When two worldviews collide.

[Paidiske]

I think you should consider there's limited number of ways we can configure society that will work.

Maybe; but there are many that we haven't really tried. When you consider that our current work/home patterns are largely a product of the industrial revolution, they're a relatively recent experiment anyway.

Right but women don't typically marry younger and men don't typically marry older.

No, I meant "at a younger age." If marriage is important you can make it a priority in your twenties.

It's not a weird idea. Parenting isn't easy and requires developing certain skills.

Pick any endeavour that requires the development of a skillset and tell me who is more likely to do better at it, all other things being equal....

1. The person who spends less time at the endeavour.

2. The person who spends more time at the endeavour.

Obviously, it's number 2, right?

There's nothing at all odd about telling you a person who spends more time parenting will likely be a better parent.

While it's true that parenting requires some skills (and, more to the point, I would argue a particular sort of mindset) it's not the sort of specialised skills that need total dedication to master. You don't need to change every one of your child's nappies to be competent at managing their nappy requirements. You don't need to cook every meal from scratch to feed them a healthy diet. And you don't need to helicopter them every second in order to raise confident, capable young people; in fact, it's quite likely to be counter productive if you try.

Perhaps they shouldn't be mothers then.

And many more women are choosing that, too. But what I find frustrating about this, is that nobody says this to men. "Don't want to be a hands-on, full time stay at home dad? Don't have kids, then!"

As if there's only one right way to be a good parent, and it's rigidly gendered. It's just nonsense.

I think the point is that she doesn't want to work.

In which case, I don't recommend parenting... if nothing else, it's the one job you can't just quit.

Perhaps. You don't seem to hesitate to look down upon those women who prefer to stay at home and be a mother and wife though.

No, I don't look down on them. I'd advise them to make sure they have the capability to move into some form of paid work if they need to, because life doesn't come with guarantees and circumstances may change. But if they want to be homemakers and find that fulfilling and satisfying, all power to their elbow.

What's inadequate about it?

It doesn't adequately account for the reality of the situation.

If IQ strongly correlates to work success, and more men are distributed at the higher end of the IQ scores than women (over 3 to 1 I think) then why wouldn't you expect to see more men at the upper echelons of success than women.....always?

I'd question your premise, for a start (eg. see here: Do People With High IQ Enjoy Greater Success?

See above. The fact that less men are in the average means there's more men distributed at both ends of the bell curve, the upper and lower.

You claimed that more men experience poverty than women. This is demonstrably untrue. And if more men experience homelessness, there are other explanations available for that. It's not just a question of IQ distribution.

As if we've been living in alternate dimensions where for the last ten years where in my universe, the political left has been droning on and on about white male privilege and the need for "proportional representation" (which is just a fancy way of saying racial and sexual discrimination).

They might have been droning on and on, and meanwhile, women and people of colour have still been facing significant discrimination and barriers. I've experienced it myself. I've seen others experience it. So in my universe, if someone somewhere chooses to offer a job to a suitably qualified woman instead of a man, or a suitably qualified person of colour instead of a white person, that might go some tiny, tiny way to balancing all the other times the opposite is happening.

It might be a clumsy way of addressing it, but I'd have a hard time acting like that's the biggest problem going on in that situation.

Your forgetting that the existing system allowed for a Feminist and Civil Rights movement to happen in the first place.

For real, you're going to claim this? Are you forgetting that people were actually thrown in gaol, faced threat and violence and in some cases death for their activism?

But then it became politicized...

It was always politicised. It was always political. It had to be.

For example Trans identity Rights erases womens Rights because the two cannot exist at the same time.

Not true. Trans rights do not erase women's rights. There is a bit of nuancing and negotiation which needs to happen around some very particular situations. But trans people having the right to identify socially in accordance with their gender identity doesn't erase my rights at all. Rights are not a zero-sum game.

That is why I say that we already had a good system at least closer to the truth in how we can best live together because it reflected the reality we had already learnt in developing a way for everyone to live together such as Democracy, Enlightenment, Individual freedom and liberty, individual natural Rights and Rule of Law. They have worked for millenia ...

Except they didn't work for millennia. Slavery's only been gone from Britain (and its colonies) since 1833. Women have had to fight hard for those rights and many of them have only been granted in recent decades. The White Australia policy was only abolished in 1966.

Worked for millennia? That's a very, very selective take on our history.

I mean we should not even have to say that its a white kid or black kid. Its a kid thats going hungry or being abused thats all a kid who has dignity and worth.

Sure. But if that kid is going hungry or being abused because of their race, we should be able to name that and address the underlying cultural reasons. Not just say, "Oh, that's divisive, we can't talk about race," so the racism goes on unaddressed and unchecked.

Also, it appears that the claim that women's participation the workforce drives down wages may, in fact, be quite incorrect: When More Women Join the Workforce, Wages Rise — Including for Men.

 

[Kylie]

Who do you oi think the leaders in these countries are? They are health care professionals who have said the studies are full of faults and problematic. Your continuing to reference faulty and untrustworthy studies isn't helping. There are no good long term studies. The articles I use typically have links to findings. Here's some more.

You are being redirected...

Tavistock trust whistleblower David Bell: ‘I believed I was doing the right thing’

Sweden’s Karolinska Ends All Use of Puberty Blockers and Cross-Sex Hormones for Minors Outside of Clinical Studies

Following a comprehensive review of evidence, the NBHW concluded that the evidence base for hormonal interventions for gender-dysphoric youth is of low quality, and that hormonal treatments may carry risks. NBHW also concluded that the evidence for pediatric transition comes from studies where the population was markedly different from the cases presenting for care today. In addition, NBHW noted increasing reports of detransition and transition-related regret among youth who transitioned in recent years.

Summary of Key Recommendations from the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare (Socialstyrelsen/NBHW)

Background In February 2022, the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare (NBHW) issued an update to its health care service guidelines for children and youth

segm.org

Medical societies in France, Australia, and New Zealand have also leant away from early medicalisation.2627 And NHS England, which is in the midst of an independent review of gender identity services, recently said that there was “scarce and inconclusive evidence to support clinical decision making”28 for minors with gender dysphoria29 and that for most who present before puberty it will be a “transient phase,” requiring clinicians to focus on psychological support and to be “mindful” even of the risks of social transition.30

Gender dysphoria in young people is rising—and so is professional disagreement

For example, one of the commissioned systematic reviews found that the strength of evidence for the conclusions that hormonal treatment “may improve” quality of life, depression, and anxiety among transgender people was “low,” and it emphasised the need for more research, “especially among adolescents.”35 The reviewers also concluded that “it was impossible to draw conclusions about the effects of hormone therapy” on death by suicide.

‘Trust the Experts’ Is Not Enough

A peer-reviewed, systematic review of clinical guidelines published in 2021 gave Endocrine Society’s guidelines a score of 1 out of 6, and WPATH’s guidelines a score of 0 out of 6.

Puberty Blockers and Suicidality in Adolescents Suffering from Gender Dysphoria

UK Government Web Archive

This Page is [ARCHIVED CONTENT] and shows what the site page https://cass.independent-review.uk/publications/interim-report/ looked like on 10 Mar 2025 at 14:36:33

cass.independent-review.uk

Recommendations - Choices in health care
Although strong recommendations have been made for invasive and potentially irreversible interventions, high-quality scientific data on the effects of this approach are generally lacking. Limitations of the existing transgender literature include general lack of randomized prospective trial design, small sample size, recruitment bias, short study duration, high subject dropout rates, and reliance on "expert" opinion. Existing data reveal significant intervention-associated morbidity and raise serious concern that the primary goal of suicide prevention is not achieved

Deficiencies in Scientific Evidence for Medical Management of Gender Dysphoria - PubMed

Bottom line, you continuing to try and state the studies show something doesn't fly. There is a ton of evidence out there that say they are poor quality and not reliable. That's why the Swedes, Fins, French, the British and Norwegians are all backing off from them. They all have come to recognize that they were bad studies.


https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0092623X.2022.2150346

Several recent international systematic reviews of evidence have concluded that the practice of pediatric gender transition rests on low to very low quality evidence—meaning that the benefits reported by the existing studies are unlikely to be true due to profound problems in the study designs (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), Citation2020a, Citation2020b; Pasternack et al., Citation2019; SBU (Swedish Agency for Health Technology Assessment and Assessment of Social Services), Citation2022). Following these systematic reviews of evidence, three European countries—Sweden, Finland and England—have begun to articulate new and much more cautious treatment guidelines for gender dysphoric youth, which prioritize noninvasive psychosocial interventions while sharply restricting the provision of hormones and surgery (COHERE (Council for Choices in Health Care), Citation2020; Socialstyrelsen [National Board of Health and Welfare], Citation2022; NHS, Citation2022a).

You've been duped by the transactivists.

There's no chance of rational discussion with you, is there?

Tell me, is there anything at all that you can conceive of that would indicate to you that you are wrong?

 

[stevevw]

Two facts commonly left out of descriptions and teachings of the feminist movement in the US are....

1. It was overwhelmingly opposed by women. It's not a small margin either though I don't recall the exact numbers. I'm not just talking about the suffregette movement either....I don't think a majority of women supported either the equal rights or voting or entering the professional workplace unil the late 40s or 50s. There's a variety of reasons for this but generally...I don't think they saw much appeal in doing the work their husbands did....and the ability to be drafted was tied to rights like voting.


2. This fact explains why it survived despite fact #1....big corporate sponsorship and support. Why? Because a large influx of extra workers drives down wages. This influx didn't really occur in significant numbers until we were well into the cold war years so if your father or grandfather fought in Vietnam or lived through it...there's a high chance they were still able to support their families off 1 income. By the 80s and 90s.....2 income families were increasingly the norm (as well as divorce and single mothers) and wages were increasingly flat. Thanks feminism!

But I also think academia had a big influence by politicizing sex, race and gender. Whether it was race, sex or gender the thinking was the same that differences were social constructions. But Postmodfernist thinking has taken these ideas to the next level or perhaps the inevitable end result of identity politics we have today.

But certainly we can trace a line from Feminists narratives to identity politics today. Its just the end result and I think it may still morph into other ideas that challenge norms until there will be no norms.

Women and others who suffer with gender dysphoria have been sold a lie that they will find happiness and freedom. Hopefully people will begin to see through this as the reality of these ideas are actually played out in society where they see the harm it does.

 

[stevevw]

For real, you're going to claim this? Are you forgetting that people were actually thrown in gaol, faced threat and violence and in some cases death for their activism?

Yes unfortunately that is how it has worked forever at least under the West. At first its resisted by the system and then it gradually chips away and change gradually happens. But there was a stark difference between say Dr Kings peaceful resistence approach and the radical activists like Elijah Muhammad and Malcom X or other radical feminist who were driven by political separtrist motivations to undermine the system by any means. This was provocative and also contributed to the arrests.

It was always politicised. It was always political. It had to be.

Like I said there was a big difference between Kings approach ande the radical activists. That is where todays radicals come from, a more subversive and confrontational approach that is will to use violence. Its not a good basis for any change to alienate your own society from each other. To attack members of your own society creating culture wars.

Not true. Trans rights do not erase women's rights. There is a bit of nuancing and negotiation which needs to happen around some very particular situations. But trans people having the right to identify socially in accordance with their gender identity doesn't erase my rights at all. Rights are not a zero-sum game.

Ok I am going to get a bit political here myself as I think this is required to hit home the reality of these ideologies being inflicted on society today.

So what about sports women who lose to biological males or the women, or those who have to be in the same change room, jail, or refuge for abused women with biological males. Are their rights being erased or should they put up and shut up like ideologues tell them.

Its simple logic. If Trans ideology believes there is no such thing as the category 'biological women' then biological women are erased. Its not applied to very particular situations, its all situations because a biological man being a real women in every way can enter every place and sphere that a biological women can. We recently had a biological man become women of the year.

It also erases intersex, gays and lesbians. Now a lesbian has to be willing to sleep with a transwomen who may still have all their male parts because 'they are a real women' and treating them any less including refusing to date and sleep with them is transphobic and descrimination. many young gays and lesbians have been Affirmed as Trans and sent down the transitional path thus ignoring that they were gay.

Many intersex people disagree with Trans ideology that intersex people are evidence for gender being a spectrum by conflating sex and gender making both a spectrum when 90% of Intersex people align with their biological sex. Its a confusing and divisive idea.

Except they didn't work for millennia. Slavery's only been gone from Britain (and its colonies) since 1833. Women have had to fight hard for those rights and many of them have only been granted in recent decades. The White Australia policy was only abolished in 1966.

And still there are new problems perhaps even worse that are springing up to replace the ones we have overcome. that is the nature of humans where we are in a constant battle against evil. I read somewhere there are more slaves now than in the Roman Empire including sex trafficking of children.

The point was that despite these evils the West has overcome a lot and achievede a lot. Its amazing that we were able to come up with some of these ideas to begin with so that we could live together in relative peace and happiness for the most part. Go to Africa and see the savage barbarianism and how people enslve their own kind and mutilate them today.

I think the West has done pretty good to last that long if you want to call it an Empire of sorts. But all human Empires come to an end

Worked for millennia? That's a very, very selective take on our history.

Well we survives despite the ravages of life. I mean we've been through plagues, famines, wars. During the medievil period people were lucky to have food. People dies young and in child birth. Disease was rampid. We survives great depressions.

We have had many setbacks but that is life sometimes. We have hade to contend with evil dictators and its been the West who primarily ensure peaceful ends and then bringing the world together to form the United nations ect. We have raised the standard of living for most people. Its not as bad as ideologues make out when they want to tear down our history and statues.

Sure. But if that kid is going hungry or being abused because of their race, we should be able to name that and address the underlying cultural reasons. Not just say, "Oh, that's divisive, we can't talk about race," so the racism goes on unaddressed and unchecked.

Yes but we can talk about race being a factor within a balanced narrative and not just that its all because of race. Ideentifying more issues with child rights naturally identifies systematic issues wn establishing those rights. I think setting the parameters is important from the start otherwise it becomes politicised where the racial aspect is used to blame all differences in positions.

In fact I think we already know this but still naming it is not enough and may even be a cop out. We have been naming this for years and still little has changed. Its a complex issue. Far more complex than saying white man or the white system is the fault because people are being racist.

Also, it appears that the claim that women's participation the workforce drives down wages may, in fact, be quite incorrect: When More Women Join the Workforce, Wages Rise — Including for Men.

Not sure if I mentioned this. Maybe this was for Anna. I think I was talking about wage gap, more women in education and certain industries than males. But not about wages being driven down. Not sure maybe because theres more part time work because of accommodating a more flexible workforce perhaps.

 

[Paidiske]

So what about sports women who lose to biological males or the women, or those who have to be in the same change room, jail, or refuge for abused women with biological males. Are their rights being erased or should they put up and shut up like ideologues tell them.

Neither. Their rights aren't being erased, although we do have some more work to do to make the situation the best possible for everyone.

If Trans ideology believes there is no such thing as the category 'biological women' then biological women are erased.

We've been around this particular mulberry bush before in this thread, and I still don't agree that trans ideology erases biological reality. Its primary aim is to reshape social reality.

Its not applied to very particular situations, its all situations because a biological man being a real women in every way can enter every place and sphere that a biological women can.

And outside very particular situations, that simply doesn't matter.

Now a lesbian has to be willing to sleep with a transwomen who may still have all their male parts because 'they are a real women' and treating them any less including refusing to date and sleep with them is transphobic and descrimination.

Any twit who thinks they're entitled to sex with someone else has a problem, but to be honest, I don't see them winning this argument, because most sensible people can see it for the entitled nonsense that it is. Nobody owes you sex.

The point was that despite these evils the West has overcome a lot and achievede a lot.

True. But you can't say, "The west has these wonderful ideals that we've tried and tested over millennia and found to be the best way to order a society," when at best we've been giving them a serious go for fifty years or so, and even then only to a partial and incomplete degree. Most of western history has not been of society ordered on these ideals.

Yes but we can talk about race being a factor within a balanced narrative and not just that its all because of race.

Again, nobody, and literally nobody, is saying it's all about one factor. That's a strawman. But saying "it's complex," isn't enough. We need to be able to measure, name, describe and take action about disadvantages faced by particular groups.

Maybe this was for Anna.

Yes, it was a response to his last post, which came in as I was writing mine (making quoting awkward).

 

[Ana the Ist]

No, it didn't. That's why we needed a feminist movement, a civil rights movement, and so on. It's why we still need them.

I think he's saying that the fact that our society allows for those sorts of change has to be considered when evaluating what sort of society we are compared to others. There's a reason feminism in certain middle east countries literally reinforces existing rules women are required to follow. I think it was Iraniian feminists that tried to claim the hijab was a symbol of feminism. That's despite women still being imprisoned or executed for removing a hijab in public.

To assess our nations or any other....you need to compare it to other existing nations. It can't be a comparison to another hypothetical nation that doesn't exist or have problems. That's just utopianism.

Maybe. But what you're talking about - a situation where we can't talk about the differing experiences of differing identity groups - doesn't seem to me like it would allow for that very well.

That requires a sort of racist or sexist or otherwise bigoted concept of a group to begin with. The people within those groups aren't defined by some uniformity of experience. That's how you get people like Biden saying if you don't vote for him....you aren't black. It's wildly racist.

I mean you can't identify sexism if you're not willing to identify sex as part of a pattern of discrimination.

Both men and women can be victims of sexism.

You can't identify racism if you're not willing to identify race as part of a pattern of discrimination.

Any race can be discriminated against.

If you only want to see each person as an individual, then if they have bad experiences - shrug - something bad happened to someone,

Well maybe. Don't forget the scar experiment. Perhaps some bad happened to them because of a superficial characteristic....or perhaps because, like you, they have a mindset that these things will inevitably happen to them....then they perceive something that didn't actually happen.

I recall a poster on here who claimed he experienced racism every single day ...something highly unlikely. I asked what racist thing happened to him that day. He claimed that he walked into a gas station, and the cashier had made a face in his general direction that wasn't happy or neutral but negative in some way. I asked if it was at all possible it wasn't because of his race. He insisted it had to be.....as if no other possibility existed.

Our society was always divided. It's just that some people got to pretend that it wasn't.

Not really.

 

[Paidiske]

I think he's saying that the fact that our society allows for those sorts of change has to be considered when evaluating what sort of society we are compared to others.

Not really the point, though, when the relevant question is what society we ought to be (or want to be).

The people within those groups aren't defined by some uniformity of experience.

Uniformity, no, but certainly commonality. Pretending that racism, sexism, or other such things don't exist in our society doesn't make them not real.

 

[stevevw]

Neither. Their rights aren't being erased, although we do have some more work to do to make the situation the best possible for everyone.

It can't be the best for everyone in these situations. Its unreal and impossible and the fact that people don't acknowledge this and keep pretending that its not that bad so not to offend and be all PC the more it goes on.

We can acknowledge Trans peoples identity or any identity but don't enforce it on others or society as a whole that we all have to go along. I don't want someone telling me what a women is or isn't or telling me I have to agree with and believe in something I don't believe in or agree with.

The problem is this attitude of disagreeing with Trans and its language/pronouns is regarded as hateful and descrimination because its denying anothers self identity. So as a society we are in a pickle where we have completely opposing beliefs on this and no one going to agree because well, "its about peoples personal beliefs" which are now the ultimate truth that cannot be denied.

We've been around this particular mulberry bush before in this thread, and I still don't agree that trans ideology erases biological reality. Its primary aim is to reshape social reality.

Thats the problem, that a subjective feeling is given the power to reshape social reality seems crazy to me. Thats a reciept for disaster because there is no way to determine what is fact or feeling. We don't allow subjective feelings to determine other important issues in society so why sex and gender.

If you can't acknowledge that trans erases biological sex and women then we have no chance. As you said if you can't name the problem. Your even reneging on what you said earlier that we should acknowlede (call out) descrimination of minorities experiences. Yet here you are denying the experiences of many women who have spoken out about their bad experiences of having to be exposed to males in their own spaces by claiming you don't think it happens.

And outside very particular situations, that simply doesn't matter.

Yes it does, you obviously don't understand what is happening here. What is happening in these so called particular situations is the result of a type of thinking and belief about sex and gender that is spreading through society at all levels. So its not just in these situations but how everyone thinks and believes about sex and gender.

If we are told we have to accept that males can now invade womens spaces we also have to accept the language and thinking that goes with it or else. Everyday language is changed and cencored and everyone has to be careful about what they say. They can't express their true beliefs without getting into trouble and even losing their reputations and jobs. Thats a breach of freedom of speech.

Any twit who thinks they're entitled to sex with someone else has a problem, but to be honest, I don't see them winning this argument, because most sensible people can see it for the entitled nonsense that it is. Nobody owes you sex.

No its not about trans people demanding people have sex with them, but about the principle that heterosexual and gay and lesbians should regard trans people as their identifying gender right down to treating them the same as though they were the opposite sex. If as they say they really are the opposite sex then this is in line with their ideology.

But its when this idea is tested in reality where it comes into conflict nature. But this is what ideologues including politicions, teachers and health professionals want us to do. Thats the insane world they want us to take on to be an equal and inclusive society.

True. But you can't say, "The west has these wonderful ideals that we've tried and tested over millennia and found to be the best way to order a society," when at best we've been giving them a serious go for fifty years or so, and even then only to a partial and incomplete degree. Most of western history has not been of society ordered on these ideals.

No but the Truths we have discovered and lived out are worth upholding, they are beyond reproach even in principle. Like that we are all made in Gods image with natural inalienable Rights which give humans dignity and worth.. Like Rule of Law, innocent before the law or the Golden Rule. Or enlightened rational thinking or freedom of religion and speech. These stand regardless. They are self evident.

Again, nobody, and literally nobody, is saying it's all about one factor. That's a strawman. But saying "it's complex," isn't enough. We need to be able to measure, name, describe and take action about disadvantages faced by particular groups.

Thats what I am saying. But you keep coming back to having to name differences by the group identity is the problem. You keep repeating it like its the most important, like a mantra. Your emphasizing this over other factors as to how to be nobel.

People don't realize they are doing this but its because they are fixated on one thing thinking its nobel but not realising that simply focusing on this one aspect all the time and this is what creates the monster. It becomes the narrative, it becomes Woke ideology.

Yes, it was a response to his last post, which came in as I was writing mine (making quoting awkward).

No worries.

 

[rjs330]

Up until that time I think we were dealing with entrenched problems. Like I said no system is perfect but what the West has established through years of living out those truths are the best basis for achieving an equal and just society. Now this is all at risk thanks to ideologues politicizing everything. You can identify entrenched descrimination without having to be Woke you know.

I think a mistake that is made is to think we can have a perfect system. We can't. We are humans and humans are never perfect. No that does not mean we can't do better. But the issue is, what is better? And better for whom? Often we find that what we think is better for one group makes things more difficult for another. Take for example the claim that there should be more job sharing opportunities for people. Sounds good right? Two people working one job where one person used to do it. At that point, what benefits you has now made things more difficult for the person seeking full time work. And not just for them but also their families that need someone to earn a full time paycheck. The desire that we should have more job sharing negates the individual choices made and tries to force others to make up for it. A person chooses to stay home with the kids and the benefit of that is the family and children. But then they want to work part time. Thinking that others should give up their full time needs so they can mitigate the choices they made. Also it requires that employers spend more time interviewing people and grading them in their interviews. Trying to choose the best candidate.

It's a proven fact to become proficient in a job (the more complex the more time) it takes time. Full time workers take less time to get up to speed and find a real competence. Part time workers would take more time. This also puts more of a burden on the employer, customers and co-workers.

Now don't get me wrong, it's not that it can't be done and I've got no issues at all if a business wants to do that. But we shouldn't be putting any pressure (political) on them to do so. If you and another employee want to do that be my guest. But don't think it's a great solution for everyone. It's not.

The west has done a great job with removing barriers and shown the way in how to mitigate discrimination and creating a just society. Despite what the woke ideological people say. There are not barriers at all for people anymore. There may be obstacles, some more difficult that others, but there are no barriers to success other than the ones we create for ourselves.

 

[rjs330]

We often have very limited options

And 99% of the time they are because of the choices you made. I don't believe it's right for you to make choices and then complain about the consequences of those choices and expect everyone else to fix them. It smacks a bit of narcissism.

Because then both miss out; one on much of the family side of life and the other on the satisfactions of work outside the home

You can have both. You can find satisfaction in both. Parents do not have to share equally in family rearing and career in order to find satisfaction. That's been the lie of feminism. Feminism has been telling women that in order to be fulfilled and find satisfaction they have to have a career from the start. No you don't. Women have discovered that. With the correct attitude (stop listening to feminists) they can find great satisfaction and fulfillment raising their family. I heard of a woman who was a stay at home mom who was in a store when a female worker and her had a short conversation. The worker made some comment about having a career and a the mom not finding fulfillment. She asked the mom what she was doing and the mom said "I'm raising the future of America. What are you doing? Stocking potato chips?"

And men who are working to provide for their families can fine great satisfaction in the fact that he is putting food on the table, a roof over their heads, clothes on their backs, money so they can get things they need and want. If he's a good dad he can spend time with them in his time off, teaching them, playing with them etc. I've been a full time worker for about 40 years now and have had kids for a 32 of them. I do t feel like I've miss d out at all because I have taken the time to spend time with them. I have great relationships with my kids. None of them feel like they missed out on dad.

My wife raised them as a stay at home mome for most of the time. She didn't start her career until they were older and she could do it while they were at school. She doesn't feel like she misses out on anything.

It's all about attitude and accepting the choices you make. You certainly could stuff the kids in daycare and let someone else raise them but you are missing out. And if a couple want for both to work part time and split the rearing between the two of them? Who am I to criticize that. That's their choice. But I will criticize them if they start complaining about the fact that their choices have limited them and they think everyone else should do something to make their lives better. Cause whatever they are demanding, will create difficulties in others who were fine before.

It's a typical leftist attitude. I want and therefore it is up to you to make my want come true. Even if it means you have to sacrifice something. It's okay as long as I benefit from it. That's all that matters.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Maybe; but there are many that we haven't really tried. When you consider that our current work/home patterns are largely a product of the industrial revolution, they're a relatively recent experiment anyway.

There's nearly infinite we haven't tried...but the overwhelming majority won't work because they aren't compatible with human nature.

No, I meant "at a younger age." If marriage is important you can make it a priority in your twenties.

Which typically hampers career advancement.

While it's true that parenting requires some skills (and, more to the point, I would argue a particular sort of mindset) it's not the sort of specialised skills that need total dedication to master.

Can't say I agree.

You don't need to change every one of your child's nappies to be competent at managing their nappy requirements. You don't need to cook every meal from scratch to feed them a healthy diet. And you don't need to helicopter them every second in order to raise confident, capable young people; in fact, it's quite likely to be counter productive if you try.

You're talking about some rather basic/bare minimum sorts of tasks of parenting and then throwing an example of bad parenting at the end. It's as if you have no idea what I'm talking about.

And many more women are choosing that, too. But what I find frustrating about this, is that nobody says this to men. "Don't want to be a hands-on, full time stay at home dad? Don't have kids, then!"

Being a full time stay at home dad isn't an option for men lol. Even if we were to go along with the wildly inflated post covid numbers likely due to involuntary unemployment....you're talking about a woman who doesn't exist. There's no woman in their mid to late 20s saying "I'm just looking for a good husband who wants to be a father and stay at home dad while I continue my career making 80-120k$ a year and paying all the bills to provide for my new family."

That's not a real person who exists.

As if there's only one right way to be a good parent, and it's rigidly gendered. It's just nonsense.

I didn't say that.

In which case, I don't recommend parenting... if nothing else, it's the one job you can't just quit.

Funnily enough, I don't think she mentions parenting....just being a housewife.

No, I don't look down on them. I'd advise them to make sure they have the capability to move into some form of paid work if they need to, because life doesn't come with guarantees and circumstances may change. But if they want to be homemakers and find that fulfilling and satisfying, all power to their elbow.

Here's some irony that's about to happen....life doesn't come with guarantees you say?

It doesn't adequately account for the reality of the situation.

I'd question your premise, for a start (eg. see here: Do People With High IQ Enjoy Greater Success?

It's not my premise, it's a strong correlation between IQ and income that's been robustly researched and proven time and again....

You know what doesn't in any way invalidate that correlation? The fact that a high IQ doesn't guarantee workplace success. Nothing in life is guaranteed. The claim is that IQ is the biggest predictor of workplace success....

Meaning if we had 100k people who we had to rank in order of income...and we didn't know their careers or income....I would ask their IQs and I would be correct far more often than I would be wrong. You can pick any other trait...and you wouldn't even come close to being correct as often as I am.

This mindset of requiring something to be perfect or it's invalid is a peculiar feature of progressive leftism. Meritocracy doesn't perfectly evaluate merit so suddenly it's an "illusion". High IQ doesn't guarantee a high income so any correlation must be irrelevant. The police (in the US) are involved in roughly a dozen to two dozen wrongful shootings a year out of the millions of public interactions, hundreds of times they are shot at, and thousands of times they have to use force.....so they're a broken institution that should be defended and replaced.

Yet at the same time, this same group believes a test that might be measuring implicit bias (based on pure assumption that response times reveal implicit biases) despite the fact that implicit bias has somewhere between little and no correlation to behaviour at all...is a good explanation for nearly every social I'll they imagine is real.

I'm increasingly concerned that these people are even allowed to vote if they lack the basic critical thinking skills to understand why their beliefs are extremely flawed.

You claimed that more men experience poverty than women. This is demonstrably untrue. And if more men experience homelessness, there are other explanations available for that. It's not just a question of IQ distribution.

Well again, I'm thinking of the extreme ends of the distribution curve so in the US....about 60+% of the homeless population are men. Almost 2/3rds. In Australia, men are doing slightly better....making up about 55+% of the homeless.

They might have been droning on and on, and meanwhile, women and people of colour have still been facing significant discrimination and barriers.

I can't agree with that. See...we're at the point where racism and sexism against white men is normalized. It's not implicit, it requires no mind reading, it's explicit. People state it openly so we need not question whether someone didn't get a job because they're under qualified or if they're white. We know 1 in 6 aren't getting a job because they're white men. We don't have to invent dubious theories about where the racism is hidden or why there's no evidence of it. There's plenty of evidence of it. It's stated openly and when surveyed under the promise of anonymity....employers openly admit to it. This administration has lost lawsuits for policies and laws that explicitly discriminate against white men. Racism hasn't been this obvious or evident in my nation since Jim Crow and frankly, it's disgusting.

You may believe women or non-white people are facing similar degrees of discrimination....but you don't have the evidence for it. We had an entire state (CA) literally try to repeal anti-discrimination civil rights protections so they could pass racial hiring quotas. Thankfully, the initiative lost....but I'd be surprised if they didn't try again.

I've experienced it myself. I've seen others experience it. So in my universe, if someone somewhere chooses to offer a job to a suitably qualified woman instead of a man, or a suitably qualified person of colour instead of a white person, that might go some tiny, tiny way to balancing all the other times the opposite is happening.

Right....well I'll drop my assumption that you aren't in favor of racial discrimination since you've now made it clear you are.

I would suggest that you consider you're now on the wrong side of history. The side of the slavers, segregationists, and Jim Crow supporters. Racist and sexist discrimination doesn't have a great track record....and those you support discriminating against today will inevitably become bitter and lash out against their unjust treatment. They won't have to rely upon mind reading, vague theory, or unconscious biases to make their case of this injustice perpetrated against them.

It might be a clumsy way of addressing it, but I'd have a hard time acting like that's the biggest problem going on in that situation.

It's a problem we can prove exists. That's far more than I can say about the so called barriers against women you've been posting about for a better part of this thread. I can point to policies that exist now, examples of discrimination that are blatant (did you see how our last SCOTUS Justice was chosen?), and surveys that explicitly prove discrimination against white men is happening....and headlines and articles in mainstream publications that are openly racist. I can point out the various racist concepts propping up this racism from "white fragility" to "whitesplaining" or "mansplaining". I can even point out the dogwhistles popularized over recent years like "diversity, equity,and inclusion" (aka no straight white men).

Can you do the same? Or will you be pointing out percentages and making assumptions about why they aren't whatever you think they should be and when pressed for evidence....you'll claim to know the unconscious minds of millions of people and how they influence behavior in spite of evidence to the contrary?

Not true. Trans rights do not erase women's rights. There is a bit of nuancing and negotiation which needs to happen around some very particular situations. But trans people having the right to identify socially in accordance with their gender identity doesn't erase my rights at all.

Trans people have always had the right to identify as they wish. The right they are pursuing now is the right to force others to agree or face punishment. They wish to remove the rights of others you disagree in accordance with their own beliefs. That's authoritarian in its political nature....and they deserve no help nor success in the pursuit of this goal. I don't demand they be punished if they don't agree with me....they are the intolerant.

 

[Paidiske]

Its unreal and impossible and the fact that people don't acknowledge this and keep pretending that its not that bad so not to offend and be all PC the more it goes on.

It's not unreal and impossible to make this work. It just takes a bit of willingness to be creative and flexible.

We don't allow subjective feelings to determine other important issues in society so why sex and gender.

We don't? I wonder how much subjective feelings come into play when people vote...

Yet here you are denying the experiences of many women who have spoken out about their bad experiences of having to be exposed to males in their own spaces by claiming you don't think it happens.

No, I didn't say that. I said that with a bit of willingness and creativity, we could come up with solutions which cater to everyone's needs.

Everyday language is changed and cencored and everyone has to be careful about what they say. They can't express their true beliefs without getting into trouble and even losing their reputations and jobs. Thats a breach of freedom of speech.

People don't lose their jobs for just expressing a belief. But they might lose their jobs for, say, bullying others. Employers have a duty of care to make sure the workplace is safe for everyone, and that includes moderating the way their employees treat each other. That's not a breach of freedom of speech.

No its not about trans people demanding people have sex with them, but about the principle that heterosexual and gay and lesbians should regard trans people as their identifying gender right down to treating them the same as though they were the opposite sex.

And just as you're free to turn down a date with anyone you don't fancy dating, that's just as true if they're trans.

Thats what I am saying. But you keep coming back to having to name differences by the group identity is the problem. You keep repeating it like its the most important, like a mantra. Your emphasizing this over other factors as to how to be nobel.

Yes, I'm emphasising this, because from what I can understand of what you're arguing for, it would erode any possibillity of being able to continue to address the issues which persist.

People don't realize they are doing this but its because they are fixated on one thing thinking its nobel but not realising that simply focusing on this one aspect all the time and this is what creates the monster. It becomes the narrative, it becomes Woke ideology.

There are lots of aspects which deserve our attention, but in this thread, it's this aspect which is under threat. So that's the one I'm defending.

And 99% of the time they are because of the choices you made. I don't believe it's right for you to make choices and then complain about the consequences of those choices and expect everyone else to fix them. It smacks a bit of narcissism.

I would say, we all inhabit a system in which we have constrained choices. We can all advocate for adjustments to the system, which will benefit us all. That's not narcissistic at all.

You can have both.

Which is what I'm saying, but apparently women who work are bad mothers... (or at least, that's what some are claiming).

With the correct attitude (stop listening to feminists) they can find great satisfaction and fulfillment raising their family.

What I found was a fast track to clinical depression, and I don't think it was just because of an incorrect attitude.

You certainly could stuff the kids in daycare and let someone else raise them but you are missing out.

And you can work without ever using formal institutional care like daycare.

Cause whatever they are demanding, will create difficulties in others who were fine before.

Ah, so the system can never be changed in a way which disrupts those who most benefit from it, at others' expense? Doesn't seem very fair to me.

I want and therefore it is up to you to make my want come true. Even if it means you have to sacrifice something.

How about, we can benefit everyone, so we all should work together to make positive change.

There's nearly infinite we haven't tried...but the overwhelming majority won't work because they aren't compatible with human nature.

"Human nature" is a lot more malleable than it's generally given credit for.

Which typically hampers career advancement.

What, being married younger? Only if you have kids. But you can marry and still delay kids, if you prefer.

It's as if you have no idea what I'm talking about.

I'm not sure I do know what you're talking about. I'm a parent, my child is thriving, I work successfully, I don't understand the sort of claim that working means you're a bad parent. I'd suggest if you're a bad working parent, you'd probably be a bad parent no matter your work situation.

Being a full time stay at home dad isn't an option for men lol.

Given I see men doing it, I'm still not buying this.

There's no woman in their mid to late 20s saying "I'm just looking for a good husband who wants to be a father and stay at home dad while I continue my career making 80-120k$ a year and paying all the bills to provide for my new family."

In exactly those words, maybe not. I definitely know women, though, who've said to prospective significant others that they have no desire to be stay at home mothers, and if having children requires that kind of career sacrifice, they'll expect the sacrifice to be made by the parent who wants the children.

Funnily enough, I don't think she mentions parenting....just being a housewife.

Well, these days, being a housewife (to a working spouse?) with no children is probably a pretty easy gig. I'm not really surprised she hasn't found a man who finds that appealing in a potential wife, though.

Here's some irony that's about to happen....life doesn't come with guarantees you say?

Nope. Your husband could die, or become disabled, or be unemployed for a time, or run off with someone else. You've got no guarantee that he'll always be earning enough to support a stay-at-home spouse, so while it's fine to choose that for a time, I'd encourage anyone to be able to support themselves if they need to.

Well again, I'm thinking of the extreme ends of the distribution curve so in the US....about 60+% of the homeless population are men. Almost 2/3rds. In Australia, men are doing slightly better....making up about 55+% of the homeless.

While I agree that homelessness affects men more than women, that's not the only measure of poverty.

You may believe women or non-white people are facing similar degrees of discrimination....but you don't have the evidence for it.

I may not be able to prove it statistically, but I've lived it enough to know that it's real (for women, anyway, and I doubt it's less true for people of colour). But I think we do have the evidence in the fact that women and people of colour still experience worse outcomes across so many measures.

I would suggest that you consider you're now on the wrong side of history.

Mmhmm. I'm the one who's been refused academic support, been kicked out of college, been denied job roles, faced constant discrimination and hostility because of my sex, and I argue that it's not terrible if some people, faced with more than one qualified candidate, consider giving opportunity to someone who has faced disadvantage due to gender or race, as one factor in hiring, and I'm on the wrong side of history.

Not buying it.

 

[stevevw]

I think a mistake that is made is to think we can have a perfect system. We can't. We are humans and humans are never perfect. No that does not mean we can't do better. But the issue is, what is better? And better for whom? Often we find that what we think is better for one group makes things more difficult for another. Take for example the claim that there should be more job sharing opportunities for people. Sounds good right? Two people working one job where one person used to do it. At that point, what benefits you has now made things more difficult for the person seeking full time work. And not just for them but also their families that need someone to earn a full time paycheck. The desire that we should have more job sharing negates the individual choices made and tries to force others to make up for it. A person chooses to stay home with the kids and the benefit of that is the family and children. But then they want to work part time. Thinking that others should give up their full time needs so they can mitigate the choices they made. Also it requires that employers spend more time interviewing people and grading them in their interviews. Trying to choose the best candidate.

It's a proven fact to become proficient in a job (the more complex the more time) it takes time. Full time workers take less time to get up to speed and find a real competence. Part time workers would take more time. This also puts more of a burden on the employer, customers and co-workers.

Now don't get me wrong, it's not that it can't be done and I've got no issues at all if a business wants to do that. But we shouldn't be putting any pressure (political) on them to do so. If you and another employee want to do that be my guest. But don't think it's a great solution for everyone. It's not.

Also the idea of regulating business to the point the State is telling people how to run their business is just another step towards the State getting involved in peoples personal lives for moral reasons.

But what people also don't see as they are so caught up in the system is that maybe the whole idea of making money the ultimate good for achieving happiness and a stable and fair society is wrong in the first place. Like you said it eats away at time spent with family and can stress people out causing mental illness and family conflicts.

Based on this idea of neoliberalism only those who are in positions to make wealth succeed and the rest fall behind which creates a class society. Then there are the times when we have economic crashes and many people end up losing their life savings.

Ye everyone buys into these lies. Women have manage more independence and freedom but really are they just joining males in perpetuating injustice in other ways. Its a complex mix of forces driving humans and its not just a simple case of structural forces of race and gender oppression.

The west has done a great job with removing barriers and shown the way in how to mitigate discrimination and creating a just society. Despite what the woke ideological people say. There are not barriers at all for people anymore. There may be obstacles, some more difficult that others, but there are no barriers to success other than the ones we create for ourselves.

And the ironic thing is as we have gained more freedom and equality everyone is more miserable. Something else is at play. Personally I think we have thrown the baby out with the bath water when society rejected the traditional norms we once had. They were there and lasted a long time for good reason and I think if we look back over our history we can see that when we move away from these long held truths thats when society becomes more unstable.

 

[Robban]

Also the idea of regulating business to the point the State is telling people how to run their business is just another step towards the State getting involved in peoples personal lives for moral reasons.

But what people also don't see as they are so caught up in the system is that maybe the whole idea of making money the ultimate good for achieving happiness and a stable and fair society is wrong in the first place. Like you said it eats away at time spent with family and can stress people out causing mental illness and family conflicts.

Based on this idea of neoliberalism only those who are in positions to make wealth succeed and the rest fall behind which creates a class society. Then there are the times when we have economic crashes and many people end up losing their life savings.

Ye everyone buys into these lies. Women have manage more independence and freedom but really are they just joining males in perpetuating injustice in other ways. Its a complex mix of forces driving humans and its not just a simple case of structural forces of race and gender oppression.

And the ironic thing is as we have gained more freedom and equality everyone is more miserable. Something else is at play. Personally I think we have thrown the baby out with the bath water when society rejected the traditional norms we once had. They were there and lasted a long time for good reason and I think if we look back over our history we can see that when we move away from these long held truths thats when society becomes more unstable.

Landmass on the planet is 30% rest is oceans,
8 Billion souls trying to get along and always some who rise up and say,

"Today I am the leader."

Forgetting,
"The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone."

 

[stevevw]

It's not unreal and impossible to make this work. It just takes a bit of willingness to be creative and flexible.

No its unreal and cannot work and this is a self evident truth. That you refuse to acknowledge this is the problem. The only way it will work is if people are willing to deny their own beliefs and thinking to allow others to then dictate them. If they do express their belief as already shown in society they will be attacked even prosecuted and certainly denied their Right to belief and holding opposing views.

Thats because ideologues not only want to be free to express and live out their beliefs they want everyone else to act and believe the same through norms and laws. Its evdienced by the fact we now have conflicting beliefs and positions and the States refusal to clarify the law.

But the reason they don't want to clarify things is because they know that the whole idea is incoherent. By clarifying things this just proves the reality that someone has to be denieed their Rights as they cannot exist together. Thats the reality of a pluralistic society. The State cannot be neutral on this, no system can. You take one side and you deny another because the State is now stepping into personal territory of belief and morality and these things demand a determination one way or the other.

We don't? I wonder how much subjective feelings come into play when people vote...

Politics is not really that subjective. I mean policies are usually based on good economics, science regarding health, law and education. We use models that have been proven to work. But layered over this are the political philosophies about how we can achieve a better nation. Laws are pragmatic in that they stop crime and disorder which are necessary so theres really no subjectivity on that. Some with health.

BUt as time has gone by and the State is now stepping into the private domain it is becoming more subjective. For example we removed religious education and Christianity out of the public schools because it was subjective but now apply gender and trans ideology which is a belief about human nature and reality. In the past the State stayed out in these matters. Education was for learning to function in society in practical terms.

No, I didn't say that. I said that with a bit of willingness and creativity, we could come up with solutions which cater to everyone's needs.

We already have that system, its called democracy. But that has all changed now thanks to Woke. Its now not what the majority think is best but what identity that buys more influences in setting behaviour and policy.

Under democracy the majority are usually pretty close to bringing about the best options because it assumes that most people will usually align themselves with what is best for not just themselevs but the nation going ahead. people accept this even when they disagree. But its different now. the majority are disagreeing because a small number of ideologues are controlling things, the narrative and politics.

People don't lose their jobs for just expressing a belief. But they might lose their jobs for, say, bullying others. Employers have a duty of care to make sure the workplace is safe for everyone, and that includes moderating the way their employees treat each other. That's not a breach of freedom of speech.

There are plenty of examples where people have been cancelled for just expressing their belief while at the same time the system allowing ideologues to blantantly descriminate without any repurcussions which shows a bias in the system tainted towards Wokism and PC. I think I have already linked examples on this.

Company that 'fired' woman for saying 'it's OK to vote no' may have broken law
Many adoption agencies in Britain and the US have been forced to close because of their traditional beliefs about the family and that a child should be placed with a mother and father.
https://www.ag.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/equality-tasmania_0.pdf
The Criminalization of Christianity in Canada
library/articles/on-the-brink-the-criminalization-of-christianity-in-canada/
An interesting proponent of anti-Christian thinking will always be the increase of secularism. Commonly found in OIDAC’s report, governments and major corporations often shut down the speech of Christians in support of secularization along with upholding the views of the LGBTQ+ community and other minorities that disagree with the Christian worldview.
New statistics on growing persecution against Christians

And just as you're free to turn down a date with anyone you don't fancy dating, that's just as true if they're trans.

No the issue is that If a biological male said in conversation on a public forum for example that they chose not to sleep with a Transwomen not because they just did not like them and turned them down but because they believed that the Transwomen was actually a man and did not want to date or sleep with a man they would be regarded as Transphobic and hateful for saying that.

Thats because they are not treating the Transwomen (biological male) fully as a women as though she is not a real women. Theres a fundemental difference in declining the opposite sex and declining a Transperson. But Trans ideology thinks theres no difference and we should not even consider there are differences.

Yes, I'm emphasising this, because from what I can understand of what you're arguing for, it would erode any possibillity of being able to continue to address the issues which persist.

Well considering that there are multiple interpretations of what is the issue then I think this is a one sided and narrow position to take when considering disadevantage and descrimination in society. I think its a matter of the starting assumption that is under dispute here not the idea that equality and justice should be a top priority itself.

Considering that our positions are subject to subjective personal biases and ideological thinking we should be skerptical of any claim that differences are because of any specific truth claim.

There are lots of aspects which deserve our attention, but in this thread, it's this aspect which is under threat. So that's the one I'm defending.

Evenso if we are just talking about this one aspect it still deserves being investigated from a non biased position which assumes one cause. As most of these issues involve multiple factors we need to include all those to be able to determine the true state of affairs.

As we have seen with Trans ideology and other ideological beliefs that have influenced policy in order to bring about equality and inclusion that they have no basis and actually cause more harm and inequality we need to be careful that we are not deluded into thinking we are doing the right thing.

We already have evidence that this ideological thinking is wrong so that should make us very skeptucal of anyabsolute claims ideologues make. That includes questioning their narratives about racism and sexism being social constructions and inherent in everything we do and that highlighting identity as the absolute measure of all differences in society.

 

[Paidiske]

No its unreal and cannot work and this is a self evident truth.

If it were self-evidently true, would we be up to 82 pages?

That you refuse to acknowledge this is the problem.

I am saying that I can live alongside transwomen, and that's the problem?

The only way it will work is if people are willing to deny their own beliefs and thinking to allow others to then dictate them.

Or, you know, deal with the fact that the world is full of diversity and a bit of acceptance and flexibility go a long way in loving our neighbours.

If they do express their belief as already shown in society they will be attacked even prosecuted and certainly denied their Right to belief and holding opposing views.

This is just not true. At most, they might have to, you know, be appropriate in the workplace.

Company that 'fired' woman for saying 'it's OK to vote no' may have broken law

That was illegal, apparently, so you can't really argue that it's what's allowed now.

Many adoption agencies in Britain and the US have been forced to close because of their traditional beliefs about the family and that a child should be placed with a mother and father.

Should that be, "because of their refusal to comply with laws which disallow discrimination"?

https://www.ag.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/equality-tasmania_0.pdf

That's a submission discussing proposed legislation. It's got nothing to do with people losing their jobs.

library/articles/on-the-brink-the-criminalization-of-christianity-in-canada/

Sensationalist nonsense. Nobody's criminalising Christianity in Canada. 53% of Canadians are Christian.

New statistics on growing persecution against Christians

Again, nothing to do with losing jobs for holding particular beliefs.

No the issue is that If a biological male said in conversation on a public forum for example that they chose not to sleep with a Transwomen not because they just did not like them and turned them down but because they believed that the Transwomen was actually a man and did not want to date or sleep with a man they would be regarded as Transphobic and hateful for saying that.

Well, some people might think that. So what? People think all kinds of things, and we can't necessarily control that, although we can be wise about what we say in a public forum.

Well considering that there are multiple interpretations of what is the issue then I think this is a one sided and narrow position to take when considering disadevantage and descrimination in society.

And yet, for those of us for whom it's a live issue, we may not be prepared to drop it just because some people don't like to talk about it.

As most of these issues involve multiple factors we need to include all those to be able to determine the true state of affairs.

You want to have a nuanced, intersectional discussion of disadvantage, fine. I look forward to it. Just don't try to tell me that (for example) sexism or racism aren't part of the picture, or should be disregarded as irrelevant.

 

[stevevw]

If it were self-evidently true, would we be up to 82 pages?

Thats a logical fallacy. Believe it or not people deny self evident truths. that is what ideological beliefs do and it can also be the case that there is mass delusion as has been evidenced by human history and the tendency to do so even the Church.

Self evident Truths stand on their own. like Freedom of religion and Speech. Denying them defeats the purpose of human of what we know of worth and even being able to exist together. Like made in Gods image which puts human worth and dignity beyond the reach of human ideas which are fallible and supceptable to State and human corruption.

LIke all are equal in worth and rights regardless of status whether Kings, Presidents or commoners. Like Justice for all and innocence before the law. Guilt without evidence has no justification and allowing justice for some and not others defeats its purpose and causes anarchy. They are tried and tested and hold up. But the New Woke ideology threatens all this.

I am saying that I can live alongside transwomen, and that's the problem?

So would you consider a Transmale to be suitable for your to enter into a relationship and marriage. If you were a female boxer would you consider it fair that you should fight a transwomen.

Or, you know, deal with the fact that the world is full of diversity and a bit of acceptance and flexibility go a long way in loving our neighbours.

See your doing exactly what you complain others are deoing which is telling people to shut up and just accept whatever different ideas and beliefs others have as thought they are of equal and even greater truth. So if a women is sitting in a change room as say Riley Gaines did and a biological male with full male genitals gets undressed in front of you, your suppose to button your lip and just accept it. Its plain insanity if you ask me.

Now imagine that same sort of situation with people too scared to even express they think that this is wrong in everyday situations. Too scared to express their beliefs because as with what happened to Gaines there were mobs outside ready to actually inflict violence and physical harm on her. Thats not flexibility and acceptance thats just wrong.

This is just not true. At most, they might have to, you know, be appropriate in the workplace.

The whole point is what is regarded as appropriate is not clarified so no one knows when it comes to sex and gender. So how can anyone be sure. Look at pronouns and the many situations where there has been conflict often leading to termination of parties employment.

So tell me if someone at work or in class said they thought that SSM was a sin/wrong or that a biological male cannot become a women if the topic was brought up by someone would they be in trouble. If a member of staff or another student made a complaint against that person would that constitute investigation.

That was illegal, apparently, so you can't really argue that it's what's allowed now.

It depends on the State and nation. But its still happening. You just don't hear about most and many have lost their case. But thats not the point. The point is why was this action brought about in the first place. What I am saying is that the type of thinking behind why that action is being done is because of ideological thinking and that is permeating our society.

This example is a representation of a greater underlying thinking (Woke) in society today and manifests itself in many different ways in society on a daily basis. It deoesn't have to be about this situation because Woke is all consuming about behaviour.

That's a submission discussing proposed legislation. It's got nothing to do with people losing their jobs.

If you notice part this part in relation to your claim that ientity Rights will not clash and theres no issue to worry about. here even the LGBTIQ+ advocates admit there is. So its seems taken to its inevitable conclusion these ideological position cannot exist together and at the same time.

The Federal Government has repeatedly said the Religious Discrimination Bill would be a shield for people of faith, but it is actually a sword against existing discrimination protections for LGBTIQ people.

https://www.ag.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/equality-tasmania_0.pdf

Sensationalist nonsense. Nobody's criminalising Christianity in Canada. 53% of Canadians are Christian.

It doesn't matter if 53% are Christians, the majority don't count anymore in a ideological Utopia especially when it comes to Christian beliefs. That 53% is well down on past levels of Christianity where it was around 68% only a little over 10 years ago. As the younger generation are mostly non Christian soon Christianity will be the minority.

What the article is talking about is not the outright banning of Christianity but the gradual devaluing of it in the market square though norms that filter into policies and laws. Like abortion, SSM, gender identity, language and other family policies and laws. Canada is just more Woke at doing this than other nations.

Again, nothing to do with losing jobs for holding particular beliefs.

Join the dots. You seem to be very dismissive of this. The report says
Christians in secular environments are facing more intolerance and discrimination than any other religion worldwide. Commonly found in OIDAC’s report, governments and major corporations often shut down the speech of Christians in support of secularization along with upholding the views of the LGBTQ+ community and other minorities that disagree with the Christian worldview.

Simple logic tells us that if Christian belief and speech is being shut down by governments and corporations then expressing those beliefs is going to get a Christian into trouble which will result in some disciplinary action whether thats a warning, demotion, forced DEI indoctrination or loss of job. In fact depending on your job title you could even get in trouble for just expressing beliefs away from work in your private life.

Well, some people might think that. So what? People think all kinds of things, and we can't necessarily control that, although we can be wise about what we say in a public forum.

No its not just what people think like its a take it or leave it opinion its actually based on antidescrimination law. According to the same ideology that upholds the law for Trans they should be Affirmed because their identity is a legal status. We just had this supported by the anti Conversion therapy law which stipulates that a gender identity including Trans has to be Affirmed and any language that does not affirm is descriminatory.

So that means that when a biological male says they are a women individuals and as a society we must Affirm this as their true identity otherwise we are descriminating. A male who says they do not want to date or sleep with a Transwomen because they do not want to sleep with a biological male is not Affirming the Trans person identity and thus is considered Transphobic and descriminating on the basis of gender identity. We have seen an increase in complaints by Trans and GNC people of descrimination.

And yet, for those of us for whom it's a live issue, we may not be prepared to drop it just because some people don't like to talk about it.

look no one is asking anyone to drop seeing things from a race or sex position. It will be the same for starting from the narrow position that there is no systemic factors. They are just saying don't start with any unsupported assumption as this wiill skew everything. Start from a neutral position without the political baggage and then we can investigate and determine the factors involved ande how best to address this.

You want to have a nuanced, intersectional discussion of disadvantage, fine. I look forward to it. Just don't try to tell me that (for example) sexism or racism aren't part of the picture, or should be disregarded as irrelevant.

When have I ever said that.

 

[Paidiske]

So would you consider a Transmale to be suitable for your to enter into a relationship and marriage.

This is irrelevant to whether or not I can cope with trans people being able to identify socially, and be treated as, their preferred gender.

If you were a female boxer would you consider it fair that you should fight a transwomen.

Again and again I have pointed out that sports governing bodies need to have appropriate guidelines. That doesn't impinge on everyday life for most people, though.

See your doing exactly what you complain others are deoing which is telling people to shut up and just accept whatever different ideas and beliefs others have as thought they are of equal and even greater truth.

You don't have to agree with someone, to give them the space to live their own lives.

So if a women is sitting in a change room as say Riley Gaines did and a biological male with full male genitals gets undressed in front of you, your suppose to button your lip and just accept it. Its plain insanity if you ask me.

How many times have I talked about individual cubicles as one way around this?

The whole point is what is regarded as appropriate is not clarified so no one knows when it comes to sex and gender.

I'm pretty clear on where the boundaries are, and I have been in every job I've ever had. Workplaces have policies and make those policies known. They also generally warn, counsel and provide guidance before they fire someone. Is it really so very hard?

So tell me if someone at work or in class said they thought that SSM was a sin/wrong or that a biological male cannot become a women if the topic was brought up by someone would they be in trouble.

It depends on the context. If you're in an RE class discussing the theology of marriage, the answer is probably different than if you're in a workplace providing healthcare to vulnerable LGBTIQA+ folks. A bit of common sense goes a long way...

If a member of staff or another student made a complaint against that person would that constitute investigation.

I would hope all complaints would be investigated, and then action taken (or not) depending on what the investigation found.

What I am saying is that the type of thinking behind why that action is being done is because of ideological thinking and that is permeating our society.

People don't like bullies. And contributing to the stigma around others can look very much like bullying behaviour.

If you notice part this part in relation to your claim that ientity Rights will not clash and theres no issue to worry about. here even the LGBTIQ+ advocates admit there is. So its seems taken to its inevitable conclusion these ideological position cannot exist together and at the same time.

The Federal Government has repeatedly said the Religious Discrimination Bill would be a shield for people of faith, but it is actually a sword against existing discrimination protections for LGBTIQ people.

https://www.ag.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-05/equality-tasmania_0.pdf

The problem is that some religious groups want to use "religious freedom" in ways which harm others. We need to learn not to do that.

It doesn't matter if 53% are Christians, the majority don't count anymore in a ideological Utopia especially when it comes to Christian beliefs.

It does go some way to demonstrating that the claim that Canada is going to "criminalise Christianity" is just sensationalist nonsense. They're not going to criminalise the faith of over half their population.

What the article is talking about is not the outright banning of Christianity but the gradual devaluing of it in the market square though norms that filter into policies and laws.

The world doesn't owe it to us, to agree with us. If we can't make our case on its merits, then that's on us.

Join the dots. You seem to be very dismissive of this. The report says
Christians in secular environments are facing more intolerance and discrimination than any other religion worldwide. Commonly found in OIDAC’s report, governments and major corporations often shut down the speech of Christians in support of secularization along with upholding the views of the LGBTQ+ community and other minorities that disagree with the Christian worldview.

Yes, I'm very dismissive of what seems to me like Christians indulging in paranoid siege mentality. Partly because - to pick up on just one part of this - there is no one "Christian worldview." But my word, there are a bunch of crackpot Christian worldviews out there that probably well deserve to be shut down.

Simple logic tells us that if Christian belief and speech is being shut down by governments and corporations then expressing those beliefs is going to get a Christian into trouble which will result in some disciplinary action whether thats a warning, demotion, forced DEI indoctrination or loss of job.

Again, context is everything. If you want to spout young-earth creationism (or even one of the whackier eschatological scenarios) over your tea break, probably no one's going to care. If you want to spout demeaning comments about LGBTIQA+ folks in a professional context, then surely you can see that you put your employer in an impossible position?

No its not just what people think like its a take it or leave it opinion its actually based on antidescrimination law. According to the same ideology that upholds the law for Trans they should be Affirmed because their identity is a legal status. We just had this supported by the anti Conversion therapy law which stipulates that a gender identity including Trans has to be Affirmed and any language that does not affirm is descriminatory.

So that means that when a biological male says they are a women individuals and as a society we must Affirm this as their true identity otherwise we are descriminating. A male who says they do not want to date or sleep with a Transwomen because they do not want to sleep with a biological male is not Affirming the Trans person identity and thus is considered Transphobic and descriminating on the basis of gender identity. We have seen an increase in complaints by Trans and GNC people of descrimination.

Nobody owes anybody a date. There's nowhere you can go to, to complain you were discriminated against as a potential romantic partner.

So again I say, some people might think poorly of you, but so what?

look no one is asking anyone to drop seeing things from a race or sex position.

There's been a lot of argument to that effect over this thread.

They are just saying don't start with any unsupported assumption as this wiill skew everything.

I can assure you that my conviction that sexism and racism are alive and well, and corrosive to our society, is not in any sense an unsupported assumption.

I can't start from a "neutral position" after too many years of being on the receiving end of blatant sexism. What was that quote from Archbishop Tutu? Oh yes: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”

When have I ever said that.

When in this thread have you ever acknowledged a single instance you agreed merited being addressed as an actual live issue?

 

[Ana the Ist]

"Human nature" is a lot more malleable than it's generally given credit for.

I think people who don't understand it believe so.

What, being married younger? Only if you have kids.

That's typically why people marry younger.

I'm not sure I do know what you're talking about.

If you imagine "parenting" equating to changing diapers and providing food....then this doesn't surprise me.

Given I see men doing it, I'm still not buying this.

Not buying what? The statistical facts?

In exactly those words, maybe not. I definitely know women, though, who've said to prospective significant others that they have no desire to be stay at home mothers, and if having children requires that kind of career sacrifice, they'll expect the sacrifice to be made by the parent who wants the children.

Sounds like you know a lot of single women.

I'm not really surprised she hasn't found a man who finds that appealing in a potential wife, though.

What do you think men are looking for in a wife?

Nope. Your husband could die, or become disabled, or be unemployed for a time, or run off with someone else. You've got no guarantee that he'll always be earning enough to support a stay-at-home spouse, so while it's fine to choose that for a time, I'd encourage anyone to be able to support themselves if they need to.

I think you've made that clear....disdain for housewives/every woman should work.

While I agree that homelessness affects men more than women, that's not the only measure of poverty.

It's an extreme measure, sure....but I suppose I wrongly assumed that regarding poverty, your concern would be for those most affected.

I may not be able to prove it statistically,

Right.

but I've lived it enough to know that it's real (for women, anyway, and I doubt it's less true for people of colour).

Uh huh.

But I think we do have the evidence in the fact that women and people of colour still experience worse outcomes across so many measures.

We're talking about barriers. You already said you aren't concerned about a certain percentage of women (or non-white people I assume) achieving certain levels of success.

I can go back and quote you if you like.

We're talking about barriers. I showed you a very real, very explicit barrier of racial and sexist discrimination.

Now you're telling me it's about "outcomes".

Which is it? Barriers or outcomes?

Mmhmm. I'm the one who's been refused academic support, been kicked out of college, been denied job roles, faced constant discrimination and hostility because of my sex, and I argue that it's not terrible if some people, faced with more than one qualified candidate, consider giving opportunity to someone who has faced disadvantage due to gender or race, as one factor in hiring, and I'm on the wrong side of history.

No one can look at you and verify any of what you said is true. If a woman and a man walk into a job interview and the interviewer assumes the woman must have faced discrimination and hardship and blah blah blah...and the man hasn't....that's just a sexist interviewer.


Same goes for an applicant of one race and an applicant of another. If the interviewer assumes that one of those applicants has faced all sorts problems that the other hasn't.....that interviewer is racist.

Bigotry requires that assumptions of some kind are made about a person based on superficial characteristics like race or sex.

If you assume life experiences about women because.....they're women....you're a sexist.

If you assume life experiences about someone because of their race....you're a racist.

I mean...imagine you and I waiting on a bus in Melbourne with a black guy. We're all casually talking and I assume that he likes rap music....you know....because he's black. You'd think that was racist of me....right? Maybe not extremely racist, but a racist assumption nonetheless.

Yet here you are, inventing an entire backstory of hardship and oppression about people who you know nothing about except their race or biological sex.
It's extremely racist....and yes, I don't think anyone 20 years from now will look back on the leftists of today and imagine they're the one group that managed to do racism and sexism correctly lol.

Not buying it.

Not surprised at all.

 

[Ana the Ist]

It's not unreal and impossible to make this work. It just takes a bit of willingness to be creative and flexible.

We don't? I wonder how much subjective feelings come into play when people vote...


No, I didn't say that. I said that with a bit of willingness and creativity, we could come up with solutions which cater to everyone's needs.

People don't lose their jobs for just expressing a belief. But they might lose their jobs for, say, bullying others. Employers have a duty of care to make sure the workplace is safe for everyone, and that includes moderating the way their employees treat each other. That's not a breach of freedom of speech.

And just as you're free to turn down a date with anyone you don't fancy dating, that's just as true if they're trans.

Yes, I'm emphasising this, because from what I can understand of what you're arguing for, it would erode any possibillity of being able to continue to address the issues which persist.

There are lots of aspects which deserve our attention, but in this thread, it's this aspect which is under threat. So that's the one I'm defending.

I would say, we all inhabit a system in which we have constrained choices. We can all advocate for adjustments to the system, which will benefit us all. That's not narcissistic at all.

Which is what I'm saying, but apparently women who work are bad mothers... (or at least, that's what some are claiming).

What I found was a fast track to clinical depression, and I don't think it was just because of an incorrect attitude.

And you can work without ever using formal institutional care like daycare.

Ah, so the system can never be changed in a way which disrupts those who most benefit from it, at others' expense? Doesn't seem very fair to me.

How about, we can benefit everyone, so we all should work together to make positive change.


"Human nature" is a lot more malleable than it's generally given credit for.

What, being married younger? Only if you have kids. But you can marry and still delay kids, if you prefer.

I'm not sure I do know what you're talking about. I'm a parent, my child is thriving, I work successfully, I don't understand the sort of claim that working means you're a bad parent. I'd suggest if you're a bad working parent, you'd probably be a bad parent no matter your work situation.

Given I see men doing it, I'm still not buying this.

In exactly those words, maybe not. I definitely know women, though, who've said to prospective significant others that they have no desire to be stay at home mothers, and if having children requires that kind of career sacrifice, they'll expect the sacrifice to be made by the parent who wants the children.

Well, these days, being a housewife (to a working spouse?) with no children is probably a pretty easy gig. I'm not really surprised she hasn't found a man who finds that appealing in a potential wife, though.

Nope. Your husband could die, or become disabled, or be unemployed for a time, or run off with someone else. You've got no guarantee that he'll always be earning enough to support a stay-at-home spouse, so while it's fine to choose that for a time, I'd encourage anyone to be able to support themselves if they need to.

While I agree that homelessness affects men more than women, that's not the only measure of poverty.

I may not be able to prove it statistically, but I've lived it enough to know that it's real (for women, anyway, and I doubt it's less true for people of colour). But I think we do have the evidence in the fact that women and people of colour still experience worse outcomes across so many measures.

Mmhmm. I'm the one who's been refused academic support, been kicked out of college, been denied job roles, faced constant discrimination and hostility because of my sex, and I argue that it's not terrible if some people, faced with more than one qualified candidate, consider giving opportunity to someone who has faced disadvantage due to gender or race, as one factor in hiring, and I'm on the wrong side of history.

Not buying it.

Would you say this is a fair representation of how you imagine "outcomes" and "barriers" are related?