LogFAQs > #975271446

ConfusedTorchic posted...

y'know, which is a totally normal thing to call someone pointing at that statistically a male is more likely to be a sexual predator than a female.

It is if they're being a sexist piece of shit. Which Jen was, in that particular context. Note that the context in question was not pointing out the statistical reality that men are more likely to be sexual predators than women (hence I did not respond the same way to the numerous other people that have said the same thing, a group which includes myself), but rather telling me that I personally deserve the reputation of being a predator purely for being born a man. That's just blatant, unjustified sexism, so I treated it accordingly. She doesn't want to be called a sexist piece of shit? Then she shouldn't be a sexist piece of shit. The same goes for anyone else, swapping in whatever adjective is most appropriate for the prejudicial discrimination being exercised in that context (specifically when dealing with transphobia, I tend to lean more on silly g-rated gibberish swears like "dinglemuffins" and "cunglenugglers" because it somehow feels appropriate to do so in dealing with such ridiculous people, but that's just a personal quirk).

I've made my position clear: Don't prejudicially discriminate against people - of any kind - unless you have no other choice. Sometimes, it is actually your only option and the harms of not doing so outweigh the harms of doing so. I've acknowledged this, and I don't have a problem with it because that's just how the world works. There's a difference, however, between being prejudicially cautious when that's your only option, and relying on prejudice when you have the option to judge people as individuals instead of statistics. The latter is bad and should be avoided.