunk was **** back then and the law agreed).

But we're a long way from then. I'm continually surprised at how much more respectful (in general) towards girls/women young guys are compared to us in my generation - for whom they were largely odd people who just had attractive body parts. That being said, young men are prone to doing supremely stupid things (young women too) and especially when drinking. But a '**** culture' evokes thoughts of a general agreement on behavior among  young men at college that they approve of **** and that's absolutely stupid. The stats don't show young college women are **** more often than their counterparts not in college either.

I don't think anything in the comics Mike linked to are calls for rules and regulations.  I think they were an attempt to point out blatant double standards.

Of course there are double standards. But double standards impact both sides, just in different ways. And a lot of those alleged double standards are kind of old and cliched and not really so applicable any more.

Want a double standard? If a drunken girl has willing sex with a drunken boy the boy gets charged with **** if she decides to do so the next day. Why? Because she was drunk and so not able to consent. But what if he was drunk too? Ah, the legislation takes care to say that is no defense whatsoever. So her inebriated and impaired state means she is completely lacking any responsibility for the sex, but his inebriated and impaired state cannot be used to excuse his responsibility for the sex.

Yes, there are double standards about behaviour but in law, the woman generally gets the break in all things, be it family law or criminal law, BECAUSE of those double standards, because women are presumed to be kindly, innocent people who would never do wrong unless some man made them. See the case of Karla Homolka.

Conservatives want to ensure well marked bathrooms with someone checking for **** at the door....

They also need safe shopping spaces where no one offends them by saying "happy holidays." They need safe schools, where people teach creationism alongside evolution. They need safe militaries where gay people don't come out and transgendered people aren't serving. They need safe theatres where the actors don't talk about politics during an inherently political show. The list goes on and on. But Argus doesn't see those as "safe spaces."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

You mean like, when conservatives express disdain for progressives wanting to eliminate use of the word Christmas so as to create a "safe space" for non-Christians, and then you claim this disdain is itself a demand for a safe space?