• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
smartcooky said:
Dodge and strawman... as expected.
Click to expand...

It's literally the same law. At some point we've had this public debate and decided that discrimination based on protected classes (and gender discrimination is a subset of sex discrimination) is on its face deleterious to the public good.

I'm not really interested in relitigating whether this kind of discrimination is really bad or not. If there's not agreement that the '64 Civil Rights Act was good piece of law, we simply don't have enough common ground to have any further discussion.
 
Last edited:
TurkeysGhost said:
It's literally the same law. At some point we've had this public debate and decided that discrimination based on protected classes (and gender discrimination is a subset of sex discrimination) is on its face deleterious to the public good.

I'm not really interested in relitigating whether this kind of discrimination is really bad or not. If there's not agreement that the '64 Civil Rights Act was good piece of law, we simply don't have enough common ground to have any further discussion.
Click to expand...

Meanwhile there are still pools in the USA that have women-only hours, and everybody understands.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
What's the harm done of running a whites only swimming pool?
Click to expand...

Sex is not race. You are still dodging the question. I suspect you don't even know what harm it might do, you just know that's the answer you're supposed to give.
 
Hercules56 said:
Meanwhile there are still pools in the USA that have women-only hours, and everybody understands.
Click to expand...

Well, not everyone.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/opinion/everybody-into-the-pool.html?_r=0

Who Should Public Swimming Pools Serve?
Women-only hours at a location in Brooklyn have ignited a debate about religious accommodation and the separation of church and state.

By Adam Chandler
Click to expand...

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/public-pool-brooklyn/485489/

This country has a tradition of bending over backwards to prioritize religious accommodation, but I'm not sure it's always something to celebrate. A public pool discriminating against half the population during primetime hours just to accommodate religious fundamentalists who demand sex segregation doesn't strike me as a good policy.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
Sex is not race. You are still dodging the question. I suspect you don't even know what harm it might do, you just know that's the answer you're supposed to give.
Click to expand...

I'm not being evasive. What's the harm being done when blacks are forbidden to join a white's only club? let's assume there are equal alternatives that allow blacks. Is there no harm?

The discrimination itself is an affront to dignity, and that applies in both examples.
 
Darat said:
Always happy to provide my definitions, I'm using the words the same way I did earlier i.e. ...In the following- I am using "sex" to mean the biological sex, the XX and XY thing. I am using "female" to mean biological women, male to mean biological men... In the hypothetical (but is something that happens) I am using woman to mean female as per the sex segregation in some women's refuges. I' reword it if it helps:

Consider this - a female has been abused physically and emotionally for a couple of decades by her partner. She eventually decides it has to stop and takes herself and her two children, who are also the victims of domestic abuse to a sex segregated "woman only" refuge, the children are fraternal twins aged 16, one female, one male. Should she be turned away or should her and her female child be accepted and the 16 year old male be turned away?
Click to expand...

Fair enough, in which case clearly the male is theoretically barred from a Women's refuge where sex segregation is by biological identity and thus "woman" is female. I assume that's the answer you were looking for.

That said, the male is clearly a dependent of the mother, so may well be treated as an "extension" of the mother's identity with regards to access, and it seems that provision for the occasional male dependent would not be beyond the wit of man (or woman). Since this has happened before, what was the outcome?
 
Lplus said:
Since this has happened before, what was the outcome?
Click to expand...

What do you think happens? People in need don't get the assistance they desperately require and have to pick among bad choices (ditch the male kid, go back to the abuser, live on the streets, etc)
 
TurkeysGhost said:
What do you think happens? People in need don't get the assistance they desperately require and have to pick among bad choices (ditch the male kid, go back to the abuser, live on the streets, etc)
Click to expand...

Thanks for your input, but I'm asking Darat if he can say what actually happened in the cases he apparently knows of.
 
TurkeysGhost said:
I'm not being evasive.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are. You were asked a direct question about sex segregation - you dodged by giving an irrelevant answer about an unrelated topic - racial segregation

TurkeysGhost said:
What's the harm being done when blacks are forbidden to join a white's only club? let's assume there are equal alternatives that allow blacks. Is there no harm?
Click to expand...

Off topic and irrelevant.

TurkeysGhost said:
The discrimination itself is an affront to dignity, and that applies in both examples.
Click to expand...

Its sex segregation that is being discussed, not discrimination.

I suspect you are refusing to answer directly because you know there is no valid, relevant, supportable answer. You're cornered and you know it, so you are dodging.
 
Last edited:
TurkeysGhost said:
Well, not everyone.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/opinion/everybody-into-the-pool.html?_r=0



https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/public-pool-brooklyn/485489/

This country has a tradition of bending over backwards to prioritize religious accommodation, but I'm not sure it's always something to celebrate. A public pool discriminating against half the population during primetime hours just to accommodate religious fundamentalists who demand sex segregation doesn't strike me as a good policy.
Click to expand...

Sometimes affirmative action that looks like discrimination is required in order to undo a very long legacy of persecution based on bigotry.
 
smartcooky said:
Yes, you are. You were asked a direct question about sex segregation - you dodged by giving an irrelevant answer about an unrelated topic - racial segregation



Off topic and irrelevant.



Its sex segregation that is being discussed, not discrimination.

I suspect you are refusing to answer directly because you know there is no valid, relevant, supportable answer. You're cornered and you know it, so you are dodging.
Click to expand...

Ok, it's the same harm done by other forms of discrimination. I'll leave it an exercise for the reader to figure out what that means.
 
"Keeping males away from females is literally the only place in society where broad demographical separation is not only acceptable but a net positive, no don't ask me to explain why" is not US being evasive.
 
JoeMorgue said:
"Keeping males away from females is literally the only place in society where broad demographical separation is not only acceptable but a net positive, no don't ask me to explain why" is not US being evasive.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm being a Western chauvinist, but it seems to me that this kind of gender segregation is the hallmark of not very nice societies, be it those dominated by religious fundamentalism or in societies where male sexual violence is rampant and implicitly allowed (probably a good bit of overlap in these categories)

The integration of women and men in the public sphere strikes me as an unambiguously good thing, but I suppose opinions can differ.
 
Last edited:
Darat said:
Women have been fighting against sex segregation since men started their sex segregated clubs and pursuits. Today in a country like the UK it would be many steps backward for women to lose the legal and cultural rights they have gained if we started again to allow sex segregated clubs etc.
Click to expand...
Can we safely assume the women at Boxfit studios disagree?

ETA: Just out of curiosity, would gender segregated clubs also be a step backward?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom