Milo Yiannopoulos: Girls Are In Danger When Adult Trans Women Use Public Toilets But 13-Year-Old Boys Can Benefit From Giving Head To Adult Males

Comments

1
We should check his tax returns to see if he claims any charitable donations to NAMBLA.
2
Also, why doesn't he "choose" to be straight? Surely if it's a choice, like he says, then he should be able to switch over, right? Unless... oh my god unless it's not actually a choice after all!
3
Perhaps we ought not to take stuff MY says quite so seriously.
4
Perhaps if he weren't trying to dox vulnerable people left and right what he says might not be such an issue.
5
To perhaps state the obvious, it's problematic to post anything about this guy, because it's troll-feeding. He depends on people's outrage for advertising.
6
I know that a lot of people are angry that he was asked to be on Real Time, but I'm glad. I've heard people complain about him for quite some time, and I've seen the protests that keep him from speaking at campuses, but I didn't really know that much about him. Now I can see that he's just a gay guy trying to be Ann Coulter and failing miserably at it. I think he hangs himself a little bit more every time he opens his mouth. Liberals already dislike him, conservatives are disposed to dislike him, and his shock statements about Catholic priests and pedophilia are going to alienate him with that crowd even more.

And I was disappointed in Maher's comment about trans people not being able to use women's restrooms being "reasonable" as well, but in Milo's framing of the issue (confused and/or sinister men in women's clothing menacing "real" women and girls) the idea does appear to be reasonable, and that is the crux of the problem: Trans people are to the general public what gay people were in the 60's. Visibility and openness made gay people more accepted (not to mention the HIV/AIDS epidemic), but there just aren't the numbers of trans people that there are of gay people. Most people these days, even in backwards areas, know a gay person. The same cannot be said about trans people, and that is why it is important to denounce people like Yiannopolos, not just try to shut them up.
7
He is an attention whore who uses shock to get that attention. As Catalina Vel-DuRay said, he's trying to be Ann Coulter with a twist. Tomi Lahren is doing much the same thing.
The thing is when Bill Maher puts him on tv and when Dan devotes an item to him, they're giving him what he wants: fame, notoriety, celebrity. What he fears most of all is to be irrelevant and ignored. Which is why he should be ignored.
8
nocutename, I disagree. I think that when people like Yiannopoulos are allowed to be heard they discredit themselves. When we try to silence them, their notoriety only grows, as does their "persecution".

9
@6 exactly. Bill's commentary is pretty stupid but I am glad he stands up for the idea of letting ideas stand on their own merit vs suppressing people you don't want to hear from.

I think the more classically liberal idea of open discussion and free exchange of ideas is gaining traction again, but there is still a large contingent on the general popular left/progressive bloc that feels they must scold and shame and silence anyone who speaks against The Truth because of the mewling snowflakes who can't handle themselves and wilting lillies who don't want to recite "sticks and stones" for the mewling snowflakes.

This is really the first article/post I've seen that makes the vapid trollbaity crap that Milo spews plainly obvious because it *uses his own words*.

Everyone else wants to whinge about general opinion about Milo and his journey from Breitbart and yada yada yada – listen to his couple of appearances on Joe Rogan's podcast. Listen to him on Maher. He's a moron narcissist who trolls at the level of a teenager. There's no deep thoughts happening.

Let him get out there and show that to everyone - shunning him just makes him look even more correct to the morons who are going to seek him out regardless of how you boycott or protest, the same way the people who voted for Trump got emboldened with every shame-flushed shushing they got from the I'm With Her crowd.
10
Is this a typo of some kind? or why isn't he straight if he can choose to be so?
" (Milo opposes gay marriage, argues that being gay is a choice, and says he would choose to be straight if he could.)"

I'm confused.
11
@6 MY caters to younger conservatives who aren't anti-gay, or at least don't wish to think of themselves as anti-gay. No matter what you think of Milo, don't you find the existence of such an audience reassuring?
12
i watched it. after seeing all the hype about this twit i expected a little gravitas, a little intellect. but he was a giggly bitch. nervous laughing, constant sniping, interrupting to stifle debate, no cogent points. he got exposed as a lightweight. his schtick works when there's no one to fight back. MRAs think the slander against feminist hyperbole is funny I guess.

IF there was any truth to his concerns about transwomen using women's restrooms, it might be "reasonable". it's not.

his bitchy aside to Maher about Malcolm Nance's stupidity (was that "funny"?) deserved every bit of Wilmore's rejoinder.
13
@11, reassuring? Hypocritical white supremacist young homophobes with delusions of self-righteousness? No, reassuring isn't the word I'd use.
14
Protecting women from men who are confused about their sexuality IS reasonable. Fortunately, we don't need to worry about trans women because they aren't confused. That's how Maher should have replied. Unfortunately, that show isn't necessarily the greatest platform for calm discussion.

Milo strikes me as a guy who wants attention and will take it any way he can get it, good or bad. Kind of like someone with Borderline Personality Disorder. I haven't read a bunch of his stuff, but from what I have read, he doesn't come across as particularly groundbreaking or insightful... no, he just wants attention.

Salon.com describes it in better detail here: http://www.salon.com/2017/02/18/bill-mah…
15
Based on what little I've seen of this guy, he is nothing more than a provocateur, a troll, a comedian. Protesting such a mental lightweight is like protesting Andrew Dice Clay back in the day. Yeah, sure, what he is saying is horribly offensive and idiotic, but that's his shtick. The only (possible) difference is that Clay was clearly playing a character, and said as much. With Milo it isn't clear and it may not be clear to him. Not to stereotype homosexuals, but like all marginalized groups, they often are forced into playing multiple roles. Acting effeminate around friends is fine, but a no-no at the office (or at least it used to be). Milo is simply jumping into a character -- even if he believes it -- because for so long in his life he has been forced to.

Even if he actually believes this bullshit, I would start from there. Treat him as a comedian, and assume that what he is saying is completely ridiculous -- but funny. If there was a (political) mistake made by the folks last night, that was it. Maher is a comedian, Wilmore is a comedian, the show is basically a comedy, and those guys didn't even go there. I would have peppered Milo with exactly that question -- are you real? Are you just playing a character, like Clay, or Andy Kaufman? I mean you seem smart (even though you dropped out of college) so I can't imagine you believe the bullshit you are spewing. Why the hell should we hold a "mock debate" with a character that is so ridiculous, and whose arguments are simply meant to provoke anger, not thought?
16
#15 yes, I agree. Also, It's amazing how little it takes to get the common masses all in a heat of upset.
17
@15, I've been trying to get this phrase to catch on recently in internet discussions: If the '90s on into the '00s were the Age of Irony, then now we're in the Age of Confused Ambiguity.

Racist-but-not-a-racist,
Progressive-bashing-Jewish-homosexual,
"Alternative Facts",
Easily triggered trolls who decry the left's need for "Safe Spaces",

But also a left that says the country's minority voices are suppressed but then feels it's ok to try and suppress conservative voices it disagrees with,
Balkanized culture that leaves many people even less sure how to say things than in the early '90s,
Etc
18
My suspicion, based only on my own very faulty gaydar, is that he's actually a straight kamikaze mole, pretending to be gay so he can discredit gays for the right. The fact that I have never known a gay man with such horrible views is certainly in no way conclusive either. Anybody with a more accurate sense of who's who have an opinion? Or is the very concept of gaydar regressive?
19
He doesn't give a single shit about women's safety.

Apparently conventionality attractive female nazi sympathizers like Ann Coulter have become passé, so now self-hating queers are the next demographic in line to normalize christian white supremacy (that's the opposite of progress btw, @11). During the 1 on 1, Bill Maher was completely disarmed by his being an "impish British fag," as though it magically absolves the racism, misogyny and transphobia. Every apologist for his bigotry plays the gay card, as though gay people can't possibly hate women or minorities or trans people. It's a distraction to soften the edges of their hateful, oppressive beliefs.
20
Dan, someday Bill will have both you and Milo on. It will be a must see.
21
Ugh. I am so sick of the "choice" argument, on both sides. You know what? Where an identity comes from has no bearing on whether it is morally ok or not. The only thing that matters is people's wellbeing. Gay people get hurt when they can't love who they want to love, and they don't hurt anyone by loving who they want to love. That's what makes gay rights good. It has nothing to do with where our preferrences originate from.

There are plenty of identities that are purely cultural, and so, I guess a "choice" - a religious identity. There are plenty of biological contributitors to who we are that aren't good - a predisposition to addiction would be an example.

We allowed the religious right to set the premise of the conversation on being gay years ago, that god-given bodies and god-given genitals were indicators of god's will but that behavior was a choice so that "choice" could be bad. Instead of rejecting the premise of that conversation - as the left should have done - we've been having the conversation on their terms for years.

Fuck them.
22
It seems obvious that he has sever mental health issues hence his being the alt-right Bruno.
23
@15 He didn't come across as intelligent to me. He just seemed to be an immature teenager who had mistakenly been placed at the grownup table. From his spiteful reactions to the others on the panel to his insecure body posture, he was not ready for prime time.

Then again, it seems that his fanbase consists of teenagers, at least emotionally, who want to feel like they belong at the grownup's table.
24
At any rate, being able to hear someone speak is far better than preventing them from speaking. Debate and win.
25
@24 - What Milo absolutely relies on is people being shocked and - no pun intended - disoriented by what he says. While people are in that state, he can spew a bunch of stuff that amounts to little more than a series of borderline non sequiturs and maintain the appearance that he is "arguing" a "point".

But he's really not. And if people talking to him would just calm down and methodically punch holes in his bullshit balloons, he wouldn't gain this kind of cultural traction. He's got a point about "the left" being "easily triggered", and we should stop playing his game.
26
Let's be honest, MY doesn't give a good goddamn about danger to women because he himself creates it in his rhetoric. And part of the reason he creates it is he is one of that sliver of gay men who hate women (he made this ridiculously clear in the opening moments of the interview but somehow no one is talking about that). We've all come across one or two of them who seem to think that the reason that they can't date the men they want to date is because some woman has convinced them that they are actually straight.

Looking for any consistency in what MY says is a lost cause. He doesn't feel restrained by truth, so why would inconsistency in his own messaging bother him.
27
@11 I wouldn't be too assured by that. Afterall, the right have Coulter, Michelle Bachman, Palin, Ivanka, (and seem to love Marine LePenne) and yet it hasn't halted the tirade of misogyny that fuelled the Trump administration or done anything to help women in general. Having gay/ female figures who they elevate as long as they say everything they want but don't dare ask for anything in return or question the status quo helps no one. He is the gay version of Samuel L Jackson's character from Django unchained: he will throw everyone else under the bus for personal gain, even though without the progressives he rails against he has no use to the right.
28
The second paragraph in @27 can also be applied to the president.
30
@2:17 in the video, Milo says transgendered people are "vastly disproportionately involved in sex crimes" and says it's "not a controversial statistic."

Anyone have any stats on that? I couldn't find it after googling and searching a few sites.
31
@25 - spot on. from the appearance on Bill's show, it's apparent that even basic, logical questions to MY poke huge holes in his reasoning, and it shows him to be simply an 'outrage factory' that somehow generates attention and that drives his short-lived fame. He seems out of place and out of material at a table of adults. I think BM tried tot make him feel comfortable to give him enough rope to hang himself, and that approach succeeded, mostly.

32
No reason to worry about MY gaining traction. He's like cheap margaritas, everyone gets a headache after awhile.
33
@30, It's true, and it's not controversial, only trans people are disproportionately "involved" in sex crimes as victims, not perpetrators.

https://www.ovc.gov/pubs/forge/sexual_nu…

Milo is a terrible, terrible person.
34
@8 I disagree completely, in no small part because of how the neoliberal left absolutely love him when he's being naughty. And, not ironically love him because he's saying bad things, but actually embrace his ass. Take Kurt Eichenwald, one of Dan's favorite Neolib reporters. He said, on Twitter:

"I found Milo amusing, provocative, w/ some good points (some were nuts.)


Disregarding his need to absolve himself from the ethical violation of paying a teen sex slave thousands of dollars for little result, Kurt is legitimizing everything Milo has been saying up until now. Bill Maher also legitimized him by agreeing with and protecting Milo (note the fatherly way Bill grabs and hugs Milo throughout the segment whenever the segment gets too aggressive). It's not that Milo should be silenced. It's that (wannabe) liberals shouldn't give this child a platform.

Also, his performance is everything that is wrong with The A List gays from the 2000s. If you're gay, you've interacted with this type before. Savage's husband has used these performative techniques before. But, we'd be hard up to admit that these behavioral problems stem from within our community, even though there was a show on Logo glorifying it.
35
@33,

It really annoys me that no one on the panel pressed him further about that, but then again, it was after the show was official over and everyone was too busy yelling at each other.

Still, nobody should get a pass when they distort the truth (or flat out lie), not Milo, not Trump, not anyone.
36
"But I think that women and girls should be protected from having men who are confused about their sexual identities in their bathrooms."

Well, who said transgender people are confused about their sexual identity. Others may be confused by it, but they surely are not.
37
16 and 17 are miles away from 13 and 14 in terms of having sex, especially with adults.

16 and 17 are closer to adult thinking, perhaps and 13 and 14 to childhood.

Not that I excuse adults of abusing underage teens, at any age.

But 13 and 14 year olds are emotionally more children.

It was disgusting enough to be hit on by adults at 16, at 13 it was bone chilling frightening.
38
And the only time I felt threatened by a male of any sort in a public restroom, it was by a heterosexual man hanging out in one with his girlfriend.

And Im 67, so in over a half century of using public restrooms, no problems with men of any sort dressed as women.
39
This girl is a hot mess. Can't we just send her back to the UK, where she is a citizen? If You go to the UK and start this kind of shit I can promise you they will send your ass back to the US.
40
None of Milo's boring opinions are shocking. Blacks do all the crime? Milo says, yes, that stereotype is true! Gays are diseased sneaks? Milo says, yes, again, believe that stereotype! Jews? Milo says, hey the stereotype that they control the media and banks (which are destroying America just saying) is true!

Shorter Milo: believe musty old stereotypes!

That's it. That's all the guy's got. Seriously. That is IT. His whole oeuvre. Believe old stereotypes.

Rehashing grandpa's stereotypes is not why Milo is famous. He's famous for posting the photos and addresses of his enemies' family members online. For outing people. He's famous for orchestrating campaigns of death threats and rape threats. That's the reason you've heard of this guy. That shit is a lot more than stupid opinions or offensive free speech. That shit is beyond the pale.

That's also the reason to bar him from speaking at reputable institutions, decent universities (no idea why CPAC is too good for him but fuck them). He's a harasser and bully who targets physical threats at people.

His stereotypical opinions about old queens cultivating young gays? Just as boring and unremarkable as his Jews-and-the-media stereotypes. Neither of these stupid opinions is a reason to pay attention to him, nor a reason to censor him. His stupid opinions are beside the point. It's the way he puts people's lives in manager that is the issue. The only issue.

Also: another timely reminder that Bill Maher is a twat. Fuck that guy.
41
I don’t watch TV, but I do go out in my female persona every now and then. It just so happen that yesterday, Sunday, I finally went on my Nordstrom “protest” shopping mision. My (cis female) friend Michelle joined me and we decided to meet at the downtown rack.
I got there earlier so before meeting her I went to the full-blown Nordstrom store across the street and also got something in one of the stores in the adjacent, sky-bridged mall.
There were absolutely no issues, not even when I used the women’s bathroom on the 4th floor, as I always use women’s while in my female persona. I respect others, mind my own business, no eye contact, sit on the pot no matter what I do (it helps that women’s are strikingly cleaner), and my feet are always pointing to the door.
No one inside or outside the facility seemed to care.

Michelle got to the rack just when I did, and we made our way to the shoe maze downstairs. Cramped together with men, women, and children we all did our bargain shopping in a fairly civilized manner. As you might suspect I can’t keep my big mouth shut for more than few minutes and assume many heard our conversation. I’m sure they’ve noticed my male voice, and I’m not that passable from a short distance anyway.
Yet no one seemed to care, not even one of those hard to control smiles which I am accustomed to by now.

The shoes I was looking for had to be winter boots of some sort that can be used by either gender I present myself as (or at least boost my queer credentials while going out in my bald, big-nosed, dude-in-his-50’s costume.)

The rack didn’t have the shoes I was looking for. The only two that came close were very-ironically made by the label that made me label this shopping trip as “protest.” In Ivanka’s surprise-praise it should be noted that both pairs seemed quite practical and not overly girly. They were too small though.

Back in the store I was helped by a young male clerk who also didn’t flinch while helping me with online choices. I finally settled on the “Frankie” Buckle Boot. How symbolic.
As some of you might recall I’ve expressed here my appreciation of Zappa’s work in the past (and I want to believe that he would have changed his somewhat homophobic and misogynist attitudes had he still been alive.)
“Frankie” is also the name that one of our very SL regulars gave to her beloved car.
Assuming the shoes will arrive in few days, I’m going out Frankie next weekend.
Just do it.
43
@39 No, don't send him back, we don't want him! Most of us don't know who he is, and that's a state of affairs i wanna defend,
44
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If a man wants to start shit in a Ladies Room he can. Ladies Room are not the fucking save rooms from Resident Evil. Monsters aren't kept out and people with bad intentions aren't magically teleported to Marianas Trench when they step foot in one.

If a guy wants to perv in a women's restroom he can do that, without spending years in therapy or thousand on horomones and surgery.
45
I was confused by Maher's "That's reasonable" response. He has spoken out against the trans bathroom laws, said they're ridiculous, and just a ploy to bait liberals. So I don't know why he said that.
46
Themisanthrope dear, I get it: you endorse censorship, you don't think that Americans are smart enough to look at someone like Milo and figure out who he is, and you have envy issues about Dan's husband. (And lest you accuse me of being "A-Gay"', I'm 52, 5'7", weigh 175 lbs, and am a city worker. Pretty much the opposite of everything "A-Gay" )

I watched the whole episode tonight, and there was one thing that Milo said that I agree with: if you refuse to come to the debate, you lose the debate. Too many liberals are refusing to come to the debate because they're afraid that the crowd won't like them, and that's why conservatives win.
47
More Dan Savage propaganda on Gender Identity.
Baloney
48
If Christopher Hitchens were to crawl out of his grave and choke the life out of Bill Maher for having the idiotic impulse to compare Milo to him in a positive light, the most surprising thing about the whole thing would be that Hitchens was wrong about there being no afterlife.

Larry Wilmore was in fine form and I agreed with everything he said. I wish they'd figured out a better format for The Nightly Show sooner, because that was really what killed them (in my opinion). This clip makes me wish it was still running.
49
@34
You ignored the rest of the tweet
& yes there is a germ of truth to Milo's main point about campus freedom of speech
50
@40
Crazy idea to think that legal rights based on sex is at whim of individual.
51
@46 If "not giving him a platform" is endorsing censorship, then, yeah, I endorse censorship. I want to be on Bill Maher's television show. Would he let me on? Probably not. So, according to you, I'm being censored. Dan hasn't featured any of my amazing comments on his Slog round-up, so that means that, according to you, I'm being censored. Saying that we have to give a featured platform to every two-bit jerk off who grabs attention for five seconds is not advocating free speech. Its advocating endorsement without quality control.

Should Bill Maher let Scott Lively on his show as a featured guest? Would you defend him if he grabbed Lively's shoulders in a defensive embrace or told the panel that Lively was being reasonable? I couldn't. And I can't for this jack off either. Maybe it's because I have standards.

Also, it's not envy that I feel for Dan's husband, it's anger. His performative personality and raging sense of entitlement are perfect mirrors to the personality and entitlement possessed and displayed by Milo. These personality quirks were also featured on that TV show, The A List that aired on Logo. I haven't met you yet, so I cannot tell if you imitate that A-List Gay personality or not.
52
@49 Milo couldn't make a good point with his dick. And I've read a bit of his work.
53
This is precisely the reason we were able to turn the presidential election from what should have been an overwhelming landslide for us progressives into a loss to that orange thing. For years the right has been playing us like a matador plays a bull. We have become so addicted to condescending, self righteous outrage that we either don't notice or don't care that it is just making our enemies stronger. When Trump owned a bush league beauty pageant that wasn't going to make him much money, he just kicked out a trans contestant and made some crude remarks about trans people, then sat back and waited for our shrieks of outrage to put him and his pageant on the front page. After all the attention he "graciously" allowed the trans contestant back in. With all the free publicity for which he had spent not a cent, the contest was shown on US TV and he made millions. He used exactly the same strategy In the election . He didn't need to buy ads; he just kept making rude comments about liberal icons and letting us splash his name across the headlines. And with each howl of outrage he got stronger. Our outrage is the Right's most powerful weapon they use against us. Mr Yiannopoulos' tour's purpose is not to speak to the people, it is to provoke responses like Mr. Wilmore's profanity and those of the demonstrators protesting violently. You may be sure that those responses are going to end up in a highlight reel of "Liberals behaving badly." Every time the news shows violent mobs preventing Mr Y from speaking we lose votes. His ideas are so repellent we have nothing to fear from him speaking; we have a great deal to fear from the effects of preventing him from speaking. History has shown over and over that the one absolutely certain way to promote an idea is to try to suppress it. In ancient days when people read things called books, the best advertising a book could get was having it "banned in Boson," If the Romans hadn't persecuted the Christians, Christianity would be a minor historical footnote like Mithraism or the Cult of Attis. If we want to fight Mr Y and his ilk we will have to use the one weapon bullies fear and hate the most, ridicule and laughter. I have been a radical since childhood. I am beginning to despair over the future of progressivism. It seems there is nobody on our end of the political spectrum who could strategize their way out of a wet paper bag.
54
Milo also turned into a total delicate snowflake when the Berkeley Mayor Jesse Arreguin called him a white nationalist. (Being a typical spineless liberal, Arreguin duly apologized instead of telling Milo "Suck it up, Buttercup.").
55
Mmm, oh Dan, how quickly we forget our pat sins of "free speech" and "attacking hypocrisy", last April when You were an invited speaker at the National High School Journalist Conference in Seattle. Citing how archaic religious texts have been historically used to justify bigotry, Savage stated, "We can learn to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about gay people." Although the comment was supported with other dubious moral instructions attributed to the Bible (including justifications for slavery), a number of students registered their dismay by abandoning the hall. The walkout prompted Savage to observe "how pansy-assed some people react when you push back." Though the quip prompted a show of righteous outrage, Savage stood behind his statement, later writing "I did not attack Christianity. I attacked hypocrisy." Frankly I dont see any difference between cashing in on anti-gay schtick and cashing in on anti-religious schtick, except the fact he isn't really anti-gay - just pro-common sense. The whole transgendered bathroom issue has made a laughing stock out of the entire gay community at the hand of the few, and the whole cosmic joke and total irony coming from you is not entirely lost, but in the end I'd stand with Milo before I agree with any of your- what was your past-used, term again - "hypocrisy".
56
TheMisanthrope dear, my point is that if we don't engage the Milos and we attempt to suppress them, we just add to their allure, and we look like the much invoked snowflakes. I like that Bill had him on, and I really like that two of his guests told him to fuck off.

And yes, it's true that neither of us are likely to be on Real Time anytime soon. We just aren't notable on the national stage. Milo has become low-grade notable by his outlandish statements, and the way to counter him is to speak back to his nonsense, not by attempting to shut him down. After all, he turned into a shrinking violet when those guys went after him.

And - again - I was disappointed by Bill's response about the whole trans bathroom thing, but you need to listen to the framing of the statement that he was responding to. The right has been brilliant in making this about "protection of women and girls", and has even been somewhat successful in making this a women's rights issue, by tying it to sexual harassment and assault. No one in their right mind wants the female population to be menaced in the restroom, and transwomen are not a menace, but the right infers that they are - and in our fear-addled society, where people are afraid to let their children out of their sight and everyone feels that they need guns and security systems, that argument sells. We need a short, relatable response to that that gets through to the larger non-activist population.
57
As to "The bathroom issue" -- if is a way to minimize and diminish the importance of the issue. I urge you all Gender ID enthusiasts to go listen carefully to what TERFs have to say, They make a lot of sense. And it is bad politics and bad devency to ignore them.
58
I can't believe I'm actually defending this idiot (MY), but can we admit to some hypocrisy here on the pedophilia issue? Hasn't Dan at various times mentioned his own positive experiences with significantly older men when he (Dan) was in his early teens, in terms not dissimilar from Yannopoulos's?

As someone who isn't attracted to anyone under 30, I don't have a personal stake in this, but just saying.
59
Sorry I should not have used TERF but have used Rad Fem instead.

Personally I don't mind the term TERF but a great many lesbians & Rad Fems do
60
Fair warning: I haven't watched whatever video there is of Milo talking about the priest who may or may not have molested him and my comment really isn't about Milo, but I do have something to say about trying to treat the legal age of consent to define all other sex or sexual attraction as dangerous, abnormal pedophilia: That's bullshit.

Caveats: Milo is a terrible excuse for a human being, I've literally never had sex with anyone under 18 (I was a late bloomer), sex between a 13-year-old and an adult of either gender is probably never a good idea.

That said, as Milo pointed out, such sex is not pedophilia, it is not terribly unusual in the history of our species, and, as Dan's experiences indicate, while it may always be criminal (outside of marriage in a state that lets 13-year-olds marry) and consent may be legally invalid, such sex can be and often is consensual in the sense that both people involved agree to do what they end up doing, whether the law recognizes that consent or not.

The age of consent of 18 may or may not be a good idea to avoid the harm of exploitation by people (let's be honest, men) who would take advantage of younger people if it were not legally condemned, but it is an entirely arbitrary standard that does not relate at all to perfectly normal sexual attraction.

Finding post-pubescent people under 18 sexually attractive is perfectly normal. Wanting to act on that attraction in our society and actually going through with it is pretty abnormal, given our social mores and the risk of punishment, but I'm a little sick and tired of people who insist that any attraction to anyone 17 years, 364 days or fewer younger makes a person a dangerous pedophile. There have been studies in pre-agricultural societies of at what age men find young women most attractive. As memory serves me, attractiveness peaked at about 15. Was the methodology solid? I haven't a clue, but I don't find anything remarkable about that result.

Sexual attraction in any species is something that exists to motivate reproduction. It would make a lot of sense to me that men would be predisposed to be attracted to young females on the younger side of peak fertility when they are both fertile and unlikely to already be mated to Zog the caveman who has a really big club (I actually am talking about a club here). Also, while I try not to look at them, I have on several occasions in my life found myself attracted to people under the legal age of consent in the state where I saw them. Nonetheless, I'm not about to turn myself into the police or have myself "chemically castrated."
61
@30, Maybe MY was talking about transgendered people being disproportionately represented as the VICTIMS of sex crimes, or maybe he thinks the woman-suit-making, cross-dressing "Buffalo Bill" character in The Silence of the Lambs was some kind of documentary about typical murderers.
62
I read most of the comments...can't believe I'm the only one who loved "stepin-felch-it" ....perfect...Uncle Tom's Log Cabin REDpublican
64
" we don't need to worry about trans women because they aren't confused. "

Exactly! And they should start adding urinals to women' bathrooms so women with penises can pee standing.
65
"it can be traced back to the strategy of divide and rule"

So true. Before western capitalism and imperialism, the world was utopic. White people invented racism.

I learned that in my sociologism class.
66
Hyper Partisan Political Correctness run amok. Reflexive liberal backlash is Also what Bill Maher has been talking about recently and how that has hurt the liberal cause/elected Trump and here we have a case in point.

Everyone on the left wants to push the narrative that anyone who has legitimate concerns about the legitimate issues this raises simply Must Be a lgbt-bigot. Yet here in Washington, we have several poster child scenarios of this Actually Occurring, while we technically had a law on the books. There was the young guy in the Everett College womens bathrooms, taking pictures of chicks while wearing a bra and panties. And then the adult man who went into the pool locker room and just so happened to be naked when the high school girls swim team showed up to shower before practice.

Now you can try to make the point that those were "cis men" posing as trans people, although who are You or I to say who is Cis? I guess only "non-cis" are allowed to label someone else "cis", cuz I sure the hell cant say to someone anywhere on the spectrum No You Aren't.

Ultimately I am Trans if I say I am, and there is no card nor feature nor single defining characteristic that you can provide to say I'm Not. In fact one of the cornerstones of the lgbt movement is that I cannot define who or what you are. And no one (who lives in reality) is saying these crimes, which Do Happen pretty often in restrooms, are being committed by actual trans people.

In fact, Most trans people I know are Less likely to do anything in the restroom to draw attention to themselves than cis people, but if Either One of those cases I mentioned had decided to fight it legally, there is no proof, nor way of proving, that they are not in fact a trans person. And I can understand why people might have a concern with men being able to throw on a dress and claim bathroom freedom. There are a lot of sexually screwed up men out there, as most trans people are far too familiar with.

Yet pushing the hyper partisan left point of view while ignoring legitimate concerns from Our Reality only hurts this cause, and acting as though every person who shares those concerns is some kind of homophobic trump troll doesnt really help us to cross many bridges either.

It actually makes many people recoil from the liberal left, and gets them labeled things like snowflake SJW's. Since almost nobody disagrees that all people should be safe in the bathroom, maybe we should try to remember reality is usually in the middle of every partisan struggle and if someone is pushing you to the far side of anything, they most likely aren't telling the whole story from reality.

Bathroom crimes Do happen, men Have intruded into womens restrooms and dressing areas, and there is no Proof that someone Is or Is Not trans. Maybe agreeing on those facts from Reality might be a good place to start to build consensus to move this issue forward.
67
No more bathrooms! They're repressive! Let's all poo together in public!