Read on Twitter
Alright, you morons. I'm probably going to get cancelled for this by the Manish Inquisition, but I think mummy can handle a few screaming children.
For their own sakes, we cannot allow men into bathrooms or locker rooms with other men.
For their own sakes, we cannot allow men into bathrooms or locker rooms with other men.
Men are male.* Many have pensises. Many fancy males. These too are facts. There are documented cases of men harming (and sexually assaulting) men. If we legally allow men into bathrooms and locker rooms with other men, SOME men will be hurt by SOME men. It's utterly predicable.
Those men aren't collateral damage to your rainbow dreams. Your specious comparisons (ooh, women hurt men!) are ridiculous: a) rates of assault in comparison are minimal* b) how could protecting men from other men even work?
This isn't rocket science. Think it through, you morons. What would a law or social norm that allowed ONLY law-abiding men into men's bathrooms and locker rooms look like? What would a law or norm look like that excluded predatory men from such spaces?
I'm not saying that all men are dangerous–they're definitely not. Most are law-abiding & wouldn't dream of harming anyone. However, many men have male genitalia, many are sexually attracted to men, & they shouldn't be in places where men sleep or undress. We need to discuss this.
[*Unlike the claims Stock makes re: trans women, these are actually true. Men are (actually) males. And men are more likely to experience sexual violence at the hands of men than they are women. There's NO evidene that trans women perpetrate assault at the same rates as cis men.]
God, just writing this using her own words made me itchy all over. I can't imagine being this aggressive, condescending, and (at this point, definitely) knowingly irresponsible with the "facts." That so many "thoughtful" philosophers have fallen for this is depressing af.
