Cont: Transwomen are not women part XII (also merged)

[TurkeysGhost]

Meanwhile in the upside-down, "cis" has become a literal fighting word for JBP:

https://twitter.com/jordanbpeterson/status/1673907401005715456

Jesus ******* Christ we need better self-help gurus here N. America.

I would take the threat seriously, Peterson may break into a sobbing fit if he doesn't get his way and that could be potentially very embarrassing, even second hand.

Honestly wondering if this guy is back on the benzos. hard to tell the difference between a drug addled mind and one simply pandering to reactionaries.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Better question: does the community have Muslims? What if it is majority Muslim? What if it is 10%? Do you decide differently for access to the community pool? Should the Muslims make their own schools and swimming pools at their own expense?

Democrats have been all about protecting Muslim rights. 2/3 are Democrats, which seemed reasonable at the time. All reps in Congress that are Muslim are Democrats. They now vote for party-led trans-inclusive policies- I bet they do so a bit reluctantly, but they do support them. It seems like a bit of a dilemma: party vs culture. Will they survive much longer promoting 'new rules' that fly in the face of preferred modesty?
Muslim females are SOL in a public pool, swim team, locker room etc... if you made the rules.

If you have seen the news you'll see some conflicting sides to the issue. This week, Obama was saying that Modi in India should protect Muslim minority rights because he feels that not doing it will pull India "apart" focusing on what Hindus want, yet Democrat communities and school boards with Muslim majorities here in the US are telling Muslims to pound sand about their concerns. ...and no surprise, they are rebelling and protesting.

Pick one: Trans Women (treated as fully female) or Muslim females get their rights acknowledged in pool policy.

You cannot have both in this case.

The question with how accommodating public policy should be to fundamentalist/orthodox religions is nothing new.

My general view of it is that adhering to your personal religious faith is a personal problem, not the public's. Plenty of legal precedent about how much accommodation is "reasonable"

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Possible incident of stochastic terrorism:

A professor and two students were stabbed Wednesday during a class on "gender issues” at a university in the Canadian city of Waterloo and a suspect has been taken into custody, police said.

The wounds were non-life threatening, police said, adding that the motive for the attack at the University of Waterloo was not immediately clear. The suspect was being questioned by investigators.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/3-people-stabbed-canadian-university-police-100456389

Obvious intended result of all "groomer" and other anti-trans and anti-queer propaganda campaigns.

 

[Ziggurat]

Is the physical difference in average strength at play when deciding whether or not men and women can share a public swimming pool?

No. I never said it was always at play. Nor am I saying all sex segregation is justified. But you have argued the reverse, and you can't back up your position.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

No. I never said it was always at play. Nor am I saying all sex segregation is justified. But you have argued the reverse, and you can't back up your position.

I'm not categorically opposed to gender/sex segregation in all cases, but I do question if it's the only/best way to achieve these goals like modesty in intimate spaces.

 

[d4m10n]

The more sensible ones, which I'm sure are a majority, would vote for separate facilities.

Changing the subject just a bit here, has anyone ever heard of a national prison system implementing separate housing for MtF and/or FtM inmates? Seems like an obvious move to me, assuming the system is large enough to support it.

 

[Ziggurat]

I'm not categorically opposed to gender/sex segregation in all cases

Then where do you think it is justified or acceptable?

but I do question if it's the only/best way to achieve these goals like modesty in intimate spaces.

It's the preferred method in some cases. What harm does it do? You seem to take it as axiomatic that harm is done, but I don't see why. And stop appealing to race since race isn't equivalent.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Then where do you think it is justified or acceptable?

Gender segregated bathroom/shower facilities are common, and I don't necessarily see how they are inherently bad assuming trans people aren't discriminated against. I've also said quite clearly that sex segregation in sports in one example where there is a compelling fairness concern, though I don't think it's the only concern and it does not necessarily means that trans people must always be excluded.

It's the preferred method in some cases. What harm does it do? You seem to take it as axiomatic that harm is done, but I don't see why. And stop appealing to race since race isn't equivalent.

Preferred is doing a lot of heavy lifting, because it seems like a lot of people are pretty unhappy with them once you start having to deal with the existence of transgender people. Like I've said before, I would not be surprised if moves towards more personal privacy are made once discrimination against transgender people is taken off the table as an option.

 

[Elaedith]

Changing the subject just a bit here, has anyone ever heard of a national prison system implementing separate housing for MtF and/or FtM inmates? Seems like an obvious move to me, assuming the system is large enough to support it.

The UK prison system has separate wings in some male prisons for MtF self-identified trans prisoners who don't qualify for transfer to the female estate. I don't think there are any for FtM prisoners because there are virtually no cases.

 

[Ziggurat]

Gender segregated bathroom/shower facilities are common, and I don't necessarily see how they are inherently bad assuming trans people aren't discriminated against.

So you're OK with segregation, you just think it should be gender based not sex based.

That's illogical. Gender is meaningless. Sex is not.

Preferred is doing a lot of heavy lifting, because it seems like a lot of people are pretty unhappy with them once you start having to deal with the existence of transgender people. Like I've said before, I would not be surprised if moves towards more personal privacy are made once discrimination against transgender people is taken off the table as an option.

Some people like single sex shared nude spaces. I'm not into it, but for those who are, personal privacy isn't a solution.

And why is discrimination against cis males OK if discrimination against trans males is not? You aren't actually taking a coherent position. You're starting with an axiom that you don't want to hurt the feelings of trans people, and then trying to wrap policy justifications around that, but that's never really going to work.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

So you're OK with segregation, you just think it should be gender based not sex based.

That's illogical. Gender is meaningless. Sex is not.

So you assert, and I disagree. At least in the US, courts disagree too.

Some people like single sex shared nude spaces. I'm not into it, but for those who are, personal privacy isn't a solution.

And why is discrimination against cis males OK if discrimination against trans males is not? You aren't actually taking a coherent position. You're starting with an axiom that you don't want to hurt the feelings of trans people, and then trying to wrap policy justifications around that, but that's never really going to work.

The presumption of these segregated spaces is that both men and women have very similar modesty concerns and these rules bind women as much as they bind men, which at least to my perspective is true. An actual example where "separate but equal" is actually true. Gender segregated spaces is not the only way to alleviate such concerns.

 

[Ziggurat]

So you assert, and I disagree. At least in the US, courts disagree too.

Courts don't even have a consistent definition of what gender even is. Nor can you explain why gender matters more than sex does.

The presumption of these segregated spaces is that both men and women have very similar modesty concerns and these rules bind women as much as they bind men, which at least to my perspective is true. An actual example where "separate but equal" is actually true. Gender segregated spaces is not the only way to alleviate such concerns.

True: you could also sex segregate these spaces. Why is gender segregation better than sex segregation? You've never said.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Courts don't even have a consistent definition of what gender even is. Nor can you explain why gender matters more than sex does.

not sure what you mean by this. The court decisions argue that this kind of discrimination is sex discrimination, so in many ways sex and gender, from a legal point of view, are inextricably linked.

An employer who fires an individual for being homosexual or transgender fires that person for traits or actions it would not have questioned in members of a different sex. Sex plays a necessary and undisguisable role in the decision, exactly what Title VII forbids. Those who adopted the Civil Rights Act might not have anticipated their work would lead to this particular result. But the limits of the drafters' imagination supply no reason to ignore the law's demands. Only the written word is the law, and all persons are entitled to its benefit.

Kinda sounds like to me that SCOTUS is saying that gender is a social construct closely related to, but not identical to, sex. It's really not that complicated.

True: you could also sex segregate these spaces. Why is gender segregation better than sex segregation? You've never said.

I'm not sure they are, it seems more like an attempt to make the status quo of communal, segregated areas work while also incorporating trans inclusion. I'm ambivalent on whether or not preserving these communal spaces is a necessary thing.

 

[IsThisTheLife]

Better question: does the community have Muslims? What if it is majority Muslim? What if it is 10%? Do you decide differently for access to the community pool? Should the Muslims make their own schools and swimming pools at their own expense?

Democrats have been all about protecting Muslim rights. 2/3 are Democrats, which seemed reasonable at the time. All reps in Congress that are Muslim are Democrats. They now vote for party-led trans-inclusive policies- I bet they do so a bit reluctantly, but they do support them. It seems like a bit of a dilemma: party vs culture. Will they survive much longer promoting 'new rules' that fly in the face of preferred modesty?
Muslim females are SOL in a public pool, swim team, locker room etc... if you made the rules.

If you have seen the news you'll see some conflicting sides to the issue. This week, Obama was saying that Modi in India should protect Muslim minority rights because he feels that not doing it will pull India "apart" focusing on what Hindus want, yet Democrat communities and school boards with Muslim majorities here in the US are telling Muslims to pound sand about their concerns. ...and no surprise, they are rebelling and protesting.

Pick one: Trans Women (treated as fully female) or Muslim females get their rights acknowledged in pool policy.

You cannot have both in this case.

Our esteemed Mayor of London, Sadiq Kahn (he who has presided over an all-time record rise in crime in the capital since taking office), apparently sees no contradiction with his "religious beliefs" as he falls over himself to get with "LGBTQ+ inclusivity" during Pride Summer Month.

 

[theprestige]

Is the physical difference in average strength at play when deciding whether or not men and women can share a public swimming pool?

Non sequitur and red herring.

 

[Ziggurat]

not sure what you mean by this. The court decisions argue that this kind of discrimination is sex discrimination

You didn't indicate what court decision you're quoting from, but note that this is an employment case, one in which sex discrimination isn't legal. And the court basically said that in this case, gender discrimination amounted to sex discrimination.

That tells us nothing about how the court would rule in a case where sex discrimination is permissible.

Kinda sounds like to me that SCOTUS is saying that gender is a social construct closely related to, but not identical to, sex. It's really not that complicated.

The problem isn't that it's complicated, it's that it's vague. Saying it's a social construct tells me nothing about what that construct is. And note that the court didn't have to define gender because they didn't actually rule on the basis of gender. They ruled on the basis of sex, that the plaintiff was discriminated against because of their sex, and sex discrimination in that context is illegal. Again, this tells us nothing about cases where sex discrimination is legal.

I'm not sure they are, it seems more like an attempt to make the status quo of communal, segregated areas work while also incorporating trans inclusion.

If trans inclusion is done on the basis of self ID, then this is an impossible goal.

I'm ambivalent on whether or not preserving these communal spaces is a necessary thing.

"Necessary" isn't the relevant criteria. It is desirable to some. Society at large only needs to decide if it's tolerable, not if it's necessary.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

If trans inclusion is done on the basis of self ID, then this is an impossible goal.

Care to expand on why you think this, or what exactly you mean by "self ID"?

 

[Ziggurat]

Care to expand on why you think this, or what exactly you mean by "self ID"?

Self ID is what it says on the tin: you are the gender you say you are. Your self identification is the only thing that matters, no form of gatekeeping is permitted. For example, if bathroom access is granted on the basis of self ID gender, anyone can say they are a woman and enter the women's bathroom. Under this standard, segregation isn't workable because you cannot maintain segregation at all.

Self ID is what the trans rights activists want as the standard.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Self ID is what it says on the tin: you are the gender you say you are. Your self identification is the only thing that matters, no form of gatekeeping is permitted. For example, if bathroom access is granted on the basis of self ID gender, anyone can say they are a woman and enter the women's bathroom. Under this standard, segregation isn't workable because you cannot maintain segregation at all.

Self ID is what the trans rights activists want as the standard.

This isn't what self ID means where it is in practice. It involves making official declarations to the state and having documents updated, and it's perfectly possible to gatekeep based on gender.

I'm not aware of any locality where the scheme you describe is in practice. Perhaps I'm just ignorant, care to provide an example?

 

[Hercules56]

In the eyes of most people, the key element of discrimination that makes it bad, is that it is unjust and based on a system of intentional unfairness due perceived inferiority.

From that perspective, which I feel is very correct, sex segregation for pools, bathrooms and sports is NOT discrimination.