Lifted from the previous post, an excruciatingly obtuse discussion about wangs and women’s changing rooms. In which the very patient Warren Smith attempts to tease sense from a self-styled ‘Harris voter’.
Again, I say obtuse, but it’s more a matter of practised dishonesty:
Responding to the exchange above, Rafi adds, not unfairly,
Mr Harris Voter does seem to be struggling with some very basic realities. Things that we, as a society, used to understand.
I imagine much of his difficulty lies in the need to be seen holding fashionable and therefore statusful opinions, as determined by his peer group, and the illogical nature of the opinions currently in fashion. He wants to be seen as being “inclusive,” as he puts it, even though the consequent position is fundamentally incoherent.
And so we get the pinhead dance. According to which, cross-dressing men have every right to enter women’s changing rooms, and women who object can… er, choose not to use them. Or choose to flee, provided they do it politely. So as not to cause offence.
We must, it seems, be sensitive. Albeit unilaterally.
Maddening and slippery as Mr Harris Voter is, I think the exchange above is quite revealing. It does show the contortions required of the type. It also suggests that it would be unwise to rely on such creatures.
Ladies, they’ll sell you out in a heartbeat.
If nothing else, the exchange highlights how an urge to seem like a good and progressive person, a caring and inclusive person, can be entirely at odds with actual goodness or anything approaching coherence. Such that the pretence, the preoccupation with how one seems, if only to one’s equally pretentious peers, entails not caring – at all – about women and girls who would rather not share an intimate space with mentally ill men and opportunist perverts.
As this chap says in reply to Warren Smith’s original post on X:
This is not a trivial point.
Update, via the comments:
Oh, and if Mr Harris Voter’s opinions on What Women Should Be Happy To Put Up With sound vaguely familiar, you may be thinking of Mr Dolatowski, the cross-dressing chap mentioned here previously, and who insists that he isn’t “a threat if I use the bathroom,” and who tells us, emphatically, “I know I’m not a threat to anyone.”
Except, of course, to ten-year-old girls in supermarket toilets.
Update 2:
In the comments, EmC quotes Mr Harris Voter saying, “The reason I don’t care is because I don’t know that these situations are happening.”
She then adds,
Absolutely. To claim not to know about these things – to not know about any of them – as if the very idea were inconceivable and not an obvious and inevitable consequence – is quite an achievement. Of a sort. Though according to Mr Harris Voter, if any discomfort or conflict of interests should ever materialise – in theory, hypothetically – it will somehow be the fault of women. For not being sufficiently open-minded and progressive.
Liz quips,
Well, indeed. This is someone who implies, quite strongly and more than once, that mothers who don’t want their six-year-old daughters exposed to the genitalia of cross-dressing men are somehow being uptight and selfish, and are therefore of limited importance. Compared to cross-dressing men who wish to impose themselves, intimately, on women and girls who may object. And often precisely because women and girls may object.
The mothers, we’re told, are “free to leave” their own toilets and changing rooms. Because their expectations of privacy and safety, and the safety of their children, are merely things that the mothers “choose to care about.” By insinuation, needlessly.
And how very dare they.
And so, Mr Harris Voter, our champion of human progress, is someone who would have us believe that the psychological gratification of the male interloper, his triumphant intrusion, is of at least equal importance to the rights of women not to be watched as they undress by some weird and creepy man who enjoys violating normal boundaries.
Again, it’s quite the mental dance. Yet so very much in fashion.
Recent Comments