When two worldviews collide.

[Bradskii]

No its the other way around. I am willing to put aside my beliefs and views to be polite in certain situations. I am sacrificing self for others good. So I am actually treating people with the same if not more respect and dignity than others who already agree. My personal beliefs and views has no reflection on my respect and worth of individual people as human beings.

This is where I think the ideological thinking goes too far because not only do they want people to go along they also want them to give up their beliefs and believe the same way ideologues do to be Woke enough to pass the test.

Please don't use that claim with me, if you don't mind. I have explicitly stated that I don't care what your beliefs are. I really have no interest in them. Only when those beliefs affect other people, those I know and those that are close to me.

And you are sacrificing yourself to be polite? Oh, you poor man. How dreadful for you. What a martyr! An example to us all...

In the meantime, have you found the source of your incorrect claims about pronouns? Or would you prefer to retract them?

 

[stevevw]

Please don't use that claim with me, if you don't mind. I have explicitly stated that I don't care what your beliefs are. I really have no interest in them. Only when those beliefs affect other people, those I know and those that are close to me.

And you are sacrificing yourself to be polite? Oh, you poor man. How dreadful for you. What a martyr! An example to us all...

In the meantime, have you found the source of your incorrect claims about pronouns? Or would you prefer to retract them?

I guess we have nothing more to say to each other then if you are dismissing me out of hat and rideculing..

 

[stevevw]

That's bulldust. You immediately linked to a site that only addressed pronouns. Why do that?

'This disapproval of political correctness is a majority view across all age groups, according to the nationally-representative Australia Talks National Survey.'

It did not. It said nothing about political correctness. It only addressed pronouns.
'I think you will find the majority are sick of these things and disagree.'

And you were discussing Australian views as you linked to an Australian site. The poll on that site said nothing of the sort. You also said that 'This disapproval of political correctness is a majority view across all age groups...' Again, it said nothing like that.

You are making claims which are wrong and linking to sites that do not say what you claim. Either retract the claims or tell me where you are getting your information.

Here is the article and even the title states its about political correctness.
Australians say 'political correctness has gone too far' — but it's complicated

Has 'PC gone mad'? Australians have made a call

When it comes to questions of political correctness and freedom of speech, it seems our nation is having a bet each way, writes Annabel Crabb.

www.abc.net.au

here is the quote I was specifically referring to.
More than two-thirds of Australians believe that political correctness has "gone too far" and that their fellow citizens are too easily offended.

 

[Bradskii]

I guess we have nothing more to say to each other then if you are dismissing me out of hat and rideculing..

How about answering that question?

 

[stevevw]

It's called a "Gish Gallup", BTW. Throw a bunch of stuff and hope something sticks, I guess.

I think that can be a cop out to not deal with the content. Just because someone cites a number of articles doesn't mean its gish gallop. That just becomes a catchphrase. In fact academic rigor demands several supports the more the better if they all converge on the same evdience. Its called repeated findings which is a criteria for good science.

If you would have bothered to read the articles you will find they are not on the same issue. Two are from a Lesbians point of view, one from womens, one from men and womens and the last one is talking about the politics behind why this happens. So its a mixture of perspectives which makes for good support if they are all saying the same thing.

You're not taking the subject all that seriously. You're trying to equate a matter that affects actual people every day, often in serious and harmful ways, with farcical hypotheticals.

They are not farcical hyotheticals but real lived experiences the exact real lived experiences you say trans people endure. By you not acknowleedging this you are doing the same as what you accuse transphobes of doing. Some of the articles I linked are from organisations that represent Lesbian and womens Rights.

I am merely trying to explain that when we go down the path of identity politics individual and group rights will clash in that ones identities rights will deny or deminish anothers Rights at certain junctures. What one group wants to claim as a Right such as Trans being real women can delete the Rights of actual real women. Or some may see it the other way around where womens Rights are deleting Trans Rights. Either way there is a conflict that no one is dealing with and pretending doesn't exist.

This is not rocket science and has been written about by many on the subject. I have probably listed at least half a dozen in this thread but there are many more. Not from religious or far right sources but from LGB advocates, academics, professionals in the fields and philosophers.

 

[stevevw]

How about answering that question?

I have already answered it if you check about an hour or so ago. In fact just checked and its the post before this one.

 

[Bradskii]

Here is the article and even the title states its about political correctness.
Australians say 'political correctness has gone too far' — but it's complicated

Has 'PC gone mad'? Australians have made a call

When it comes to questions of political correctness and freedom of speech, it seems our nation is having a bet each way, writes Annabel Crabb.

www.abc.net.au

here is the quote I was specifically referring to.
More than two-thirds of Australians believe that political correctness has "gone too far" and that their fellow citizens are too easily offended.

But we're not discussing political correctness. That can mean multiple things to many people. The discussion is about transgenderism. And you specifically brought up pronouns as an example of how Autralians feel about transgenderism and linked to a site that said the vast majority had no problems with it.

Now you want to slide the conversation away from what people think about transgender people and talk about political correctness in general. It's a common method you use to avoid being confronted about your claims. That's not acceptable. That's not going to happen. We'll keep the discussion on track. About transgenderism. Which the article you linked to didn't mention at all. What it did mention which one might think was in some way related is that 'freedom of speech is often used to try to justify discrimination against minority groups.' Which could certainly relate to how people refer to transgender people.

So how do we, as Australians, think about what we are discussing? Glad you asked. Because we have that info here: New research shows overwhelming support among Australians on trans equality - Equality Australia

'78% of Australians agree that trans people deserve the same rights and protections as other Australians...Only 7% of Australians actively disagree with this sentiment.'

So as you see even from the title, Aussies are overwhelmingly supportive of transgender people. That's almost exactly the percentage that said they have no problems with pronouns as well, so that confirms the figures.

Your claims are shown to be not just wrong, but spectacularly wrong.

 

[Bradskii]

They are not farcical hyotheticals but real lived experiences...

You specifically used an example of someone claiming to be God. A real lived experience? Are you kidding me? No doubt you'll suggest that that wasn't what you meant. But you do know your posts don't just dissapear after we've read them? We can quote them.

'If someone identified as Christ should we then affirm them and use their pronouns such as My Lord or Almighty God at work.'

If that isn't a farcical hypothetical then your definition of farcical is not the same as mine.

 

[FireDragon76]

Thats good for your friends but unfortunately there has been a growing number of lesbians being silenced or attacked for what some transpeople claim is not recognising them as real women. I think the term Transpeople use is TERFS. Though I think this is an overreaction because most are just sticking up for the ideas that women as a sex are a unique category that has Rights.

There has also been a move by the LGB part of the LGBTIQ+ community to seperate themselves as they say their beliefs and Rights conflict. There has also been a rise in sexist and abusive behaviour by Trans activists against women in general but especoally lesbians which seems ironic considering women have fought so hard for their rights and now they seem to be regressing.

Part of the mantra of Trans ideology is that transpeople are the real sex they identify with. The logic follows that transwomen for example should be treated as women, like cis women when it comes to recognition and protection. So everything that a biological women can be and do a transwomen can be the same including being regarded as a women for dating purposes, sports, health and legal status.

Thus the removal of the word 'Women' as its too cisnormative. Women can now have male apendages and men females. There is such a thing as genital phobia where someone is said to be fixated on the genitals as the measure of male and female when it comes to sex and dating. Which aligns with Trans ideology in that sex organs as well as gender are said to be on a spectrum and socially constructed.

But that causes a conflict for those who only desire to be with someone of the opposite sex when trans ideology implies we should be willing to treat trans as real opposite sex when they are not 'in reality'. In other words the subjective sense of self is clashing with reality, the reality of biological sex. This happens across all situations where biological reality comes up such as in sports, change rooms, health diagnosis, mental illness ect.

So should heterosexuals be willing to really treat transpeople as the real identity for which transpeople demand is something yet to be determined. But its certainly the logical conclusion of the ideology and a real situation we have to confront. For example "do you think a transwomen for example should divulge that they are trans when dating a biological and heterosexual male and is it right for a person in finding out their partner is trans is it wrong for them to end the realtionship?"

Lesbians are being erased by transgender activists

Lesbians are being erased by transgender activists

When did ‘lesbian’ become a dirty word again? Perhaps it is since the trans-Taliban decided that we were a group of bigots and fascists, motivated by hatred of transgender people, existing solely to remove the rights of non-binary, sapiosexual, polyamorous blue fringed narcissists. When I came...

www.spectator.co.uk

Lesbianism is under attack, though not by the usual suspects

Lesbianism is under attack, though not by the usual suspects

Pressuring lesbians into dating people with penises is all too similar to the practice of corrective rape, wherein it is believed lesbian sexuality can be "cured."

www.feministcurrent.com

Will Straight Men and Women Date a Trans Person?

Will Straight Men and Women Date a Trans Person?

Gay, lesbian, bisexual, queer, and nonbinary individuals are more willing than straight people to date a trans person—with surprising caveats.

www.psychologytoday.com

Is the word 'women' being erased from the abortion rights movement?

As more groups adopt gender-inclusive language, some claim the word 'woman' is being erased

Major organizations and some politicians leading the abortions rights movement have shifted their messaging to be more inclusive of LGBTQ people.

www.nbcnews.com

The Far Right and Far Left Agree on One Thing: Women Don’t Count
“the word ‘women’ has become verboten” liberal institutions are denying women their humanity, reducing them to a mix of body parts and gender stereotypes.”

Opinion | The Far Right and Far Left Agree on One Thing: Women Don’t Count (Published 2022)

Tolerance for one group doesn’t need to mean intolerance for another.

www.nytimes.com

Is all your knowledge about this topic gained from talking heads and shallow media soundbites?

Whether or not average straight people would date a trans person is largely irrelevant. At one time, many white people wouldn't even consider dating a black person. It certainly doesn't invalidate a person's gender identity. Most people, gay or straight or trans, are mature enough to realize whom a person dates is their own business. Lamenting hurtful or stigmatizing ways some people have responded to the question, isn't the same as trying to determine somebody else's preferences.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think that can be a cop out to not deal with the content. Just because someone cites a number of articles doesn't mean its gish gallop.

BTW, for those that don't know, Duane Gish was an American Creationist that used this kind of tactic. He would throw alot of assertions out in a debate and try to overwhelm his interlocutor with details.

That just becomes a catchphrase. In fact academic rigor demands several supports the more the better if they all converge on the same evdience. Its called repeated findings which is a criteria for good science.

There's a difference between academic rigor and dishonest debate. In legitimate academia, you are expected to parse theses into individual points and defend them on a case-by-case basis.

If you would have bothered to read the articles you will find they are not on the same issue. Two are from a Lesbians point of view, one from womens, one from men and womens and the last one is talking about the politics behind why this happens. So its a mixture of perspectives which makes for good support if they are all saying the same thing.

Do you understand what media literacy actually is?

I prefer not to define my reality in very rigid and fixed ways by a few op-eds and surveys of people who have mostly not met or known any transpeople. It would be like asking somebody in rural Kentucky what they thought of Venetian architecture. You're statistically less likely to get an informed opinion.

They are not farcical hyotheticals but real lived experiences the exact real lived experiences you say trans people endure.

You seem to be hostile to the LGBT community and are appropriating concern. This is called "concern trolling", for those that don't know. You simply don't have any solidarity or intimacy with that community to be speaking for them credibly.

 

[stevevw]

BTW, for those that don't know, Duane Gish was an American Creationist that used this kind of tactic. He would throw alot of assertions out in a debate and try to overwhelm his interlocutor with details.

Well thats exactly what I am not doing. I am quite willing to discuss each and every detail if need be.

There's a difference between academic rigor and dishonest debate. In legitimate academia, you are expected to parse theses into individual points and defend them on a case-by-case basis.

We can do that if you want. I often break down issues to single points of debate. Its not just for academic rigor its also practical because how can anyone ever get anywhere if they are not on the same page. But I am willing to defend what I say. But that requires the other person engaging. if they dismiss everything as gish gallop, try to discredit the person or source without argueing the content then there can be no debate. I quite often make a claim, provide support and don't get any counter arguement to even get to 2nd base.

Do you understand what media literacy actually is?

I prefer not to define my reality in very rigid and fixed ways by a few op-eds and surveys of people who have mostly not met or known any transpeople. It would be like asking somebody in rural Kentucky what they thought of Venetian architecture. You're statistically less likely to get an informed opinion.

Yes and that is why I posted a variety of views from those within the LGBTIQ+ community and of those outside. It is only by understanding the many views that we can understand how Rights intersect. Its also good to have a variety of measures both quantitative and qualitative as each brings a different angle and both are needed to get a wholistic and balanced understanding.

If you are for a non fixed and less rigid approach then I would have thought qualititative research is best as this captures experiences, feelings, personal perspectives. This can best be achieved through informal questionaires and surveys. But quantitative support gives the big bigger which helps identify more factual data such as crime rates or mental health rates for particular groups ect.

But certainly the links I provided expressed the lived experience of lesbians and women which I thought would be valuable insight into how they are effected. Isn't that what its all about, how people are effected, their experiences.

You seem to be hostile to the LGBT community and are appropriating concern. This is called "concern trolling", for those that don't know. You simply don't have any solidarity or intimacy with that community to be speaking for them credibly.

Not at all. I know and work with trans people, many diverse people. Do you have any evdience for your assertion. Using the words "you seem to be hostile" sounds very subjective baseless. How do we know you are not suffering from some bias here against opposing beliefs and views thats tainting your view on this. Some people like to shut down discussion when they don't like what they here.

I have not utterered anything threatening, abusive and demeaning to Trans people so I am not sure what you base this on.

If those who disagree with Trans ideology are only expressing their belief and all beliefs and views are welcome under an inclusive society then how is ones sides views moral and the others immoral and hateful.

I would have thought under a relativistic society that there is no moral right or wrong when it comes to the different cultural and social worldviews out there.

But as I have been saying and why I began this thread was because there is this dynamically opposing positions where each side truely believes they are right and doing the right thing and yet each side is hostile to each others position. This hostility and polarization has really only happened in recent years with the onset of identity politics.

I am interested in why we now are fighting each other now over these things in the public square when they use to belong to the private sphere, the family to sort and not the State.

 

[FireDragon76]

Well thats exactly what I am not doing. I am quite willing to discuss each and every detail if need be.

We can do that if you want. I often break down issues to single points of debate. Its not just for academic rigor its also practical because how can anyone ever get anywhere if they are not on the same page. But I am willing to defend what I say. But that requires the other person engaging. if they dismiss everything as gish gallop, try to discredit the person or source without argueing the content then there can be no debate. I quite often make a claim, provide support and don't get any counter arguement to even get to 2nd base.

Yes and that is why I posted a variety of views from those within the LGBTIQ+ community and of those outside. It is only by understanding the many views that we can understand how Rights intersect. Its also good to have a variety of measures both quantitative and qualitative as each brings a different angle and both are needed to get a wholistic and balanced understanding.

If you are for a non fixed and less rigid approach then I would have thought qualititative research is best as this captures experiences, feelings, personal perspectives. This can best be achieved through informal questionaires and surveys. But quantitative support gives the big bigger which helps identify more factual data such as crime rates or mental health rates for particular groups ect.

But certainly the links I provided expressed the lived experience of lesbians and women which I thought would be valuable insight into how they are effected. Isn't that what its all about, how people are effected, their experiences.

It's internet heresay. It's not the same as actual interacting with LGBT persons from a place of respect. IT's not going the extra mile, it's more like the guy trying to take the speck out of his neighbor's eye.

Not at all. I know and work with trans people, many diverse people. Do you have any evdience for your assertion. Using the words "you seem to be hostile" sounds very subjective baseless. How do we know you are not suffering from some bias here against opposing beliefs and views thats tainting your view on this. Some people like to shut down discussion when they don't like what they here.

I have not utterered anything threatening, abusive and demeaning to Trans people so I am not sure what you base this on.

You've implied they are mentally ill and delusional. That's demeaning.

If those who disagree with Trans ideology are only expressing their belief and all beliefs and views are welcome under an inclusive society then how is ones sides views moral and the others immoral and hateful.

Transphobia literally get people killed. It's not exactly rocket science

I would have thought under a relativistic society that there is no moral right or wrong when it comes to the different cultural and social worldviews out there.

Just because we don't agree with your black and white worldview doesn't mean we are moral nihilists.

But as I have been saying and why I began this thread was because there is this dynamically opposing positions where each side truely believes they are right and doing the right thing and yet each side is hostile to each others position. This hostility and polarization has really only happened in recent years with the onset of identity politics.

I am interested in why we now are fighting each other now over these things in the public square when they use to belong to the private sphere, the family to sort and not the State.

I believe it just being a decent human being and treating other people with kindness. You seem to be fixated on religious ideology. I don't believe that's decent or good. Good religion shouldn't be about trying to just score some obscure intellectual point.

 

[rjs330]

Good grief, the absolute chutzpah of that remark. Unbelievable.

You have been given an example of you being politely asked to use a pronoun that a person is happy with. Let's say Mary from accounts would like everyone to use 'she' and 'her' when referring to her. She would be upset by someone referring to her as 'him'. Hey, no problem. We all know that she's been through a lot. Why would anyone want to intentionally upset her?

Except one person. He knows she'll be disturbed if he calls her 'him' but gee, he's got a belief that all this transgenderism business is all wrong. He was born a biological male so darn it, he is going to call Mary 'Him' whatever anyone else says and however upset she becomes.

And what do you think the response would be from all her friends and colleagues? 'Well, ol' Pete is just telling it as he sees it. No big deal. Mary will just have to get used to it.' What sort of planet do you live on where anyone who gets angry at someone's intransigence, who gets angry at their inability to treat someone with respect, who gets angry because they are causing distress to a colleague is the bad person?

If this was a social situation at someone's house for a barbie and he constantly refused to refer to Mary as she has asked and it was suggested that it would be better if he left because she is upset and not a few people are getting angry about it, then the guy who asks him to leave is the bully and he is the good guy being bullied because he is standing up for truth and justice and the American way?

And when he leaves we have this pathetic and plaintive complaint - 'Oh, poor me. I'm being bullied. Nobody has shown me the respect I deserve.'

Mate, he deserves no respect. He has been judged. He has been judged by Mary's friends. By Mary's colleagues. By Mary's family. By anyone who knows Mary. And you have the nerve to even suggest that he is the one being wronged?

What a farcical claim...

It's pretty amazing how bullying is accepted and encouraged and on sees no issue with it. It's quite astonishing really.

Mary politely says to a colleague that he wants to be called a she. The colleague politely responds with, I can call you Mary. I will address you as Mary and refer to you as Mary. But I am afraid that I am unable to use the pronouns she/her. I have no problem if you wear a dress and make up. Be my guest. You Mary may dress as you please and look how you please. We are w free society. I won't force you to look like a man nor dress as a man. But I simply ask that as I respect your desire to dress and act how you please and be called by any name you desire that you in turn respect my own convictions not to use language that goes against what I believe to be true.

Mary goes in to says I do respect the fact that you will call Mary and you won't ask me not to dress as a woman or r act like one. But by golly I will not respect your desire not to use she/her no matter what you believe. What you believe doesn't matter at all. What I believe is the only thing that matters and you WILL bow to my wishes or you will pay the price of rejection. Me and my friends will make sure that you are utterly rejected from coming any where near us and we will refuse to work with you. You will be an anathema in this workplace. Because my feelings are the only thing that matters. You MUST alter you language and speak the way I demand or you will offend me. You have no personal freedom in this matter. I don't care a wit for you convictions or your beliefs. You must bow to my personal wishes and beliefs. I appreciate your willingness to call me Mary, but its not good enough. You MUST go all in. Your beliefs are totally irrelevant and if you do not bow I will make your life a living hell as much as I can.

Hey everyone Joe said he would call me Mary and fully accept my dress and actions. But he said he won't use she/her prounouns. I am so hurt by that. That he won't go all in. We are going to have to demand Joe leaves and no one here will speak to Joe ever again. And no one will work with Joe ever again. All because he won't call me a she/her.

He tried to respect me and by beliefs as much as he could and I turn asked me to respect his beliefs. I say no. I don't care what he is willing to do, it's not good enough. Go Joe. Leave us. We will have nothing to do with you ever again.

Hmmm... And you have audacity to claim that Joe isn't being bullied to change his language? That he isn't being bullied into denying a lying about truth? This IS 1984 and 2+2=5 scenario. And you have the audacity to claim it's not bullying?

Unbelievable.

 

[rjs330]

You've implied they are mentally ill and delusional. That's demeaning.

Truth should never be demeaning. Understanding truth is the first step in healing. Millions of people are told they have mental health problems and accept it. They receive therapy for it and if it's bad enough they receive medical help to alleviate their issues. They are not provided therapy to give in to their mental health problems and given drugs to make them more mentally ill and dive headfirst into their mental illness and live it out every day while demanding everyone else do the same.

It's been defined as a mental illness. And has been for years. Forever we have agreed and understood that someone who wishes to cut off perfectly healthy body parts has mental health problems. If you walked into your kids bedroom and found your son on the floor holding his foot in his hand that he just cut off you would be rushing him into therapy as well as the hospital. What you wouldn't expect the therapist to say is, yes your son really believes he is a frog and so we must cut off his other foot and sew on webbed flippers so he can feel better about himself.
Would you sincerely believe that your son is NOT mentally ill? That he is not delusional?

Of course not and there is no way you would allow him to live his life with frog feet.

Yet you are more than willing to say it's perfectly normal for a boy to want to cut his penis in half make a fake vagina out of it crwye a fake hole in his body that he has to spend time every day shoving a tool in it to force the hole to stay open. That normal. That has nothing to do with mental health. That he can never have a normal sex life or feel sexual pleasure with a partner. In fact his whole chance at real love and deep connections with his partner are gone. But it has nothing to do with mental health.

No none of that has anything to do with mental health or delusion. Nothing at all. It's all perfectly normal.

 

[FireDragon76]

Truth should never be demeaning. Understanding truth is the first step in healing. Millions of people are told they have mental health problems and accept it.

American Evangelicals aren't doctors and aren't competent to offer medical or psychiatric advice in such a manner.

Yet you are more than willing to say it's perfectly normal for a boy to want to cut his penis in half make a fake vagina out of it crwye a fake hole in his body that he has to spend time every day shoving a tool in it to force the hole to stay open. That normal. That has nothing to do with mental health. That he can never have a normal sex life or feel sexual pleasure with a partner. In fact his whole chance at real love and deep connections with his partner are gone. But it has nothing to do with mental health.

You're the one seemingly obsessed with this idea of "normal", not me.

@Bradskii is right, I think this is down to a black and white worldview.

 

[rjs330]

This is typical of workplaces where employees are underpaid or overworked. It's a completely normal reaction to capitalist free markets.

I understand this. It's also becoming typical in workplaces that are not underpaid and over worked. There is a real mentality of doing the bare minimum and then expecting the employer to pay them more, provide all kinds of benefits and give them promotions. They bring all their personal life issues to work and want the employer to alter all kinds of things for them and then complain when the employer asks them to produce a little more.

Pay is insufficient and nobody sees this job as worth keeping.
2. Pay is insufficient due to outside economic issues like inflation or recession.

Either way....I'm not certain what is the case at your workplace. I feel like it's somewhat separate from the trend of people stirring up trouble by demanding that the company engage in some sort of social change or activist

My company is doing pretty well now for the most part. We've hired better people. What we saw for a while, and we still have one, is a real entitled mentality who only wanted to do what they wanted to do and the way they wanted to do it. Average or below average work and then they wined and complained when they didn't get promoted or got the new job position they wanted. Some had outside hobbies they were apart of and demanded the company bend over backwards for them so they could do their hobbies. They didn't care if it meant other employees had to cover the slack.

They are pretty much gone now as we helped move them along. The vast majority of folks we have now. Are less entitled and more willing to put in the efforts as requested. In response we are giving them added opportunities IF they want them. And more promotional opportunities.

But the attitudes of I want to do only average or acceptable work, but still want an above expectations evaluation job and promotional opportunities is still fairly rampant today.

Don't get me wrong, businesses should not take advantage of their employees. They definately should work to create a positive working environment, care about their people and do what they can to help them be as successful as possible.

 

[Bradskii]

It's pretty amazing how bullying is accepted and encouraged and on sees no issue with it. It's quite astonishing really.

Mary politely says to a colleague that he wants to be called a she. The colleague politely responds with, I can call you Mary. I will address you as Mary and refer to you as Mary. But I am afraid that I am unable to use the pronouns she/her.

If it was the barbie at my house, you'd be asked to leave. Plain and simple. If you can't show common courtesy to my guest/friend/colleague/relation then you are not welcome.

And if she's in the office and you refuse, and she questions you on it, then your reason would be 'Nah, mate. You were born male so you're still a bloke. You might dress like a woman and wear make-up and be called Mary, but you're still a bloke. That's obvious. And you can wear a frock and grow your hair, but it doesn't change anything. There's nothing you can do about it. There's no such thing as gender, it's just man or woman. You can have bits cut off or bits added but it doesn't change anything. You're actually suffering from a mental illness so I want no part of it and I refuse to use 'she' or 'her' when I refer to you'.

Those are all your opinions as you've stated constantly throughout this thread. Those are the reasons you refuse. So whether you think you should be truthful or whether you might soft peddle the reasons because you think a statement like that might get a response from some of her colleagues that you wouldn't appreciate, those are indeed the reasons.

So you'd be asked to leave. I've never worked anywhere where that attitude wouldn't get you immediately escorted to the door by security. But hey, maybe it's different with whoever you hang out with. Maybe you know people like you who have these attitudes. Maybe those attitudes are acceptable where you come from. I'd stay there if I were you.

 

[Ana the Ist]

If it was the barbie at my house, you'd be asked to leave. Plain and simple. If you can't show common courtesy to my guest/friend/colleague/relation then you are not welcome.

And if she's in the office and you refuse, and she questions you on it, then your reason would be 'Nah, mate. You were born male so you're still a bloke. You might dress like a woman and wear make-up and be called Mary, but you're still a bloke. That's obvious. And you can wear a frock and grow your hair, but it doesn't change anything. There's nothing you can do about it. There's no such thing as gender, it's just man or woman. You can have bits cut off or bits added but it doesn't change anything. You're actually suffering from a mental illness so I want no part of it and I refuse to use 'she' or 'her' when I refer to you'.

Those are all your opinions as you've stated constantly throughout this thread. Those are the reasons you refuse. So whether you think you should be truthful or whether you might soft peddle the reasons because you think a statement like that might get a response from some of her colleagues that you wouldn't appreciate, those are indeed the reasons.

So you'd be asked to leave. I've never worked anywhere where that attitude wouldn't get you immediately escorted to the door by security. But hey, maybe it's different with whoever you hang out with. Maybe you know people like you who have these attitudes. Maybe those attitudes are acceptable where you come from. I'd stay there if I were you.

Poor threats. The time has passed and increasingly employers don't want any drama from people who make a big fuss over their pronouns, sexuality, or gender....because quite simply, they aren't as important as people want to make them.

 

[Bradskii]

I quite often make a claim, provide support and don't get any counter arguement to even get to 2nd base.

Well, excuse me while I clean the screen. It's covered in cornflakes.

You just have to be joking. I have spent a dozen posts telling you that one claim you made was nonsense, that the link you provided said the exact opposite of what you claimed and asking you where you got the incorrect information from. You constantly refused to do that.

Eventually you gave another link, which was not even related to the matter at hand and tried to palm that off as supporting your position.

If any of your claims are questioned, you simply ignore it.

 

[Ana the Ist]

This is an unjust consequence.

It's a consequence. Unjust or completely fair are opinions.

But with a disrupted employment history, less experience, and so on. This all contributes to the systemic disadvantage women face.

She made a choice, no one forced her to get pregnant.

She can be fired after three months of unpaid leave for any other illness. Facing a penalty for being pregnant systemically disadvantages women.

Well that's the point. Pregnancy is a choice. No one chooses to get cancer yet the penalties in the workplace are far harsher for cancer.

I don't know that this conversation has any further to go. We have identified the barriers women face due to pregnancy discrimination.

You identified complaints women make when they occasionally don't get all the special privileges they think they deserve that men don't get.

You just think they're fair and reasonable (and should be even worse than they are). I'm grateful your worldview isn't actually the one influencing policy on this right now.

I think they're reasonable in certain circumstances, yes.

Which has nothing to do with his employer's obligation to provide a safe workplace.

What's the difference between my hurt feelings and someone else's?