A world designed for only half the population.

[Moral Orel]

Answer and I'll gladly address whatever you want.

Goodie! I'm going to hold you to that! I might even put it in my signature so I don't have to remind you of it over and over again (which is what I'm expecting at this point, honestly). I, however, am not giving you assurances that I will answer "whatever" question you want, so don't expect me to let you take us down another rabbit trail to distract from the fact that you have presented exactly zero reasons to segregate bathrooms. I'm guessing that you think that my answer to this question is going to give you that ammunition though, so, good luck with that.

Prisons should remain segregated because their populations are already proven to be predisposed to deviant behavior, especially including violence. Do the biological differences between men and women make it easier for males to inflict violence on females? Sure. But if the reason we segregate them is the biological differences then we should be consistent and segregate everywhere that males and females might come into contact. So you get to keep segregating bathrooms like you want, but also start segregating schools, government buildings (for employees and visitors), parking garages, public parks, businesses (for employees and customers), etc... Basically, the only contact between the sexes should be in private residences, because women can choose to put themselves at risk in private if they please, and on the internet where biological differences really don't matter. Unless, of course, you think the differences matter here, but not here, but there, but not there... So do they matter all of the time, or do the matter sometimes.

Did you really think I was scared of that question? Did you think I didn't have a response ready to go? It's okay, you don't have to answer those two questions. But don't bother asking another question until you've answered every single question in post #90.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Goodie! I'm going to hold you to that! I might even put it in my signature so I don't have to remind you of it over and over again (which is what I'm expecting at this point, honestly). I, however, am not giving you assurances that I will answer "whatever" question you want, so don't expect me to let you take us down another rabbit trail to distract from the fact that you have presented exactly zero reasons to segregate bathrooms. I'm guessing that you think that my answer to this question is going to give you that ammunition though, so, good luck with that.

Ok.

Prisons should remain segregated because their populations are already proven to be predisposed to deviant behavior, especially including violence.

That's true of both the male and female prisoners...so that's not a legitimate factor.

Do the biological differences between men and women make it easier for males to inflict violence on females? Sure.

Oh good....we agree.

But if the reason we segregate them is the biological differences then we should be consistent and segregate everywhere that males and females might come into contact.

No. The reason prisons and restrooms pose rather unique risks is in their design. We're talking about confined spaces with typically one exit. When we get into prison cells and restroom stalls specifically...we're talking about even smaller confined spaces. If a man is seeking to victimize a woman, these places all but guarantee that she'll not be able to flee from her attacker.

Since we already agree that basic physiological differences between men and women generally give men the advantage over women in a physical conflict, we've got a rather strong reason why we should keep these places segregated.

I'm just deleting the rest of your point here since I've already proven it irrelevant.

Did you really think I was scared of that question?

I don't really care.

Did you think I didn't have a response ready to go?

I was certain you did...and certain it would be easy to dismiss.

It's okay, you don't have to answer those two questions. But don't bother asking another question until you've answered every single question in post #90.

I said I would address whatever you wanted....see my next post.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Do you even know what part of the article Sistrin was talking about when I made my comment?

No.

Tell me, what did you mean when you called it "a cultural issue", if you didn't mean that it was a cultural issue?

This is a question about a post from another thread. Even if I could remember what I meant, it's not necessary to explain it. This is a new thread.

In that culture, would a man exposing himself be a problem?

Off topic. This isn't a thread about "flashers".

You used the same imaginary scenario in this thread too, so I'm guessing you think it's a winner, eh?

You can't read minds. Perhaps you should make that your signature so you can remind yourself and avoid jumping to conclusions in the future.

So what is inaccurate about my account of the discussion?

Pretty much everything...which you probably realized by now.

You said it was a cultural issue, but you didn't really mean it was a cultural issue?

See above...this is the second question.

Am I really the dishonest one here?

I'll consider that perhaps you're just naive and overconfident in your mind reading abilities.

This was fun.

 

[Moral Orel]

That's true of both the male and female prisoners...so that's not a legitimate factor.

Non sequitur.

No. The reason prisons and restrooms pose rather unique risks is in their design.

Translation:

They don't matter here....but they do matter here....but they don't matter here....but they do matter here....

LOL

We're talking about confined spaces with typically one exit. When we get into prison cells and restroom stalls specifically...we're talking about even smaller confined spaces. If a man is seeking to victimize a woman, these places all but guarantee that she'll not be able to flee from her attacker.

There are confined spaces in all the places I described as well, try again.

 

[Moral Orel]

Off topic. This isn't a thread about "flashers".

That's good to hear. So we agree that any problem with flashers isn't based on biology (because it would be on topic then), but based on culture. So when you claimed that you "clearly" weren't saying it was a cultural issue before, you were wrong. Glad we could clear that up.

As to the rest of that "response", I'll remember what constitutes "addressing" things in the future, even though I'm sure you won't.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Non sequitur.

I don't think you're using that right.

You said that a reason to keep two populations separate was that they were criminals. If it was one or the other, that would make sense...but they're all criminals by definition.

It's not a legitimate reason. If you think I'm wrong, explain why.

Translation:

LOL

It's a design issue directly related to physiological differences. That is the thread topic.

If I were being inconsistent, I'd be saying that those differences don't matter and men should use the women's restroom whenever they want.

There are confined spaces in all the places I described as well, try again.

Not really...the overwhelmingly majority of public spaces aren't confined in any way.

 

[Ana the Ist]

That's good to hear.

Glad you liked that.

 

[Moral Orel]

I don't think you're using that right.

You said that a reason to keep two populations separate was that they were criminals. If it was one or the other, that would make sense...but they're all criminals by definition.

It's not a legitimate reason. If you think I'm wrong, explain why.

Yes, they're all criminals and they're all prone to deviant behavior. You said that because women are also prone to deviant behavior, the increased likelihood of violence is irrelevant. That conclusion does not follow. A non-sequitur.

Think about what you already acknowledge makes sense. If male prisoners are prone to violence, and it's a one-sided fight, then we should separate them, right? Does it matter whether the women around the male prisoners are prone to violence or not? Does that stop the male prisoners from being prone to violence? Of course not, why would it?

You don't put a bear in an enclosure with a raccoon. Both animals are prone to fits of aggression, but putting them together means that raccoon is going to die. If they happen to be trained or domesticated and therefore not prone to violence, then it's fine for them to share a space together. It's the propensity for violence that dictates separation, not the mere physiological differences.

Biology is a factor, it isn't the issue.

It's a design issue directly related to physiological differences. That is the thread topic.

If I were being inconsistent, I'd be saying that those differences don't matter and men should use the women's restroom whenever they want.

No, you're saying that physiological differences matter in prisons because they have cells, but they don't matter in restaurants which have walk in refrigerators, and they matter in restrooms because they have stalls, but they don't matter in office buildings which have broom closets. Yes, you're being inconsistent.

Not really...the overwhelmingly majority of public spaces aren't confined in any way.

Excluding roads and sidewalks, which I'll grant you, quantify the amount of access to confined spaces in all other public spaces versus prisons and restrooms, and then tell me how you decide where to draw the line. It isn't as though violence against women is never perpetrated in the confined spaces of other public places.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Yes, they're all criminals and they're all prone to deviant behavior. You said that because women are also prone to deviant behavior, the increased likelihood of violence is irrelevant.

I didn't say anything of the sort.

The increased likelihood of violence is because of physiological differences between men and women...and the design of prisons.

The nature of the prisoners is irrelevant. I thought that was rather easy to follow.

Think about what you already acknowledge makes sense. If male prisoners are prone to violence, and it's a one-sided fight, then we should separate them, right?

Who says they are prone to violence? That's not an argument I think one can easily make. Using violence doesn't mean one is prone to using violence....and I don't know male prisoners are any more prone than women.

You don't put a bear in an enclosure with a raccoon. Both animals are prone to fits of aggression, but putting them together means that raccoon is going to die. If they happen to be trained or domesticated and therefore not prone to violence, then it's fine for them to share a space together. It's the propensity for violence that dictates separation, not the mere physiological differences.

Again, I don't think that's an argument that you can reasonably make. Even if you can show that male prisoners are more likely to use violence than female prisoners....that doesn't mean those dynamics won't change in a non-segregated environment. It's a matter of physiological differences and design.

Biology is a factor, it isn't the issue.

Even if you're arguing that men are biologically more prone to violence....it's a biological issue.

No, you're saying that physiological differences matter in prisons because they have cells,

Yeah...amongst other confined spaces. If one could conceive of some giant open space prison where women could easily flee from conflicts until guards can intervene, it wouldn't be a problem.

but they don't matter in restaurants which have walk in refrigerators

Not a public space. I don't really have any say in what people do with their property.

, and they matter in restrooms because they have stalls, but they don't matter in office buildings which have broom closets. Yes, you're being inconsistent.

Also not a public space. No inconsistencies here. I don't tell people they cannot segregate these privately owned spaces if they want.

Lol this isn't going well for you.

 

[Moral Orel]

Lol this isn't going well for you.

I know it seems that way when you don't read what I write. Try again, try harder.

 

[Moral Orel]

I didn't say anything of the sort.

No? Let's look into that. Here's what I said originally:

Prisons should remain segregated because their populations are already proven to be predisposed to deviant behavior, especially including violence.

And you responded with this:

That's true of both the male and female prisoners...so that's not a legitimate factor.

So it's "true" that "both the female and male prisoners" are already proven to be predisposed to deviant behavior, especially including violence. And you conclude that because of this, it isn't a legitimate factor.

Then you added this:

If it was one or the other, that would make sense...but they're all criminals by definition.

So the issue you take with my reasoning is that women are also "predisposed to deviant behavior, especially including violence". So you're saying that because women are predisposed to deviant behavior, especially including violence, the populations being proven to be predisposed to deviant behavior especially including violence isn't a legitimate factor. Now, how did I describe that reasoning?

You said that because women are also prone to deviant behavior, the increased likelihood of violence is irrelevant.

Sure, taken out of the context of the conversation where we're talking about female prisoners and male prisoners, it might look like I was saying that you made a statement about women at large. But given the context of just a few posts, it's clear that my statement very accurately sums up your argument. Remember how upset you get when we don't consider the context that a statement resides in? Most of us around here have a memory span that's a bit longer than a single post though. Like I said, try again, try harder.

 

[Moral Orel]

Also not a public space.

We've been talking about men's and women's restrooms. Most of which reside in public spaces. You've never limited it to public spaces such as government buildings and public parks. We're not going to move the goalposts now. We're talking about whether restrooms should be segregated for the sake of safety. We're not talking about whether we should pass a law about it. That's never been mentioned until I showed you being inconsistent and you had to try and find a way to weasel out.

But even if I granted you that and we only considered "public spaces" all of a sudden, you still failed. Government buildings are public spaces just like prisons. They have offices and restrooms and broom closets and stalls. You are still failing to draw a unique distinction between the places that matter to you and the places that don't.

Try harder, try again.

 

[Moral Orel]

Who says they are prone to violence?

I'm going to assume you stated this because you forgot we were talking about prisoners and not the male population at large, but just in case that isn't the case, I'll remind you that you agreed it is true that populations of male prisoners are already proven to be predisposed to deviant behavior, especially including violence. Do you take issue with interchanging the words "predisposed" and "prone"? You don't feel they're similar enough?

 

[Ana the Ist]

No? Let's look into that. Here's what I said originally:

And you responded with this:

So it's "true" that "both the female and male prisoners" are already proven to be predisposed to deviant behavior, especially including violence. And you conclude that because of this, it isn't a legitimate factor.

Yup.

So the issue you take with my reasoning is that women are also "predisposed to deviant behavior, especially including violence".

How did you get that from what I wrote? I didn't say anything about women.

So you're saying that because women are predisposed to deviant behavior, especially including violence, the populations being proven to be predisposed to deviant behavior especially including violence isn't a legitimate factor. Now, how did I describe that reasoning?

Doesn't matter really.

Sure, taken out of the context of the conversation where we're talking about female prisoners and male prisoners, it might look like I was saying that you made a statement about women at large. But given the context of just a few posts, it's clear that my statement very accurately sums up your argument. Remember how upset you get when we don't consider the context that a statement resides in? Most of us around here have a memory span that's a bit longer than a single post though. Like I said, try again, try harder.

We aren't talking about the difference between a normal non-prison environment though....we're taking about the difference between a violent environment and a "potentially" more violent environment.

The simple fact is that we recognize there's a potential for violence in prison....its prison after all. That's not the reason why we keep men and women separate. The reason we keep them separate is that the relatively confined spaces and biological differences between men and women would make women unfairly vulnerable in an unsegregated situation.

This is all beside the point though. Whether you think it's this biological reason or that one....the point remains the same....it isn't socio-cultural. It's a reason, grounded in fact. You aren't even trying to argue a socio-cultural angle anymore.

We're done.

 

[Moral Orel]

The simple fact is that we recognize there's a potential for violence in prison....its prison after all.

Oooh! You're so close! There is there a higher likelihood for violence in prison than normal non-prison environments because prisoners are proven to be predisposed to deviant behavior, especially including violence. This is a socio-cultural issue. Do try to keep up.

We're done.

You lost so bad you couldn't even understand the point, sad.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'm going to assume you stated this because you forgot we were talking about prisoners and not the male population at large, but just in case that isn't the case, I'll remind you that you agreed it is true that populations of male prisoners are already proven to be predisposed to deviant behavior, especially including violence. Do you take issue with interchanging the words "predisposed" and "prone"? You don't feel they're similar enough?

If we take some guy and place them in prison...we've surrounded them with criminals. It doesn't matter if you think criminals are violent or not.

If we take a woman and place her in prison...we've surrounded her with criminals. Same thing...regardless of how you generalize criminality.

So to sit there and say "we can't mix the male and female criminals together because criminals are a certain way"....makes no sense. If criminals are a certain way, then they will be that way regardless of whether or not we separate them by sex, height, weight, etc.

That's why I dismissed your point as a non factor.

 

[Moral Orel]

If we take some guy and place them in prison...we've surrounded them with criminals. It doesn't matter if you think criminals are violent or not.

If we take a woman and place her in prison...we've surrounded her with criminals. Same thing...regardless of how you generalize criminality.

So to sit there and say "we can't mix the male and female criminals together because criminals are a certain way"....makes no sense. If criminals are a certain way, then they will be that way regardless of whether or not we separate them by sex, height, weight, etc.

That's why I dismissed your point as a non factor.

Let's say there's a prison-guard convention held at an empty prison. No one there but male guards (non-criminals), and lots of them. If we send a woman in there, is she just as likely to be raped as if we sent a woman into a regular prison? If my point is a non-factor, there's no difference in risk between these scenarios.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Let's say there's a prison-guard convention held at an empty prison. No one there but male guards (non-criminals), and lots of them. If we send a woman in there, is she just as likely to be raped as if we sent a woman into a regular prison? If my point is a non-factor, there's no difference in risk between these scenarios.

If you think there's a higher risk...then it isn't because of "criminals" but because of biological differences between men and women.

 

[Moral Orel]

If you think there's a higher risk...then it isn't because of "criminals" but because of biological differences between men and women.

You don't think there's a higher risk?

 

[Ana the Ist]

You don't think there's a higher risk?

If I did....what would that prove? That I was right all along and we definitely shouldn't let anyone born male into women's restrooms?

It's like you're arguing for my position and don't quite realize it yet.