It strikes me that one thing the "trans rights" movement does not grasp is the relative nature of "unclothed encounters" between people.
To draw a picture, when two men or two women encounter one another in a fully or partially unclothed state, they have, assuming a rate of homosexuality of 3% or less, very low odds (0.09%, one in a thousand or so) that both of them will be looking at something they are sexually attracted to in a state which suggests that sexual relations could happen.
However, when two people of the opposite sex encounter one another in a fully or partially unclothed state, the odds are 99.9% that at least one of the two people in that encounter are attracted to the sex they're looking at. Add more people, and of course the odds become virtually certain.
Now with due "respect" to rude jokes about appearance, what this means is this; when people of the opposite expose more than a certain amount of skin, a degree of sexual tension is inevitable. It is, at its core, what's going on when actresses and musicians of modest ability but spectacular beauty put that beauty on display; the attempt is being made to divert the rational mind and engage the hormones. It works.
And so when I consider the reality of "trans women" entering womens' only spaces, it's obvious that this sexual tension is being created, and the relevant question is whether or not they are aware of this tension, and if they are, whether or not they care. At a certain level, we would suggest that people are intentionally breaching womens' only spaces in a way that is....much like "flashing"....a level of sexual assault.
Inside and outside of sports, it's time to make it stop.
1 comment:
Only irrational if you are a modern: I would not be especially upset if a lesbian saw me undressed. Because 1) she has all the same bits anyway. 2) girls are not a threat. I would be upset if a gay man saw me in the same state of undress.
I'm sure you don't find this confusing. But moderns do.
Post a Comment