I’m willing to bet that, pound for pound, trans people are least likely to commit that sort of crime for the simple fact that they’re usually the targets of sexual harassment and objectification, and that non-binary people also tend to be a whole lot more woke about these things, judging by the many trans-inclusive spaces I’ve crawled both virtually and IRL. They can and do perpetrate sexual harassment, but overall, the circumstances for these groups are different for that to be a major factor.
Wow you’re making a whole hell of a lot of assumptions and generalizations about trans and non-binary folks.
What exactly are we trying to get women away from here? People with Y chromosomes? Well, that includes trans women. People with testosterone? Well that includes trans men. People with muscles? There’s significant overlap between the most muscular woman and the least musclar man. People wearing men’s clothing? Well then that opens up conversations about cis cross dressers and drag artists, let alone greater discussions about clothing and fashion trends over time, let alone non-binary people.
You cannlt execute this solution without hand waiving away some amount of bigotry and prejudice. That is because it is a bigoted and prejudiced idea.
Wow you’re making a whole hell of a lot of assumptions and generalizations about trans and non-binary folks.
Am I? I just saw two videos of trans women relating their sexual experiences after transitioning, and that’s just been in the past week. Imagine what I’ve seen and heard throughout the years in various other spaces. I certainly don’t think I’m pulling it out of my ass if that’s what you think.
What exactly are we trying to get women away from here?
If I were to put it bluntly, cis straight men, but not exclusively. There are some trans men and some lesbians with internalized misogyny to beware, but these groups don’t generally have a prominent presence in society. You can’t tell me with a straight face that you’re comparing 50% of the population with about 0.5% and 5%, respectively, to argue your point. And even then, it’s like 90% men drivers or something like that.
People with testosterone?
Umm, yeah, I guess. Testosterone is one hell of a drug and a major driver of sexual behavior in many animals. We can discuss the male reproductive strategy if you want, and I can give you several examples where some seriously rapey shit is perpetrated by the males.
That is because it is a bigoted and prejudiced idea.
Yep, it’s a little prejudice to stave off a hell of a lot of sexual assault, and I think the tradeoff is justified if we see positive results. The consequences are negligible for men and life-altering for women. Is that wager not enough to reconsider this for you?
“Not all trans women are bad, but enough if then are predators that we need to ban them from women’s restrooms and sports!”.
“Not all Mexicans are bad, but the ones who are trying to cross the border into the US are criminals and need to be stopped!”
“I’ve heard of a white woman who said she was raped by a black man, and that’s why we need segregation!”
“Women are so delicate and helpless that we need special rules to protect them!”
The consequences are negligible for men
They are if you assume that the services would be “sperate but equal”. Wait a minute… Where have I heard that one before?
Racists love to talk about crime statistics and claim (erroneously) that they could eliminate 50% of the crime by removing 13% of the population. Is it worth the cost of dehumanization? Is it worth sewing divisions within society? Is it worth just brushing marginalized groups aside and pretending they don’t exist?
This program is all of the red flags of segregation and prejudice. It always ends the same way, every time it’s been tried. There’s no way that you can safely slice up populations of people without leading to the same issues that it always brings.
Are they, though? I feel like you’re pulling some shit that doesn’t quite fit, and it’s not the first time I’ve heard this accusation being thrown around in an effort to subvert the argument without paying close attention to what is being said.
None of your examples is based on reality because none of them follows real-world crime statistics. None of them is based on an incredible backlog of proceedings that requires an adjustment to an app to create a safety mechanism. Rather, they all describe a situation to weaponize society against an already-marginalized group. Here, the inverse implementation of the filter actually becomes the weapon and creates the very problem that you’re talking about!
This program is all of the red flags of segregation and prejudice.
Spare me the pearl clutching. None of these measures comes from misandry or prejudice, but rather actual violence that keeps happening. This is unlikely to generate that sentiment against men for the same reason that women-only wagons in public transport haven’t generated any misandry, but rather drawn attention to a common form of sexual violence in public that affects everyone, including other men.
So, please, spare me the poor comparisons and misrepresentations.
I already gave an example of how real world racists love to use crime statistics as arguments to justify their bigotry. You referencing (without citing) crime statistics is to meaningful.
But even if we look at statistics, the majority of sexual assault cases are between people who know each other, not random strangers.
This isn’t about protecting anyone. It’s about Uber selling women on the concept of safety and charging a premium for it, and they are leveraging a culture war in the process.
And I told you that they don’t apply because it’s disingenuous. They’re your contrived examples that you’re trying to force to subvert what I’m saying and frame me in some light with historical baggage that doesn’t apply.
But even if we look at statistics,
Yup, looking at your link, it says so right there: “the majority of offenders are male”. Then it lists a whole bunch of other factors that have nothing to do with gendered violence in the context that we’re talking about.
the majority of sexual assault cases are between people who know each other, not random strangers.
We’re talking about upwards of 2,300 lawsuits between strangers in a cab as a result of 400k other reports submitted at a rate of about 1 per 8 minutes for two years. Do you see how what you’re saying doesn’t fit here either?
This isn’t about protecting anyone.
Of course not, this is about Uber covering its ass for doing absolutely nothing about sexual assault and trying to come up with a corporate solution.
It’s about Uber selling women on the concept of safety and charging a premium for it
Are they charging extra for this feature?
and they are leveraging a culture war in the process.
The fact of the matter is that these men suing Uber for discrimination are pearl-clutching and are the ones fueling the culture war. These self-described men in the comments arguing against letting women choose the gender of their driver are pretending this is somehow comparable to racism, and are making fake comparisons to drive a narrative. You did that.
I’m willing to bet that, pound for pound, trans people are least likely to commit that sort of crime for the simple fact that they’re usually the targets of sexual harassment and objectification, and that non-binary people also tend to be a whole lot more woke about these things, judging by the many trans-inclusive spaces I’ve crawled both virtually and IRL. They can and do perpetrate sexual harassment, but overall, the circumstances for these groups are different for that to be a major factor.
Wow you’re making a whole hell of a lot of assumptions and generalizations about trans and non-binary folks.
What exactly are we trying to get women away from here? People with Y chromosomes? Well, that includes trans women. People with testosterone? Well that includes trans men. People with muscles? There’s significant overlap between the most muscular woman and the least musclar man. People wearing men’s clothing? Well then that opens up conversations about cis cross dressers and drag artists, let alone greater discussions about clothing and fashion trends over time, let alone non-binary people.
You cannlt execute this solution without hand waiving away some amount of bigotry and prejudice. That is because it is a bigoted and prejudiced idea.
Am I? I just saw two videos of trans women relating their sexual experiences after transitioning, and that’s just been in the past week. Imagine what I’ve seen and heard throughout the years in various other spaces. I certainly don’t think I’m pulling it out of my ass if that’s what you think.
If I were to put it bluntly, cis straight men, but not exclusively. There are some trans men and some lesbians with internalized misogyny to beware, but these groups don’t generally have a prominent presence in society. You can’t tell me with a straight face that you’re comparing 50% of the population with about 0.5% and 5%, respectively, to argue your point. And even then, it’s like 90% men drivers or something like that.
Umm, yeah, I guess. Testosterone is one hell of a drug and a major driver of sexual behavior in many animals. We can discuss the male reproductive strategy if you want, and I can give you several examples where some seriously rapey shit is perpetrated by the males.
Yep, it’s a little prejudice to stave off a hell of a lot of sexual assault, and I think the tradeoff is justified if we see positive results. The consequences are negligible for men and life-altering for women. Is that wager not enough to reconsider this for you?
Your arguments sound incredibly familiar.
“Not all trans women are bad, but enough if then are predators that we need to ban them from women’s restrooms and sports!”.
“Not all Mexicans are bad, but the ones who are trying to cross the border into the US are criminals and need to be stopped!”
“I’ve heard of a white woman who said she was raped by a black man, and that’s why we need segregation!”
“Women are so delicate and helpless that we need special rules to protect them!”
They are if you assume that the services would be “sperate but equal”. Wait a minute… Where have I heard that one before?
Racists love to talk about crime statistics and claim (erroneously) that they could eliminate 50% of the crime by removing 13% of the population. Is it worth the cost of dehumanization? Is it worth sewing divisions within society? Is it worth just brushing marginalized groups aside and pretending they don’t exist?
This program is all of the red flags of segregation and prejudice. It always ends the same way, every time it’s been tried. There’s no way that you can safely slice up populations of people without leading to the same issues that it always brings.
Are they, though? I feel like you’re pulling some shit that doesn’t quite fit, and it’s not the first time I’ve heard this accusation being thrown around in an effort to subvert the argument without paying close attention to what is being said.
None of your examples is based on reality because none of them follows real-world crime statistics. None of them is based on an incredible backlog of proceedings that requires an adjustment to an app to create a safety mechanism. Rather, they all describe a situation to weaponize society against an already-marginalized group. Here, the inverse implementation of the filter actually becomes the weapon and creates the very problem that you’re talking about!
Spare me the pearl clutching. None of these measures comes from misandry or prejudice, but rather actual violence that keeps happening. This is unlikely to generate that sentiment against men for the same reason that women-only wagons in public transport haven’t generated any misandry, but rather drawn attention to a common form of sexual violence in public that affects everyone, including other men.
So, please, spare me the poor comparisons and misrepresentations.
I already gave an example of how real world racists love to use crime statistics as arguments to justify their bigotry. You referencing (without citing) crime statistics is to meaningful.
But even if we look at statistics, the majority of sexual assault cases are between people who know each other, not random strangers.
This isn’t about protecting anyone. It’s about Uber selling women on the concept of safety and charging a premium for it, and they are leveraging a culture war in the process.
And I told you that they don’t apply because it’s disingenuous. They’re your contrived examples that you’re trying to force to subvert what I’m saying and frame me in some light with historical baggage that doesn’t apply.
Yup, looking at your link, it says so right there: “the majority of offenders are male”. Then it lists a whole bunch of other factors that have nothing to do with gendered violence in the context that we’re talking about.
We’re talking about upwards of 2,300 lawsuits between strangers in a cab as a result of 400k other reports submitted at a rate of about 1 per 8 minutes for two years. Do you see how what you’re saying doesn’t fit here either?
Of course not, this is about Uber covering its ass for doing absolutely nothing about sexual assault and trying to come up with a corporate solution.
Are they charging extra for this feature?
The fact of the matter is that these men suing Uber for discrimination are pearl-clutching and are the ones fueling the culture war. These self-described men in the comments arguing against letting women choose the gender of their driver are pretending this is somehow comparable to racism, and are making fake comparisons to drive a narrative. You did that.