polycistronic0

“…What is it with liberals and accusations of “moralizing?” Right before reading Bazelon’s piece, I was scrolling through the comments on a subreddit where someone had shared my last post on prostitution. There too, the most common response by far was a curt dismissal on the grounds that I just have a “moral problem” with prostitution.

Well, here’s my confession: They’re right! I do have a moral problem with prostitution. I think buying sex is wrong. It’s bad. It’s not okay. It’s unacceptable, reprehensible, indefensible, shameful, disgraceful, appalling, and every other word the Left has banned for fear of “moralizing.” But buying sex should be moralized, because buying sex is immoral. It’s something a person ought not do.

That’s not all, though. I don’t just want to call it immoral — I want the government to enforce that morality! I want the police and courts to punish men who purchase sex. I want them fined, or even thrown in jail, and I want that done solely because what they are doing is immoral.

I have no idea why anyone would think I pretend otherwise.

On the subject, I have moral problems with some other things: Police brutality, domestic violence, religion, capitalism, and the entire global system of industrial civilization, to name a few. I think it’s objectively immoral to assault your partner or appropriate the means of production for private profit. A white cop murdering an African civilian is impermissible to me. And destroying the entire planet in an orgy of white supremacist, patriarchal settler colonialism for the profit of shareholders and CEOs is certainly something I think a person ought not do. These things are wrong, like buying sex is wrong, and that is reason enough to abolish them…

Left-wing men have cordoned off sex from ethics because ethics is, at its heart, a search for rules that transcend desire. Most of them don’t desire to run a Fortune 500 company, or dig an oil well, or invade another country, so they don’t mind prescriptions on behavior that restrict those things. But many, many men on the Left want to fuck female strangers, or want the power that comes from knowing those fucks are an option. No wonder, then, so many oppose “moralizing” around sex.

Does impoverished men not abuse women and children too???

"where do we draw the line." TRA's drew the line when they said you are what you indetify as.

transmen think they are a man, butches dont, masculine name or clothes also dont make you a man.

In 1992, he drugged a 23-year-old patient, a woman who had gone to him before and whose baby he delivered, and raped her. The victim, known as Candice/Candy, remembered the assault and that he was the one who did it, and she reported it to the police. Of course, everyone thought she was crazy. Whose side would you take: a respected small town doctor or a young single mother?

When the police took his blood, it didn't match the semen taken from her rape kit. She was adamant this was the man and asked for a re-test. A year later, they took blood again, this time with police observing. The blood didn't match the rape kit. The police closed the case.

Candice/Candy didn't let up and hired a private investigator who did an extremely illegal thing by breaking into Schneeberger's car, stealing some chapstick presumably used by Schneeberger, and testing the DNA. That DNA from the chapstick matched her rape kit.

Due to the illegal seizure, the positive results didn't mean shit, but Candice/Candy brought a civil case against Schneeberger. He agreed to another test, this time the entire thing was videotaped by police. Initially, they asked to take the sample from his fingers. He asked if it could be done from his arm instead, due to some disease that made his fingers swell.

During the video, the examiner tries multiple times to get a sample from his arm. While she's prepping the sample for testing, she looks obviously skeptical. Someone off camera asks her what's wrong. She remarks that, even though she had just taken this sample herself right now, the blood looks...old.

The sample was apparently too degraded for testing, presumably due to a mistake on the lab's part.

The case didn't move again until 1997....when Schneeberger's wife reported to police that her husband was sexually assaulting her daughter from a previous marriage. This had been apparently going on for several years. He would go into her room, give her injections and assault her.

They took a sample from him again, and videotaped it again. This time, they took multiple kinds of DNA samples: hair, blood (taken from his fingers!), saliva...and it all finally matched Candice/Candy's rape kit.

Insultingly, he was sentenced 6 years and got out on parole after 4. But how did he get away with making an entire town turn on a woman and call her crazy, all the while he was raping his stepdaughter in the same way he raped Candice/Candy?

To illustrate the lengths men go to cover up their violence against women, Schneeberger revealed during the trial that he had SURGICALLY INSERTED A PLASTIC TUBE INSIDE HIS ARM that had the blood of someone else inside. He made sure that examiners took blood from that arm in particular. The blood inside the tube had degraded over time, which was why the examiner had noticed it.

• a customer asking me if boys like coloring

• a customer telling her daughter she can’t give out ice cream stickers for party favors because there will be boys there

• an older couple laughing about how there’s a pink toy sword because a boy would never play with a pink toy sword (because i guess boys can’t like pink and girls don’t play with toy swords. also it wasn’t even pink it was red lol)

• a customer refusing to buy a snail robot kit for his nephew because it was “too cute for a boy”

• a customer sharply reminding me she was buying a gift for a boy when i suggested play food

• a customer telling her daughter she needed to pick a different birthday card for her friend because the one she chose had a pink envelope (her friend was a boy)

• a customer asking what a boy would like for valentine’s day instead of the stuffed dogs she was getting for the girls

• a customer getting upset when my coworker used blue ribbon on a gift bag because the present was for a girl

• a customer saying a toy guitar was “too girly” for her grandson, based only on the fact that the box had a picture of a girl playing with it (the guitar was red with yellow music notes)

To diagnose a kid as "trans" they have to be gender non conforming, therefore ironically reinforcing the stereotypes.

A good example is this book about a girl who is actually a boy. Why? She doesn't like pink, dresses and cute stuff.

And yes, there is a big difference between people that think they should be hurt and people that want to do the hurting.

Bring back kink shaming. BDSM is rife with abuse, you can’t strangle someone safely, and we should all give the side eye to people that enjoy inflicting pain on others.

And most importantly, we should acknowledge that 80% of the people wanting to dominate and cause pain are male and 80% of the people that think their place is to endure pain are female. Sex isn’t immune to all the same social factors that affect everything else. Kink isn’t sacred and above criticism.

x

he also said that it was incredibly unlikely that sexism will ever be resolved in the medical field. that the majority of medications i will ever take - even some of which are "for women" - will not be clinically tested on my body.

the problem, he said, was in getting any human clinical trial approved. to test on a body with a uterus - any body, even elderly patients or those who have been sterilized - was often nigh-impossible, because the concern was that the test patient may, at any point, become pregnant. once/if the patient became pregnant, the study would not be about "the effects of New Medication on the body." instead, the trial would fail - the results would be "the effects of New Medication on a developing fetus/pregnant patient."

it was massively easier, he said, to just test without accounting for a uterus. that's how he phrased it - accounting for a uterus.

at the time, i remember him talking about the ethical implications of testing on a developing fetus; how such testing could theoretically bankrupt a company if a lawsuit was filed. he talked about informed consent and about how long it took for any legislation to be passed about this - that in 1993; the year i was born, it finally became illegal to outright exclude women and minorities from clinical trials.

i remember him shrugging. "that's not to say it doesn't happen," he said. my ears were ringing.

i was thinking about how every time i have been rushed to the ER, the first thing they have asked me is if i am pregnant. when i broke my wrist at 16 years old - despite never having had sex - they made me wait three hours for the test to come back negative before they gave me pain meds. the possibility of a child haunts my health.

how many people have died on the table because they were waiting for the pregnancy test before treatment. how many people have died on the table because they were pregnant, and the only thing we care about is the fetus.

it is hard to explain to other people, but it feels like some kind of strange ghost. our entire lives, we are supposed to "save" our bodies for our future partners. but really we are just saving the body for the future child, aren't we? that hovering future-almost that cartwheels around in a miasma. you can't get your tubes tied, what if you change your mind? think of the child you must have, eventually.