So... since you claimed that DFW's argument was made in under six minutes with no actual evidence of that, can I make the same claim about your arguments?
To actually talk about your counterargument, what was being discussed wasn't the minutia about clowns in bus driver seats. In fact, a few of your arguments, namely about make up and footwear, could be read as an attack on women drivers in general.
A clown bus driver is, fundamentally, not a dangerous person. Clowns are not more likely to harm someone than any given non-clown, nor are clowns fundamentally less skilled at operating motor vehicles than non-clowns.
But, let's say that we did find that clowns are somehow fundamentally more dangerous to non-clowns than non-clowns are to other non-clowns. Wouldn't that indicate it is something about clowns, specifically, that causes the danger?
Assuming you are saying that clowns are representative of trans people, and that you refer to transwomen as male, wouldn't that mean you believe that males are fundamentally more dangerous than non-males? Again, assuming that males are fundamentally more dangerous than non-males, shouldn't something be done to prevent male violence all-together? According to the logic that clowns should be prevented from driving, males should be prevented from being in the presence of other males.
However, I feel that preventative punishment, especially preventative punishment of an entire class of people, is fundamentally unjust and unethical. I would love to hear your argument *for* preventative punishment of a class of people, though.
What you are calling “preventative punishment” is what most of us call safeguarding. It is absolutely necessary to prohibit 100% of men from women and girls’ spaces in order to safeguard them from harassment and violence, even though we know it’s a sophisticated minority of men who groom and attack women and girls.
It is absolutely necessary to screen ALL people who work with children for criminal allegations and convictions, knowing that men who sexually abuse women are three times more likely to choose professions where they work with children, even though we know most men who work with children are safe and caring.
Your question “wouldn’t that indicate that it is something about clowns specifically that causes the danger?” is spot on. Male-pattern violence is committed BY MEN. Not all men, not most men. But always by men, primarily against women and girls.
It must feel like a “punishment” to an entitled man when he doesn’t get his way 100% of the time - like when women don’t want him violating their boundaries!
Fantastic article!
Thank you x
So... since you claimed that DFW's argument was made in under six minutes with no actual evidence of that, can I make the same claim about your arguments?
To actually talk about your counterargument, what was being discussed wasn't the minutia about clowns in bus driver seats. In fact, a few of your arguments, namely about make up and footwear, could be read as an attack on women drivers in general.
A clown bus driver is, fundamentally, not a dangerous person. Clowns are not more likely to harm someone than any given non-clown, nor are clowns fundamentally less skilled at operating motor vehicles than non-clowns.
But, let's say that we did find that clowns are somehow fundamentally more dangerous to non-clowns than non-clowns are to other non-clowns. Wouldn't that indicate it is something about clowns, specifically, that causes the danger?
Assuming you are saying that clowns are representative of trans people, and that you refer to transwomen as male, wouldn't that mean you believe that males are fundamentally more dangerous than non-males? Again, assuming that males are fundamentally more dangerous than non-males, shouldn't something be done to prevent male violence all-together? According to the logic that clowns should be prevented from driving, males should be prevented from being in the presence of other males.
However, I feel that preventative punishment, especially preventative punishment of an entire class of people, is fundamentally unjust and unethical. I would love to hear your argument *for* preventative punishment of a class of people, though.
What you are calling “preventative punishment” is what most of us call safeguarding. It is absolutely necessary to prohibit 100% of men from women and girls’ spaces in order to safeguard them from harassment and violence, even though we know it’s a sophisticated minority of men who groom and attack women and girls.
It is absolutely necessary to screen ALL people who work with children for criminal allegations and convictions, knowing that men who sexually abuse women are three times more likely to choose professions where they work with children, even though we know most men who work with children are safe and caring.
Your question “wouldn’t that indicate that it is something about clowns specifically that causes the danger?” is spot on. Male-pattern violence is committed BY MEN. Not all men, not most men. But always by men, primarily against women and girls.
What is this "preventative punishment" anyway? Safeguarding and boundaries are not punishments. If you feel like they are, that's a bit concerning.
It must feel like a “punishment” to an entitled man when he doesn’t get his way 100% of the time - like when women don’t want him violating their boundaries!