When two worldviews collide.

[stevevw]

I'm not missing the point, I'm saying that people who have an issue with others' choices of partner are displaying a sense of misplaced entitlement. There's no law against discrimination in who you date.

Your not understanding what rejecting Trans people from the dating pool represents. Its not about individual characteristics and personalities that are usually associated with choice in mate that are being rejected. Its the entire class of gender identity thats being rejected out of humanity. Like I said it would be like you rejecting all whites or males based on descriminating on their identity as whites or males not being a real identity.

Some people complain about that, true. Whether it's a valid or reasonable complaint is a whole other issue.

If you follow through the logic of Trans ideology as mentioned earlier ie trans women are real women and laws and Policies around descrimination then gender identity is a protected entity. Or it should be as it garners the same status and protection as sex and race. So therefore any complaints should be taken seriously if the law is consistent. Doesn't matter if there are some or even one complaint.

My point is, sporting bodies can work through, each given the particular parameters of their sport, what might be fair and reasonable, or not. Without the need for people to act as if the world is ending because the question of appropriate participation transwomen is entertained.

The problem is nothing is being worked through at present. The determination has been made that in many cases especially at junior and adolescent level trans athelettes are dominating women. So right now its not fair and reasonable especially on women. This is a goode example where right now Woke policies are harming the sex group know as women.

I could go through why there is no way to have transwomen to compete against biological women. But basically its impossible because the determination is subjective.

I disagree. You can use someone's preferred pronouns without meaning anything with it other than that you wish to build and maintain a good relationship with them.

I think this is where people conflict and perhaps shows the fundemental differences in thinking, a bit like with Affirmative action and Trans Care model. I think going along with other peoples language represents a greater issue about the ideological thinking behind it.

Once you understand this just going along with pronouns is not just about building and maintaining good relationships but building and maintaining a delusion which threatens the Truths the West has come to know. That language and words represent the greater reality that the identity behind it is a real objective reality in the world which can be used to erase the truths and facts we have come to know including Rights associated with this.

Truths like the Freedom to use language according to your own belief about the world and reality using objective measures as well as the experience of human history when we went away from the Trutjhs we know work time and time again.

Considering the same ideologues claim that language and words actually create reality and are the only real truths in the world I'd be very wary about buying into the discourse and narratives of Woke ideology. So actually it does matter as to whether we go along with other peoples

Do you object this hard to every other workplace policy that might set limits to appropriate speech?

This is the fundemental problem I think. How can we both have freedom of speech and uphold the Rights of minorities. We have two different sets of beliefs, truth and fact in the world. Not just different as in like ice cream flavors but different fundementally by morals, beliefs that represent reality.

So that narrative becomes threatening, people don't want to even entertain the opportunity for that opposing position. Not sure how we would get around that. It use to be we could agree to disagree but as the OP says things have become more polarized and extreme.

I think if we were to at least take the identity politics out of things all workplace policies really relate to Freedoms and are the basis for Western Civilization. The Freedom of thought, speech, religion, politics, association ect regardless of identity are about having a dignified and worthy life because they allow people free will and opportunity.

Well there you go. We could. The world would not end.

It depend I guess on which side of the fence your on. Nothing comes without a cost. Like I said it may departmatize society at the cost of losing that connection we get when there is the freedeom to associate in the places we have made for certain groups like women spaces where they can gather without any threat or interference.

Well, that's a description of no change room I've ever been in. I think you might be letting your imagination run away with you a bit there.

In my experience, change rooms are cold, unpleasant, unfriendly places where everyone does their best to get in and out as quickly as possible, and pretend not to notice anyone else's state of undress.

But if its a change room with cubicles ie females only that is seperate from the public. This still doesn't solve the problem for many females that a biological male can still enter that change room in the first place. Most of the discomfort and concern is the idea that a biological male can enter a womens private place.

Thats why I thought when you said cubilces you meant without having a private and seperate room for those cubicles but sort of in public space like a bathing box but indoors. Thats why I was saying we would lose that space where women can gather to gether privately away from well everyone except women which can allow group association and all that goes with that. We would lose all that. Nevertheless I think there are many occassions where a sperate space for sex allows team interaction.

NRL comes to mind. Somehow I don't think a Trans man is going into that situation. In fact why is it always objections about blokes going ion the womens roon and not women going in the males room.

What? I mean, really? The mind boggles.

I know its a common sense idea isn't it. Unfortunately Trans ideologues don't necessarily want that because it implies there is something wrong with them and they need to be seperated because they are not really the sex they identify with. Once again the ideology hits reality.

Great. So let's not speak as if solutions are impossible.

I havn't said its impossible full stop. Only that the the solution now based on ideological thinking is impossible to bring about a fair and just society. I have mentioned a couple of possibilities that I think will work. NOt because ideologues or Christians or anyone believes is best but because they are self evident truths that we seem to have abandoned lately.

 

[Paidiske]

Your not understanding what rejecting Trans people from the dating pool represents.

No, I understand perfectly well. I'm just not agreeing that that is a legitimate complaint.

If you follow through the logic of Trans ideology as mentioned earlier ie trans women are real women and laws and Policies around descrimination then gender identity is a protected entity.

There are no protected entities in dating. Again, no one owes anyone a date.

The problem is nothing is being worked through at present.

Given that sporting bodies are adapting their policies on an ongoing basis, I don't believe this is an accurate claim.

Once you understand this just going along with pronouns is not just about building and maintaining good relationships but building and maintaining a delusion which threatens the Truths the West has come to know.

Yeah, no. Really, no. Using someone's preferred pronouns really doesn't threaten anything or anyone.

That language and words represent the greater reality that the identity behind it is a real objective reality in the world which can be used to erase the truths and facts we have come to know including Rights associated with this.

Or, you know, you could recognise that words change in meaning, and that we can use pronouns in a way which allows trans people to be referred to by their preferred pronouns, without in any way threatening objective reality.

I think if we were to at least take the identity politics out of things all workplace policies really relate to Freedoms and are the basis for Western Civilization.

Yeah, no. Most workplaces will, for example, have a policy that you have to engage respectfully with your clients, colleagues and other stakeholders. So just as much as that might require you to interact politely with your trans colleague, it will also require you to refrain from calling your colleague an illuminati baphomet mason alien reptilian shapeshifting porcupine, no matter how much you believe it to be true.

Workplace policies aren't about freedom. They're about creating an environment where people can work together safely and reasonably harmoniously, and clients can have a good enough experience that they are willing to continue to be your clients.

It depend I guess on which side of the fence your on. Nothing comes without a cost. Like I said it may departmatize society at the cost of losing that connection we get when there is the freedeom to associate in the places we have made for certain groups like women spaces where they can gather without any threat or interference.

I really don't think communal change rooms would be any great loss.

Most of the discomfort and concern is the idea that a biological male can enter a womens private place.

Which is why you don't set it up that way.

Thats why I thought when you said cubilces you meant without having a private and seperate room for those cubicles but sort of in public space like a bathing box but indoors.

That's a very good set up.

Thats why I was saying we would lose that space where women can gather to gether privately away from well everyone except women which can allow group association and all that goes with that.

In a change room? There is an argument spaces for women to gather and have conversations and stuff away from men, but I really don't think change rooms are some amazing place of communal sisterhood.

In fact why is it always objections about blokes going ion the womens roon and not women going in the males room.

Maybe women don't, in general, feel as entitled to barge into men's spaces?

I know its a common sense idea isn't it.

No, it's bonkers. If you're an adult and you need help getting into and out of your sports gear, you've got more issues going on than gender identity.

Only that the the solution now based on ideological thinking is impossible to bring about a fair and just society.

Not true. There's no self-evident truth that requires us to be entirely inflexible in the way we set up structures and systems.

 

[stevevw]

I don't see that - for example - a policy that says you shall not harrass someone by repeatedly addressing them in a way they find distressing, is "uneven."

Its the interpretation of what is distressing that is up for debate thats the issue. What can be regarded as distressing for one person may be just an everyday commonsense comment of behaviour. Like I said two different realities and thanks to Woke everything has become politized where people are walking on egg shells due to PC. Surveys show most people think its a problem.

Well, if (for example) your employer is working hard to brand themselves as a safe place for LGBTIQA+ folks, then their employees expressing hostile views is going to directly undermine and denigrate their brand.

The whole point is for employers to keep out of politics and not align themselves with any particular group. Thats when the problems start when employers explicitly take up one cause over another.

For example the Manly in the NRL wanted players to wear a Pride jersey but this upset the players from Islander nations which is was a significant portion of the team. Quantas boss heavily aligned himself with SSM and other LGBTIQ+ issues and this caused a backlash against employees who disagreed. Many felt intimidation and were scared to express their beliefs and views because the cultural position of the company was not neutral but one sided.

As I said, personally I dislike employers being able to control what you do when you're not working (including on your social media etc) but this is the reality we're in. I don't see it so much as a religious freedom issue as an employer-overreach issue, though.

No its the ideology creeping into the workforce likes its crept into institutions and politics. Its what they call going Woke except many are going broke. Gillett and Bud lite tried it but not only did they turn off the employees they turned their own customers off lol. Believe me its an important issue its not just about religious freedom but Freedom fullstop. Even the beginnings of a Totalitarian society if we are not careful.

In this situation, religion is a significant aspect of it, though.

Not really. People make the mistake of thinking the Christian position is based on a supernatural belief not connected to reality. But in fact its very much grounded in the physical world. So some beliefs if not all have good reason and are not just something a Christian would support.

You could say its about objective reality itself where one side believe in a world limited to human constructions which override objective reality. On the others those who stand by empiricle evidence, our lived reality in the embodiment of experiences of living together over a long time. Something ideologues reject as part of an oppressive system of the West even science designed to keep people down.

No, sorry, I don't buy this. We don't have to give up our own belief in order to engage respectfuly across difference.

Ok heres an example to show how its impossible apart from one side giving up their belief. Theres a growing number of companies who seel womens products deleting the word Women to align with Trans ideology ie a male can become a real female and therefore targeting just women is considered transphobic because some women don't have women parts but still need to be included.

This is based on the idea that because biological males can become females that now women don't have any clear set of physical traits and could have what is considered male physical features. So the advertising no longer recognises biological women as a unique catergory. Another is example is the common narrative of Cis women. Biological women are no longer just women but have to be categories as Cis because its a type of women as other non women can be women. Boy its a confusing ideology.

So considering all this do you think a women who believes there is only biological women which have been known for all history and which the science supports will feel conflicted when their identity (women) is taken out of the narrative and replaced with well a neutral term even a clincal one at that.

Do you think if the companies kept the word women and made clear their target customers were as biological women because thats what their products are designed for would this upset Transwomen. make them feel excluded when they believe they are real women. Here we have two dianamically conflicting positions where the language we use will acknowledge one and not the other.

Like with most situations like this I think the only way to address this is by telling the truth. That their products are for biological women but if non biological women believe they will benefit from using their products then they are welcome. Its simple really. But then maybe I'm wrong. Perhaps you have a better suggestion.

 

[Paidiske]

Its the interpretation of what is distressing that is up for debate thats the issue. What can be regarded as distressing for one person may be just an everyday commonsense comment of behaviour.

Sure. And innocent mistakes and misunderstandings can happen. But once you've been told, "please don't call me that, I find it very distressing," then there's really only one polite way forward, isn't there?

The whole point is for employers to keep out of politics and not align themselves with any particular group.

They probably want to align themselves with the biggest possible potential group of customers. Particularly in this day and age, people don't just care about your product and service, they also want to know that your brand values align with theirs. We're much more aware of the ethics of our consumerism.

Not really.

Are you honest to goodness going to try to tell me that opposition to the normalisation of homosexuality etc. isn't largely driven by religious communities? Because I don't see secular lobby groups along those lines, but I see plenty of churches.

You could say its about objective reality itself where one side believe in a world limited to human constructions which override objective reality. On the others those who stand by empiricle evidence, our lived reality in the embodiment of experiences of living together over a long time.

You could say that, but it would be a severe misrepresentation of the situation.

So the advertising no longer recognises biological women as a unique catergory.

Whatever you think of this, existing in the same world as this advertising doesn't require you to relinquish your own beliefs.

So considering all this do you think a women who believes there is only biological women which have been known for all history and which the science supports will feel conflicted when their identity (women) is taken out of the narrative and replaced with well a neutral term even a clincal one at that.

I see a variety of responses. Women are by no means all of one mind on these matters.

My own position is that saying "there are only biological women and science supports that" denies the science which demonstrates a developmental reality to the transgendered experience, and is a very unhelpful contribution to the discussion about how we might best use language in different contexts.

I also suspect that there's enough to deal with, trying to take into account the needs of transwomen and natal women, without needing cis men (who have no skin in that particular question) to tell us how we should think or feel.

Do you think if the companies kept the word women and made clear their target customers were as biological women because thats what their products are designed for would this upset Transwomen.

I suspect it depends exactly what the product is, and what its intended purpose is.

Here we have two dianamically conflicting positions where the language we use will acknowledge one and not the other.

And you know what, no matter what you do about language, you can't please everybody all the time. (That's a well-established and time-tested truth for you). But I think if you do your best to be clear, respectful, and appropriate, without outright refusing to consider diverse perspectives, you'll probably get it right enough, most of the time.

 

[stevevw]

Sure. And innocent mistakes and misunderstandings can happen. But once you've been told, "please don't call me that, I find it very distressing," then there's really only one polite way forward, isn't there?

Its still not as simple as that. The common sense understanding that people use is not necessarily a mistake or wrong or denying anyones Rights. Its common sense for a good reason in that that is how people naturally will react and respond to these situations. If we start denying this reality in place of subjective beliefs about reality then we are headed for trouble.

If say someone with anorexia said they wanted everyone to use language confirming they are overweight and needed to diet we would question the thinking behind the language. We would not want to encourage a delusion and further harming the person by going along with that delusion. So even if people are told it doesn't mean they should then go along. Thats part of the delusion that everyone needs to go along with the delusion and those that are not have the problem. .

They probably want to align themselves with the biggest possible potential group of customers. Particularly in this day and age, people don't just care about your product and service, they also want to know that your brand values align with theirs. We're much more aware of the ethics of our consumerism.

What on earth has human Rights or ethics got to do with say razors for shaving your face. Its should be sold on the fact that they are the best razors for shaving your face. Not for political issues that already deivide people. But Gillette had to throw in some Woke politics and they lost millions for it.

Sure if the companies activities are directly associated with a blantant breach of human Rights like an oil company polutting the environment or a company sourcing cheap labor and denying workers Rights. But don't turn some everyday prioduct into politics we have enough now taking over just about every aspect of life.

Are you honest to goodness going to try to tell me that opposition to the normalisation of homosexuality etc. isn't largely driven by religious communities? Because I don't see secular lobby groups along those lines, but I see plenty of churches.

Yes the disagreement mainly comes from Christians but the point is it often doesn't just come from Christians which shows that even Christian disagreement is not always just because of belief ie biased without a rational basis. We can often find good non Christian arguments against LGBTIQ+ beliefs including from the sciences and those within the LGBTIQ+ community.

You could say that, but it would be a severe misrepresentation of the situation.

How is fact and our Self evident Truths a misrepresentation of the situation. Often it is because of objective reality that we can know when something has no rational basis. I understand that say Christian belief itself can defy rational explanations. But the point is we don't go by that alone. We qualify things through rational and objective thought as well to keep things in balance.

Christians believe that God made male and female and a male cannot magically become a female. But the science and reality of our lived experience also tell us a male cannot become a female. That is true for a lot of Christian beliefs.

Whatever you think of this, existing in the same world as this advertising doesn't require you to relinquish your own beliefs.

maybe, maybe not depends on the strength of the persons self beliefs. But certainly a constant narrative that excludes your embodied reality will also erase it from the common reality after a while. Telling kids they can magically become the opposite sex if they want is very confusing and harmful. Afterall that is what ideologues believe that language, narratives and words create reality and by changing this they destroy the old normative language and reconstruct the new one.

I see a variety of responses. Women are by no means all of one mind on these matters.

My own position is that saying "there are only biological women and science supports that" denies the science which demonstrates a developmental reality to the transgendered experience, and is a very unhelpful contribution to the discussion about how we might best use language in different contexts.

What do you mean by "the science which demonstrates a developmental reality to the transgendered experience".

I also suspect that there's enough to deal with, trying to take into account the needs of transwomen and natal women, without needing cis men (who have no skin in that particular question) to tell us how we should think or feel.

Fair enough but as I mentioned this objection and pushback to Trans ideology is mainly coming from women, Lesbians in particular. As to men being able to comment under that logic no one could ever comment on anything like say youth crime, old persons experiences, human Rights violations in other nations ect.

But you are right that there is enough to deal with regarding all this identity politics where all identities seem to be at war and having a go at each other. Not good for a happy and united society. It seems the culture wars are increasing not descreasing.

I suspect it depends exactly what the product is, and what its intended purpose is.

Well the examples I gave you were from companies who sold womens products and services related to womens anatomy like pap smears and pregnancy. Instead of women who need a pap smear many are changing the language to people who need a pap smear for example. Do you thing this would upset women having the word women deleted and their identity group as a sex becoming netralized to just 'people' or 'anyone'.

And you know what, no matter what you do about language, you can't please everybody all the time. (That's a well-established and time-tested truth for you). But I think if you do your best to be clear, respectful, and appropriate, without outright refusing to consider diverse perspectives, you'll probably get it right enough, most of the time.

Language can be a weapon and in the world of ideological belief it actually has the power to recreate objective reality. I don't think that language is designed to please anyone except ideologues who push it.

I agree we have to be as clear as possible and be willing and open to hear all factors involved. So long as subjective perspectives don't become the only perspective and we keep hold of the truths we have built Western society on like rationality, Democracy, open mindness, free speach and respect for individuals we should come pretty close to a stable and fair society.

 

[rjs330]

And yet I see plenty of people dissenting, so... this doesn't seem quite right.

Sure on a forum. But not in a work place and not in a school. You could get fired for that or disciplined for that. You could be ostracized. For example there is a head of a school in New York who specifically works with kids with severe disorders. He and his staff are all clinicians. He had a large influx of trans kids and wondered what was going on. He used the affirmation model like everyone else and realized it wasn't having the effects of helping the kids like he thought. So he contacted Genspect and started working with them. When he started working with them and implementing their model he lost many of his colleagues as friends and resources. Why? Because there can be no descent. Some of them he lost actually told him they were scared of being ostracized themselves and so couldn't support him.

But he continued. And discovered he was actually helping the kids. Under his and his schools care the kids stopped transition and actually got better as they dealt will the issues that were going on with the child and his/her total well being.

S woman was kicked out of the place were she swam and worked out because she objected to a man being in her locker room.

Swimmers were told to get mental health counseling for dissenting to a man in their locker room.

People have lost their jobs for dissenting.

People demanded Professors be fired for dissenting and would have lost their jobs for dissenting except they had tenure and the school couldn't get rid of them.

Yes dissent is not allowed. Right now there are places where dissent is hate speech and you can be charged with a crime for it. No dissent is not allowed.

Wake up.

 

[rjs330]

From my point of view, that's what some other people in this thread are doing.

Your point of view doesn't matter. What matters are facts. And the facts are against you. Kind of interesting you didn't refute what I said. You just said it was your point of view. Which tells me I was correct. Cause you are spreading misinformation and not facts. Cause we can give you and have given you all the facts we need to prove what I said is truth. What do you have? Misinformation.

To be really honest, my church hasn't even got its act together to make their toilets accessible for folks with disabilities. They're well behind the curve on maintaining their facilities. But amazingly, the trans people in my church seem to have no issue around their use, nor does anyone else seem to have an issue around who uses what space. It's a non-issue here.

So the answer is no.

No. I dismiss the claim that other women's experiences mean that we cannot accommodate transgendered people in an appropriate way.

Right like not allowing them in women's locker rooms. That appropriate, but you are against that.

can't find any data, but they seem to be pretty standard here. Used one myself yesterday.

Oh, so its an all sex bathroom with lots of stalls where men and women go in side by side and do their thing and then go wash their hands side by side in the same area? Pretty standard eh?

Different places have different set ups.

So they don't. If I'm wrong please tell us the places that have these showers that allow men and women to shower next to each other and don't have separate men and women's facilities.

Because there are ways costs can be made not prohibitive, and I find focussing on the cost to be completely missing the point.

You still are avoiding the question.

basically refuting the demonising of transwomen and the refusal to consider ways in which everyone's needs can be met. I don't care whether we come up with this or another solution, my basic position is that blanket refusal to consider any possible solutions is both ridiculous and petty.

There is no demonizing of trans women. You are spreading misinformation again. You've come up with no solutions except for remodeling all the businesses to put in men/women shared bathrooms with a bunch of separate enclosed stalls in them and shared sinks. You've offered no cost of doing so and no way of paying for it. Same goes for locker rooms and showers.

You didn't address the point though again. You claim this is so rare and doesn't erase women's rights and then state we must completely alter society for something you say doesn't happen. If it it's not happening why do we need to alter society?

And you said "needs". Please tell me why a trans woman with a beard and man parts in tact needs to undress with and shower with women? Why is that a NEED?

Tell you what. Find me one place in this thread where the people carrying on about how terrible trans people are, support one single concrete practical suggestion to improve the lot of women. Rather than arguing against them at every turn.

Funny thing is no one has said a thing about how terrible trans people are. You are spreading disinformation. We are talking about what they want or are demanding. And saying no we don't need to do that. That's certainly not calling them terrible. It's only saying no. We aren't and shouldn't do that.

If you tell your kids no because they are demanding things? Are they terrible kids for doing that?

The trans ideology is terrible. Transgenderism is terrible. Transgender people are no different than any one else. Some are bad, some are good. Some of what they want is okay. Others things are not okay. It's okay to say no we are not going to do that. We are not going to completely alter our way of life because you chose to become trans.

 

[stevevw]

No, I understand perfectly well. I'm just not agreeing that that is a legitimate complaint.

So your saying Trans peoples complaints are not real, Lesbians complaints are not real or everyones complaints are not real. It seems your contradicting your own claims that we should listen to all perspectives and take them seriously.

There are no protected entities in dating. Again, no one owes anyone a date.

But there are according to the law protecting gendered identities. Rejecting or not affirming a gendered identity is regarded as descrimination. Transwomen are a gendered identity. By saying they are not real enough as a possible candidate for dating as an identity would be descrimination.

Given that sporting bodies are adapting their policies on an ongoing basis, I don't believe this is an accurate claim.

So those women who are losing to transwomen right now and have been for a few years now don't have an accurate complaint. We should tell them to put up aned shut up as progress will come one day where they won't have to suffer anymore. Seems rather harsh.

Yeah, no. Really, no. Using someone's preferred pronouns really doesn't threaten anything or anyone.

What do pronouns represent. Do they represent the reality of the Trans person or the reality for everyone. The reason pronouns are used is to reflect the reality of a persons gender identity. Like how he and she represents the binary of sex. So using Ze and Zer is actually saying there is no binary of sex.

That means a person who is aligned with the reality of biological sex in using he and she has to change their alignmemnt to reflect non binary sex. These words are not just pulled out randomly and only have surface meanings. These words are powerful indicators to the nature of what human sex and gender represent in reality or not.

So a person would have to pretend to celebrate a falsehood for the sake of the Trans or GNC person. Just like the Trans and GNC believe that mainstream sex and gender norms are falsehoods.

Or, you know, you could recognise that words change in meaning, and that we can use pronouns in a way which allows trans people to be referred to by their preferred pronouns, without in any way threatening objective reality.

OK does affirming a persons pronouns affirm the persons gender identity.

Yeah, no. Most workplaces will, for example, have a policy that you have to engage respectfully with your clients, colleagues and other stakeholders. So just as much as that might require you to interact politely with your trans colleague, it will also require you to refrain from calling your colleague an illuminati baphomet mason alien reptilian shapeshifting porcupine, no matter how much you believe it to be true.

I agree and all these are subjective beliefs and ideas that cannot be verified. But calling someone even a trans person a women or man is biological fact. Should we give up facts to keep people with these duluded ideas from being upset. All this would not have been an issue if ideologues didn't insist on not only having the right to subjectively identify however they please but that everyone else should accept their delusion as well.

Workplace policies aren't about freedom. They're about creating an environment where people can work together safely and reasonably harmoniously, and clients can have a good enough experience that they are willing to continue to be your clients.

By freedom I mean being able to work, make money, have a decent life, be valued without anyone restricting those freedoms. Just having a job gives a fundemnetal freedom of greater independence and avoiding poverty.

I really don't think communal change rooms would be any great loss.

Do you mean mixed changed rooms. Not sure what you mean.

Which is why you don't set it up that way.

But if Transwomen are complaining about not being taken seriously and treated like real women then wouldn't that mean allowing transwomen into womens spaces like real women are allowed.

That's a very good set up.

Yes it has been proposed before. But many Trans activists object because its just another way to reject them as not being real. They are not real enough to be like real women and mix with other women so a special seperate place has to be created to relegate them to. I guess thats a fair enough complain if they wanted inclusion into the main population as equal and not different. It sort of seems like Jim Crow laws.

In a change room? There is an argument spaces for women to gather and have conversations and stuff away from men, but I really don't think change rooms are some amazing place of communal sisterhood.

It depends. If its a team sports, a State team or an Olympic team where team culture and bonding is important then they usually do just about everything together. In the public its a bit different because they are just a facility for waste and quickly getting changed. But I know at work or socially at a pub the mens room can be a place/gathering talking about mens business and how things are going at work on the night ect.

Maybe women don't, in general, feel as entitled to barge into men's spaces?

Funny how you came down on the bad old oppressive men and missed the obvious. I think you will find that there is more to lose for women going in mens private spaces. For one they will never dominate mens sports and will find it hared to even place which is discouraging. They are also going into the lions den so to speak in that under any other ccircumstances women would not want to go into a male dominated private space with all that testosterone lol.

But blokes are tripping over themselves to get into womens sports and private places. I mean a bloke who is maybe 2nd last when competing against other blokes can become world champion of womens.

No, it's bonkers. If you're an adult and you need help getting into and out of your sports gear, you've got more issues going on than gender identity.

Its more than getting help with outfits. As mentioned in sports its usually the place competitors gather before they enter the battle so its about a common place to bond and just be together as a team, as team maters and moral support. If its at the pub its women, friend sometimes strangers visiting the bathroom to freshen up, catchup and talk about how the nights going.

Not true. There's no self-evident truth that requires us to be entirely inflexible in the way we set up structures and systems.

yes there is, I mentioned them before such as Innocent before the law or until proven guilty, Individual dignity and worth being made in Gods image, the Right to Life, Liberty and the persuit of Happiness. Freedom of Religion, Free speech, Freedom of thought and association, the Golden Rule and Enlightened rational thinking.

That no one person is any greater than another regadless of rank, nobility, or wealth, that a peasant has the same human natural worth as a King. That no man shall be judge by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.

These Rights are natural and inalienable and cannot be aribitrarily denied by individuals and even the State. As the US and other Western national Declarations declare "These are self evident". Thats because we learnt the hard way by not upholding them and seeing the resulting horror. These Truths gradually stopped horrors like slavery and have led the way in civil Rights.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Given that far more mothers work today than did in the 60s, it did compare them indirectly.

It doesn't compare them...directly or indirectly.

Which has nothing to do with whether or not they're homeless.

Then why don't we count all the soldiers? They're homeless too.

That doesn't mean they have safe secure housing right now.

Neither do the soldiers.

Well, a) when discussing homelessness, we need to take all causes into account,

Lol no....we don't.

and b) of course we can change society to reduce warfare,

That's cute that you think that.

and c) given that male homelessness is driven, in part, by war, it'd be a weird double standard to discount women's homelessness due to warfare but not men's.

We don't seem to be counting soldiers.

Except that there are demonstrably other factors in play.

I never said it was the only factor. This is the third time we've been over this.

You raised the question of hospitalisation. The original point was about providing flexibility around pregnancy-related health issues.

And I asked why we wouldn't treat them like any other health issues?

Not at all. If a woman chooses not to pursue education, that's on her.

Right.

If she chooses not to perform to her potential at work, that's on her.

Right.

If she chooses to behave as a social recluse, that's on her.

Right.

And so on. But being discriminated against purely for being a woman (and I include the burden of pregnancy in that), that's not on her.

If she chooses to have a baby, that's on her.

How hard is it to not cut off someone's access to their email?

They aren't at work. Perhaps it's a stand-alone system.

There has always been a diversity of views amongst feminists.

Uh huh. You're against abortion then?

Consequences that other people choose to impose unfairly.

Consequences to taking a year off work. That's quite a choice...why wouldn't it have consequences?

It has consequences for the employer. It has consequences for her coworkers, her replacement, etc. Why wouldn't it have consequences for her? It's her choice to take the leave. She isn't forced to.

I don't see it as fair for women to be discriminated against for having children (or having the potential to have children).

What discrimination? It's a giant benefit no one else gets.

Yes, I think the law as it stands makes it too easy for businesses to continue to discriminate.

What would you have them do? Assume guilt? Return to kangaroo courts?

When the person who took a fixed-term contract has their contract end, that's not a barrier.

They're unemployed.

When someone who took a permanent job

No job is permanent.

is removed from it because of becoming a parent, that's a barrier. In neither case does it have anything to do with merit.

In the woman's case it doesn't. She keeps her job regardless of merit....her replacement loses his job regardless of merit.

Whichever of them stays home and does the work of the primary carer. That's for them to work out between them.

Let's assume they don't agree or work it out. Who gets it?

At this point I think we were discussing return from maternity leave to any job. That said, I've seen leadership positions job shared very successfully and fruitfully as well, as both could focus on the parts of the role where they had particular (non-overlapping) strengths.

I haven't. It's always a disaster. There's no real accountability.

It's not fair that the biological reality of pregnancy exclude women from the workforce entirely during their childbearing years.

Many women choose work over children

Especially since some maternity leave means employers get to keep and benefit from completely capable and dedicated employees.

Or if they're incapable and undedicated...they have to keep them anyway.

But what does "no maternity leave" mean, then?

Think of how a man has no maternity leave. It's like that.

(Yes, I'm being facetious, but I honestly don't know what you mean by "no maternity leave" not meaning being fired).

Let's say employees accrue a couple of weeks a year of leave. Men or women. You can accrue 8 weeks or whatever before it's use or lose time. If a woman wants to spend those 8 weeks having a baby....viola! She has a baby. All fair.

She has absolutely no guarantee in this position that men don't get or have.

Can a man take a guaranteed year off work?

Part of the reality of doing business is having to take reasonable care of your employees. Reasonable care includes allowing women to have babies and return to work. And it's really not that ridiculous; when it's a cultural norm, like it is here, it just becomes part of how things are, and everyone copes fine.

You're not coping fine....it's a "barrier" if women don't get all their special benefits.

 

[Paidiske]

Its still not as simple as that.

(I've abbreviated some quotes in this reply in order to get the software to accept my post).

Of course it is. It's just that some people don't want to do it, so they find excuses not to.

What on earth has human Rights or ethics got to do with say razors for shaving your face. ...

You might think so. But I might, for example, be willing to pay a bit more, or go out of my way to buy, a brand which I know ensures fair treatment and payment of employees through its supply chain. I might have more brand loyalty to a brand which I know takes more care to be environmentally responsible. And I might feel more affinity with a brand which markets itself as supporting values which resonate personally. (And you can bet I'd avoid brands which market themselves with values opposed to mine). In fact, I have gone so far on occasion as to research whether a brand's claims along those lines appear to be true, and made my purchasing decisions accordingly.

That's the consumer culture we're in now. It's probably a bit unrealistic to lash out at brands for playing the game that consumers expect them to play.

How is fact and our Self evident Truths a misrepresentation of the situation.

You claimed: "its about objective reality itself where one side believe in a world limited to human constructions which override objective reality. On the others those who stand by empiricle evidence, our lived reality in the embodiment of experiences of living together over a long time."

That's just not true. This is not about one side (the more progressive) overriding objective reality and the other side (the more conservative) standing by empirical evidence. In fact, what I see is the more conservative side ignoring and dismissing empirical evidence that doesn't suit them.

What do you mean by "the science which demonstrates a developmental reality to the transgendered experience".

I mean that there is evidence that transgendered people have brains which have developed in a sexed way incongruent with their bodily development.

Well the examples I gave you were from companies who sold womens products...

I think it depends. Personally I had to read the sentence twice to even see the difference between "women who need..." and "people who need..." In this instance, it wouldn't upset me in the slightest. Surely the point is clear?

I would think, in this instance, the point about using "people" rather than "women" is to be sensitive to transmen who still need pap smears.

No dissent is not allowed.

Wake up.

All of us, when we're in situations like workplaces, are expected to abide by the ethos and policies of the workplace. If you can't do that, then it might not be the right workplace for you.

Your point of view doesn't matter.

Well then, my friend, nor does anyone's. But here we have at least two different points of view, and each thinks the other is misrepresenting the reality. Where do we go from there?

Right like not allowing them in women's locker rooms. That appropriate, but you are against that.

That's actually not my position. I don't think we should allow people of the other sex into sex-segregated spaces without first building agreement about that. What I am arguing is that that's not where the discussion should stop, but that we should keep working together to find the context-appropriate solution which works for everyone in each situation.

Oh, so its an all sex bathroom with lots of stalls where men and women go in side by side and do their thing and then go wash their hands side by side in the same area? Pretty standard eh?

That's becoming more and more common, although I was talking about individual changing cubicles.

So they don't. If I'm wrong please tell us the places that have these showers that allow men and women to shower next to each other and don't have separate men and women's facilities.

That's less common, although what I'm starting to see are sort of all-in-one cubicles with a shower and room to dry and dress, which then open directly into public areas.

You still are avoiding the question.

Because I think it just isn't all that relevant.

There is no demonizing of trans women.

No? You haven't seen the discussion of how terrible transwomen are for erasing women's identity and rights?

You've come up with no solutions except for remodeling all the businesses to put in men/women shared bathrooms with a bunch of separate enclosed stalls in them and shared sinks. You've offered no cost of doing so and no way of paying for it. Same goes for locker rooms and showers.

All I am trying to do is illustrate that we have options which can be discussed, and each local business or community can choose the option which works for them. I am refuting the idea that "nothing will work, nothing must change, trans people must conform to social norms that are dangerous or harmful for them lest we inconvenience anyone else in any way, ever." Which is what your position seems to amount to.

You claim this is so rare and doesn't erase women's rights and then state we must completely alter society for something you say doesn't happen.

Just because I don't believe transwomen are harassing natal women in women's only spaces at any significant level, doesn't mean I don't think we should do what we can to accommodate transwomen.

Please tell me why a trans woman with a beard and man parts in tact needs to undress with and shower with women? Why is that a NEED?

I'm not saying that's a need. I'm not even saying it should happen. What I'm saying should happen is that we find a safe and appropriate way for that person's needs to be met, which might mean not forcing them to undress and shower with men.

Funny thing is no one has said a thing about how terrible trans people are.

There is a consistent strand running through this thread, that trans people and their needs are a threat to women. That's what I'm pointing out. And yet, not one of the posters making that point, seems to see the real threats to women that come from patriarchy. It's a very selective concern for women.

So your saying Trans peoples complaints are not real, Lesbians complaints are not real or everyones complaints are not real. It seems your contradicting your own claims that we should listen to all perspectives and take them seriously.

The complaints are real, in the sense that they are really making that complaint. But complaining that someone doesn't want to date you; well, you can lament it as much as you like. I might even feel sympathy for your loneliness. But you're not owed someone else's romantic interest.

But there are according to the law protecting gendered identities.

When it comes to things like employment, participating in the economy, and so on. Not when it comes to dating. When it comes to choosing a romantic partner, you can be as discriminatory as you like.

So those women who are losing to transwomen right now and have been for a few years now don't have an accurate complaint. We should tell them to put up aned shut up as progress will come one day where they won't have to suffer anymore. Seems rather harsh.

I'm not saying they have to shut up. They can continue to work with their sporting bodies around what appropriate guidelines might be. What I'm saying would be unreasonable would just be a blanket "there shall be no conversation, about any sport, at any level, ever."

What do pronouns represent. Do they represent the reality of the Trans person or the reality for everyone.

I'd suggest this. Right now, some people think that they can only use masculine pronouns for biological men, and feminine pronouns for biological women. I'd suggest expanding the definition to using masculine pronouns for biological and transmen, and feminine pronouns for biological and transwomen. That acknowledges that trans people exist, that their gender identity doesn't match their biological sex, and still allows you to use the preferred pronoun without a sense that you are "lying."

Should we give up facts to keep people with these duluded ideas from being upset.

I don't see it as giving up facts, so much as recognising that the "facts" are more complicated than we have sometimes acknowledged.

By freedom I mean being able to work, make money, have a decent life, be valued without anyone restricting those freedoms.

Then what did you mean by "all workplace policies really relate to freedoms"?

Do you mean mixed changed rooms. Not sure what you mean.

No, I mean communal change rooms. If we shifted to a social norm of individual changing cubicles, I don't think we'd lose anything that we currently benefit from in having communal sex-segregated changing rooms. (In fact, I'd prefer it, personally).

But if Transwomen are complaining about not being taken seriously and treated like real women then wouldn't that mean allowing transwomen into womens spaces like real women are allowed.

If everyone, including "real" women, use the same spaces, then they would be treated like natal women.

But many Trans activists object because its just another way to reject them as not being real. They are not real enough to be like real women and mix with other women so a special seperate place has to be created to relegate them to. I guess thats a fair enough complain if they wanted inclusion into the main population as equal and not different. It sort of seems like Jim Crow laws.

But that objection fades if everyone is using the same thing.

But I know at work or socially at a pub the mens room can be a place/gathering talking about mens business and how things are going at work on the night ect.

And there's no way to do this in some area that doesn't involve exposing one's genitals?

I think you will find that there is more to lose for women going in mens private spaces.

In general, being the only woman in a group of men, in any setting, is pretty uncomfortable. There is almost always an undertone of hostility in the environment.

As mentioned in sports its usually the place competitors gather before they enter the battle so its about a common place to bond and just be together as a team, as team maters and moral support.

Never having been much involved in team sports, I'll take your word for it, although I really don't understand why bonding and moral support can't happen somewhere other than where you're getting changed.

If its at the pub its women, friend sometimes strangers visiting the bathroom to freshen up, catchup and talk about how the nights going.

The only time I've really seen significant interactions between women in bathrooms is when they're avoiding violent or threatening men. Or maybe if one of them is sick and the other is caring for her.

yes there is, I mentioned them before such as Innocent before the law or until proven guilty, Individual dignity and worth being made in Gods image, the Right to Life, Liberty and the persuit of Happiness. Freedom of Religion, Free speech, Freedom of thought and association, the Golden Rule and Enlightened rational thinking.

Absolutely none of these mean we can't adjust our structures and systems to allow for the better flourishing of different groups of people (in this case, trans people). In fact some of them, such as the right to the pursuit of happiness, and the golden rule, would positively require such adjustment.

It doesn't compare them...directly or indirectly.

If women, on average, worked fewer hours in the sixties and spent less time with their children, and women, on average, work more hours and spend more time with their children today, then the corollary is that it's not working that prevents quality parenting.

Then why don't we count all the soldiers? They're homeless too.

Not while they're on active service.

Lol no....we don't.

Why on earth not?

I never said it was the only factor. This is the third time we've been over this.

Your claim is unsupported, basically. You can't demonstrate that higher rates of male homelessness are caused by gendered IQ disparity. There are far too many other causes which explain the gender disparity.

And I asked why we wouldn't treat them like any other health issues?

And yet discrimination against women with pregnancy-related illness is rife.

If she chooses to have a baby, that's on her.

I'm sorry, I'm not willing to accept that it's right or fair that our reproductive biology basically shut us out of the workforce.

(Quoting has gone wonky here so I'm making my best guess about what some of your comments are referring to, but some bits are entirely unclear).

Uh huh. You're against abortion then?

In a soft sense, in that I wouldn't seek to make it illegal, but I'd like to see us build a society where it's largely not needed.

Consequences to taking a year off work. That's quite a choice...why wouldn't it have consequences?

It shouldn't have consequences that basically see women systematically disadvantaged. Because that is inherently unjust to women.

What discrimination?

All the ways employers then treat women unfairly, as outlined ad nauseum now.

In the woman's case it doesn't. She keeps her job regardless of merit....

She earned it on merit. She shouldn't lose it just for being a woman and bearing the burden of the female side of reproduction.

Let's assume they don't agree or work it out. Who gets it?

Whoever stays home. You don't seem to understand that there's a process involved of lodging forms, making claims... at some point they're going to have to make a decision about whose name goes on the documentation.

Or if they're incapable and undedicated...they have to keep them anyway.

No. Someone can be managed out for all the usual reasons. What they can't do is get rid of them because of the pregnancy.

Think of how a man has no maternity leave. It's like that.

Except without the bit about actually having a baby. Men don't have to choose between becoming parents and being able to work.

Let's say employees accrue a couple of weeks a year of leave. Men or women. You can accrue 8 weeks or whatever before it's use or lose time. If a woman wants to spend those 8 weeks having a baby....viola! She has a baby. All fair.

I can see an argument for not having parental leave over and above annual leave, but in that case I'd think you'd need more generous annual leave provisions. Eight weeks around a birth is not really that long. It might also depend on the nature of the role, and whether there are flexible conditions when returning etc.

Can a man take a guaranteed year off work?

As parental leave? Yes.

You're not coping fine....it's a "barrier" if women don't get all their special benefits.

It's a barrier when employers discriminate against women on the basis of pregnancy or potential pregnancy. That's the bit that's not fine. But the system itself works reasonably well.

 

[stevevw]

Sure. And innocent mistakes and misunderstandings can happen. But once you've been told, "please don't call me that, I find it very distressing," then there's really only one polite way forward, isn't there?

But what if its not an innocent mistake but just a natural, common sense and truthful response and the person doing the complaining is just deluded, taking things personally. What if its the person complaining who is mistaken. Are we now going to say common sense and factual responses are mistakes that need to be appologised for. Do we just go along with the delusion.

They probably want to align themselves with the biggest possible potential group of customers. Particularly in this day and age, people don't just care about your product and service, they also want to know that your brand values align with theirs. We're much more aware of the ethics of our consumerism.

Well they got that terribly wrong because they didn't actually align with the customers who were their biggest base. They actually chose to align with a minority and that turned off their loyal customers. Instead of understanding that they are seeling a product not a political view which is going to divide people. As soon as you get into politics you divide people and thats not good for business. Go Woke Go Broke.

Are you honest to goodness going to try to tell me that opposition to the normalisation of homosexuality etc. isn't largely driven by religious communities? Because I don't see secular lobby groups along those lines, but I see plenty of churches.

So heres the dilemma. Religious groups believe the homosexual lifestyle is morally wrong. Like someone thinks sexual immorality or adultery is wrong. So as a free society who supports religious freedom isn't expressing those beliefs legal and fair enough even if they offend some.

Afterall what is the basis for those who support homosexuality as being moral. As they believe there is no basis for morality then how can they get upset at what amounts to just a different opinion like a different opinion about ice-cream flavors.

You could say that, but it would be a severe misrepresentation of the situation.

Why

Whatever you think of this, existing in the same world as this advertising doesn't require you to relinquish your own beliefs.

But it does mean that those living in that world are being erased by the advertising. Once they included the word women to identify the unique person their products and advertising were directed towards. Now the word 'women' which identified them is erased from the narrative thus also erasing the unique identity of biological women.

I see a variety of responses. Women are by no means all of one mind on these matters.

You mentioned to me that I never acknowledged lived experience of minorities. yet here I have given several examples of how women are suffering and rather than acknowledge this you keep deferring things to it just being one view among many thus deminishing its importances. I would have thought as a Feminist you would be all over this.

My own position is that saying "there are only biological women and science supports that" denies the science which demonstrates a developmental reality to the transgendered experience, and is a very unhelpful contribution to the discussion about how we might best use language in different contexts.

No its a very helpful analogy because its truthful and in the end its best to tell the truth. What you seem to be implying is that we should avoid the truth and facts so not to harm anyones feelings and subjective sense of self which may or may not be good and healthy. Your assuming self felt identity is real and good without even considering that it may well be unhealthy and in need of some exposure therapy.

Sure there are times when we need to tread carefully, be curteous. But this is only to mask something that will eventually need to be addressed and confronted. The Bible tells us we need to be gentle with those who need help. But it also tells us to be truthful if we truely want to be free.

I am interested in what you mean by "developmental reality to the transgendered experience" as I suspect this is an important destinction that is not being discussed as part of helping Trans people.

I also suspect that there's enough to deal with, trying to take into account the needs of transwomen and natal women, without needing cis men (who have no skin in that particular question) to tell us how we should think or feel.

Under that logic no one can comment and help if they are not exactly the thing that they are discussing and trying to lend support and advice to. Wipes out all male therapist in working with womens issues.

But I agree that society has enough problems with culture wars not just with men, women and trans people but with all identity groups at war and telling each other to keep out of their business.

I suspect it depends exactly what the product is, and what its intended purpose is.

Well I was talking about womens products and services like the Pill, Pap smears, Mentral cycles, pregnancy products and services. These have traditionally been directed at biological women as we have known for all our history as the 'women' a unique and seperate sex. As the advertising went for example 'Women who need Pap Smears or Prenancy support".

To accommodate transwomen who may actually be biological males the Woke advertising now says "People who need Pap Smears or Prenancy support" or Menstrators instead of wiomen who menstrate.

And you know what, no matter what you do about language, you can't please everybody all the time. (That's a well-established and time-tested truth for you). But I think if you do your best to be clear, respectful, and appropriate, without outright refusing to consider diverse perspectives, you'll probably get it right enough, most of the time.

Yes this is a truism but you have used a false analogy to deminish the power of words in this Postmodernist society. It use to be that we were tougher and could take words that reveal and exposed the truth about ourselves and reality.

But now things have changed we have lost that strength of character and many have become over seensitive souls needing safe spaces, trigger warnings and language words have power to inflict violence which then actually provokes real physical violence. Its like "language and words can break my bones but stick and stones will never harm me. lol.

 

[Paidiske]

But what if its not an innocent mistake but just a natural, common sense and truthful response and the person doing the complaining is just deluded, taking things personally.

You know, if I said, "please don't call me that, I find it very distressing," and you continued to do so because you were insisting that I was deluded, I'd take that personally. And I'd find it pretty reasonable if someone else did, too.

Religious groups believe the homosexual lifestyle is morally wrong. Like someone thinks sexual immorality or adultery is wrong. So as a free society who supports religious freedom isn't expressing those beliefs legal and fair enough even if they offend some.

Yes. And nobody prevents religious groups from expressing those beliefs.

Afterall what is the basis for those who support homosexuality as being moral. As they believe there is no basis for morality then how can they get upset at what amounts to just a different opinion like a different opinion about ice-cream flavors.

Just because someone isn't religious doesn't mean they have no basis for morality. Secular ethics is a thing, and in many cases has significantly influenced religious ethics.

Why

As I said in my previous post, you claimed: "its about objective reality itself where one side believe in a world limited to human constructions which override objective reality. On the others those who stand by empiricle evidence, our lived reality in the embodiment of experiences of living together over a long time."

That's just not true. This is not about one side (the more progressive) overriding objective reality and the other side (the more conservative) standing by empirical evidence. In fact, what I see is the more conservative side ignoring and dismissing empirical evidence that doesn't suit them.

But it does mean that those living in that world are being erased by the advertising. Once they included the word women to identify the unique person their products and advertising were directed towards. Now the word 'women' which identified them is erased from the narrative thus also erasing the unique identity of biological women.

I really don't buy this argument. If our unique biology were really being erased, we wouldn't need such products or services at all.

You mentioned to me that I never acknowledged lived experience of minorities. yet here I have given several examples of how women are suffering and rather than acknowledge this you keep deferring things to it just being one view among many thus deminishing its importances. I would have thought as a Feminist you would be all over this.

Newsflash: there is great diversity of views amongst women, even feminists. You are repeating arguments made by a particular strand of radical feminism, but in fact those arguments are highly contested even within feminism. I would say they are a rather fringe minority feminist view.

I honestly don't accept that using "people" instead of "women" in information pertaining to pap smears is an example of women suffering.

What you seem to be implying is that we should avoid the truth and facts so not to harm anyones feelings and subjective sense of self which may or may not be good and healthy.

No. I'm saying you need to take into account the truth and facts around the sexed development of the brain, and the reality that for some people it is incongruent with the development of the body.

Your assuming self felt identity is real and good without even considering that it may well be unhealthy and in need of some exposure therapy.

The only references I can find to use of exposure therapy for gender dysphoria list it as a form of conversion therapy. Therefore it is both ineffective and harmful, and certainly not what people in this situation need.

I am interested in what you mean by "developmental reality to the transgendered experience" as I suspect this is an important destinction that is not being discussed as part of helping Trans people.

We've been over it at length in this thread. I am talking about gender identity being a product of foetal brain development.

Under that logic no one can comment and help if they are not exactly the thing that they are discussing and trying to lend support and advice to. Wipes out all male therapist in working with womens issues.

No, but under that logic, men telling women how we should think and feel about what it means to be a woman, is not really a helpful contribution.

To accommodate transwomen who may actually be biological males the Woke advertising now says "People who need Pap Smears or Prenancy support" or Menstrators instead of wiomen who menstrate.

Actually, I think it's more to accommodate transmen who may be biologically female. Since they may also need pap smears or the like while not identifying as women.

But now things have changed we have lost that strength of character and many have become over seensitive souls needing safe spaces, trigger warnings and language words have power to inflict violence which then actually provokes real physical violence. Its like "language and words can break my bones but stick and stones will never harm me. lol.

Have you considered why trauma-informed practice has become so important in so many fields?

 

[Ana the Ist]

If women, on average, worked fewer hours in the sixties and spent less time with their children, and women, on average, work more hours and spend more time with their children today, then the corollary is that it's not working that prevents quality parenting.

Your study concluded that more quality time with children, the better their outcomes.

Not while they're on active service.

Why not?

Why on earth not?

Because if you're fleeing an advancing army it's not quite the same problem as being homeless.

Your claim is unsupported, basically.

Really?

You can't demonstrate that higher rates of male homelessness are caused by gendered IQ disparity. There are far too many other causes which explain the gender disparity.

Here's the studies....

A Quantitative Review of Cognitive Functioning in Homeless Adults - PMC

Homeless people experience elevated rates of risk factors for cognitive impairment. We reviewed available peer-reviewed studies reporting data from objective measures of cognition in samples identified as homeless. Pooled sample-weighted estimates ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Average IQ of the homeless? 85. Then didn't even have a big enough sample of women. I don't know where your global estimates come from but they don't even appear correct for the country doing them.

And yet discrimination against women with pregnancy-related illness is rife.

Are we talking about not giving them work benefits still?

I'm sorry, I'm not willing to accept that it's right or fair that our reproductive biology basically shut us out of the workforce.

Nobody said that.

In a soft sense, in that I wouldn't seek to make it illegal, but I'd like to see us build a society where it's largely not needed.

Where what isn't needed?

It shouldn't have consequences that basically see women systematically disadvantaged. Because that is inherently unjust to women.

Let's imagine that I run a workplace and I tell all the workers one day that the women get a free 1000$. All they have to do is stop by the HR office and pick up their envelopes before they go home. Once home, the women open their envelopes and find some have gotten 1000$, some only 800$ some a mere 250$.

Of course, the next day they'll come in upset that some received 1000 while others got less. Have I created a barrier for some women? No. Have I discriminated against them? No. You see...the men got nothing. It's a bonus, a freebie, a benefit, a privilege. Sure, to the women who only got 250 when they thought they'd get 1000 it may feel like discrimination....but compared to the men who get nothing, it's not.

Only the men can claim to be disadvantaged in any way.

All the ways employers then treat women unfairly, as outlined ad nauseum now.

You've honed in on one benefit they may not receive 100% of 100% of the time. It's not unfair unless you receive no benefit....like the men.

She earned it on merit.

We can say the same of the person chosen to replace her. He likewise had to beat out other candidates for the job.

She shouldn't lose it just for being a woman and bearing the burden of the female side of reproduction.

She isn't. If she's losing, it's the consequences of a choice she made.

Whoever stays home. You don't seem to understand that there's a process involved of lodging forms, making claims... at some point they're going to have to make a decision about whose name goes on the documentation.

You're saying this as if they both can't fill out the documentation for themselves.

I'm sure there's plenty of documents going around so once it's found out they both applied....how is it decided?

No. Someone can be managed out for all the usual reasons. What they can't do is get rid of them because of the pregnancy.

Right....it's a guarantee against losing a job you haven't worked in a year. Something men don't have. See the 1000$ hypothetical above.

Except without the bit about actually having a baby. Men don't have to choose between becoming parents and being able to work.

Right...unless they have to provide for their family....which they do 99% of the time. They don't have an option to just be a parent...we've been over this.

I can see an argument for not having parental leave over and above annual leave, but in that case I'd think you'd need more generous annual leave provisions. Eight weeks around a birth is not really that long. It might also depend on the nature of the role, and whether there are flexible conditions when returning etc.

In 10 years I'm sure women will want 2 yesrs maternity leave.

As parental leave? Yes.

So they can take the same year off their wives are on maternity leave?

It's a barrier when employers discriminate against women on the basis of pregnancy or potential pregnancy. That's the bit that's not fine. But the system itself works reasonably well.

Then it's not a barrier. Women have recourse if discriminated against. They simply need evidence they were discriminated against.

 

[Paidiske]

Your study concluded that more quality time with children, the better their outcomes.

Indirectly. What it was actually measuring was the amount of time spent with children, which has increased (despite more mothers working).

Why not?

Because that's not the same as being homeless. That's like arguing that if I'm away from home for work, I'm homeless for that time.

Because if you're fleeing an advancing army it's not quite the same problem as being homeless.

It is if fleeing means you don't have a home. (Isn't that incredibly obvious?)

Here's the studies....

A Quantitative Review of Cognitive Functioning in Homeless Adults - PMC

Homeless people experience elevated rates of risk factors for cognitive impairment. We reviewed available peer-reviewed studies reporting data from objective measures of cognition in samples identified as homeless. Pooled sample-weighted estimates ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Average IQ of the homeless? 85. Then didn't even have a big enough sample of women.

I'm not arguing the point that you'll find more cognitively impaired people amongst the homeless population. I'm arguing that that doesn't account for the higher rate of homeless men than women.

Are we talking about not giving them work benefits still?

Have a look here: Pregnancy and maternity discrimination | Equality and Human Rights Commission. An example cited there is a shift worker being given fewer shifts after missing a shift due to pregnancy-related illness.

Nobody said that.

That would be the consequence of refusing accommodations around giving birth, and allowing discrimination against women because they are or might become pregnant or parents. More women would be shut out of the workforce.

Where what isn't needed?

Abortion.

Let's imagine that I run a workplace and I tell all the workers one day that the women get a free 1000$. All they have to do is stop by the HR office and pick up their envelopes before they go home. Once home, the women open their envelopes and find some have gotten 1000$, some only 800$ some a mere 250$.

Of course, the next day they'll come in upset that some received 1000 while others got less. Have I created a barrier for some women? No. Have I discriminated against them? No. You see...the men got nothing. It's a bonus, a freebie, a benefit, a privilege. Sure, to the women who only got 250 when they thought they'd get 1000 it may feel like discrimination....but compared to the men who get nothing, it's not.

Only the men can claim to be disadvantaged in any way.

This is not analogous to giving birth. Women are disadvantaged by giving birth, unless we put in place protections around that.

We can say the same of the person chosen to replace her. He likewise had to beat out other candidates for the job.

But what he applied for and was appointed to was a fixed-term, maternity leave contract. He took it with the understanding that it would end.

She isn't. If she's losing, it's the consequences of a choice she made.

Women don't choose to be born women. It's not fair to expect women to be disadvantaged by the biology of reproduction.

You're saying this as if they both can't fill out the documentation for themselves.

So I did some investigation (online government systems being much more sophisticated now than they were when I did this) and it turns out that both parents need to fill in an agreement. It looks as if nobody gets paid until both have done their bit. That's for paid parental leave. (Provisions are different for single parents). For unpaid leave with your workplace, unless both partners are in the same workplace I really have no idea if anyone even checks.

Right....it's a guarantee against losing a job you haven't worked in a year.

You're only guaranteed the right to come back. If you come back and are then incompetent or otherwise don't do your job, you have no guarantee of keeping it.

Right...unless they have to provide for their family....which they do 99% of the time.

No, I'm saying that having a child at all isn't something which drives men out of the workforce.

They don't have an option to just be a parent...we've been over this.

About 30% of heterosexual couples have women as the higher earner.

In 10 years I'm sure women will want 2 yesrs maternity leave.

I'm not quite sure why we settled on a year. I guess it's a nice round number and it corresponds with the length of time for which breastfeeding is recommended. Different countries have different lengths of time available and I don't think there's anything particularly necessary about that exact number, though.

So they can take the same year off their wives are on maternity leave?

Parental leave is given to the child's primary carer. It's not given to both parents simultaneously.

Then it's not a barrier. Women have recourse if discriminated against. They simply need evidence they were discriminated against.

Which is notoriously difficult to prove to a legal standard. It's not an adequate protection. We need cultural change as much as legal provisions.

 

[stevevw]

(I've abbreviated some quotes in this reply in order to get the software to accept my post).

Of course it is. It's just that some people don't want to do it, so they find excuses not to.

You might think so. But I might, for example, be willing to pay a bit more, or go out of my way to buy, a brand which I know ensures fair treatment and payment of employees through its supply chain. I might have more brand loyalty to a brand which I know takes more care to be environmentally responsible. And I might feel more affinity with a brand which markets itself as supporting values which resonate personally. (And you can bet I'd avoid brands which market themselves with values opposed to mine). In fact, I have gone so far on occasion as to research whether a brand's claims along those lines appear to be true, and made my purchasing decisions accordingly.

That's the consumer culture we're in now. It's probably a bit unrealistic to lash out at brands for playing the game that consumers expect them to play.

Thats silly and unreal. Today people are dictated by costs. They buy what they can afford mostly regadless of where it comes from and who made it. Otherwise we would have to wipe out most of our products as they come from China who is known for unethical treatment. Big business are not really interested in social ethics but rather the bottom line. In fact if they do see any benefit in being socially aware its about it increasing their bottom line and not because they truely care. That is what our economic culture is about 'Consumerism' and material ealth.

No sense buying an inferior product whose company claims they care when theres a superior product who doesn't get involved in politics and just cares about producing a quality produce and good value.

You claimed: "its about objective reality itself where one side believe in a world limited to human constructions which override objective reality. On the others those who stand by empiricle evidence, our lived reality in the embodiment of experiences of living together over a long time."

That's just not true. This is not about one side (the more progressive) overriding objective reality and the other side (the more conservative) standing by empirical evidence. In fact, what I see is the more conservative side ignoring and dismissing empirical evidence that doesn't suit them.

I never said that each side has to consist of certain political or religious beliefs. I was talking generally regardless of politics and religion that everything comes down to either one that believes in something beyond our material existence at play or that everything has a naturalistic basis where nature itself including human nature is a construction that can be reduced by its parts to explain its being.

It is this difference in assumption and belief that influences thinking about all else including socially and culturally where everything is seen as within the control of humans who can manipulate nature because its just a materialistic construction without any purpose beyond its material mechanisms. As opposed to their being a God or some god or entity that gives purpose and design in nature and reality.

I mean that there is evidence that transgendered people have brains which have developed in a sexed way incongruent with their bodily development.

I agree. But this then does not mean that because this has happened (a developmental abnormality) this should then be celebrated as a normal and healthy variation of being human. There are neurological, genetic and biological development anomolies that cause many disorders. Theres a genetic and neurological aspect to anorexia. But we don't then make society affirm this as a normal variation that is protected by Rights.

We name it for what it is so that we have better understand how to treat it and help the person live with it. But what happens with Trans care is that they create the "Trans/GNC child" as being a normal variation of humans who exist on a spectrum. Like making for example physical deformaties a spectrum where hands exist within the normal development having various numbers of fingers and deformed shapes. All being a normal variation within humans rather than a developmental issue.

But Trans is only part of it and not everyone has the opposite sex/gender brains. Like with 'Sudden Onset Gender Dysphoria' where especially females suddenly identify trans without history or any neurological basis but rather its suspected as a social contagion where young people already body sensitive are easily influenced into these identities.

Then there are gays and lesbians who have a high % of trans feelings when young but then grow out of it to become same sex attracted. Though there is some connection with sexed brains between GNC and being samme sex attracted but not consistent. Then there is Autogynephilia where a male just gets sexual kicks seeing himself dressed as a women. Its a complex issue we are still trying to fully understand.

I think it depends. Personally I had to read the sentence twice to even see the difference between "women who need..." and "people who need..." In this instance, it wouldn't upset me in the slightest. Surely the point is clear?

When you consider this one instance is part of a greater narrative being pushed it all adds up to a concerted effort to erase women out of the picture. For the Postmodernist ideologue words create reality. Saying people implies anyone and not just unique women as the reality of their sex. This is not just about being inclusive there is a specific political Marxist type agenda behind it if you understand the academics behind it.

I would think, in this instance, the point about using "people" rather than "women" is to be sensitive to transmen who still need pap smears.

Thats one side of the thinking. The other is that it also makes transwomen feel included because they need to be seen as truely being the opposite sex.

So in some ways its a double whammy for biological women because they not only have biological men invading their space posed as women they also have socially constructed men raining in on their parade. Its part of the confusing idea that sex and gender are just a social construction so now women can have male sex organs and men can have womens and theres no fixed and natural state of being as God created at all..

The complaints are real, in the sense that they are really making that complaint. But complaining that someone doesn't want to date you; well, you can lament it as much as you like. I might even feel sympathy for your loneliness. But you're not owed someone else's romantic interest.

I am not sure why you keep denying the reality of this situation. Whether you truely don't see it or you are avoiding the logical conclusion. They are not complaining that someone doesn't want to date the individual they are complaining that women are deleting an entire identity because they don't recognise them as real women.

Your sort of denying transwomen by denying their complaints on this. Not that I agree with them but this is what being Woke claims. Theres no consistency.

When it comes to things like employment, participating in the economy, and so on. Not when it comes to dating. When it comes to choosing a romantic partner, you can be as discriminatory as you like.

Not if you reject an entire identity group like blacks, or men or Trans as being a real identity group. Then your rejecting people based on their race, sex or gender.

I'm not saying they have to shut up. They can continue to work with their sporting bodies around what appropriate guidelines might be. What I'm saying would be unreasonable would just be a blanket "there shall be no conversation, about any sport, at any level, ever."

The problem is with these ideas like Trans ideology and CRT they have already been implementeed as a belief which now influences policy. So there was no conversation with those who disagreed in the first place. This is enforced social engineering in the true Marxist fashion. The voices of those objecting to these silly ideas are speaking out because they are not being listened to and its now got to the point where these silly ideas are harming people, denying their Rights.

The only ones being unreasonable are the ideologues who push this. But I have noticed that the pushback is beginning to have an effect and more people are beginning to see the ideology for what it is.

I'd suggest this. Right now, some people think that they can only use masculine pronouns for biological men, and feminine pronouns for biological women. I'd suggest expanding the definition to using masculine pronouns for biological and transmen, and feminine pronouns for biological and transwomen. That acknowledges that trans people exist, that their gender identity doesn't match their biological sex, and still allows you to use the preferred pronoun without a sense that you are "lying."

Trouble is Trans ideology won't allow this as it pushes the binary rather than the spectrum. It reinforces male/female, he/she. It doesn't acknowledge that a lot of Trans and GNC people are neither, both, or some alternative gender identity among 50 plus and counting.

I think the best way is to allow people to use their pronouns when they can but the rule is you can't make others use them if they don't want to. If they don't use them then bad luck thats life. Just like we don't get to win every time.

But that doesn't mean either side should be upset with each other, its just a socially constructed label that has little meaning in the end. What counts is we are all unique human individuals regardless of our disabilities, abilities and identity. That way everyone is honest with each other and accepts them warts and all.

I don't see it as giving up facts, so much as recognising that the "facts" are more complicated than we have sometimes acknowledged.

Yes I think facts alone don't tell the whole story of human behaviour and life. This is actually a very important point in being open to all considerations that may influence things. But in saying that my point was the science and objective facts are probably one of the more important aspects we need to consider as they qualify things from being in line with reality or not.

All things should converge where our experience, senses, add up and substanciate things. Mind mind might tell me I can fly but a sudden flash of reality steps in when the thought of broken bodies hitting hard earth from a distance lol. Someone might think they are over

Then what did you mean by "all workplace policies really relate to freedoms"?

That fundementally the freedom to life and all it entalis underpins all human Rights which underpin workplace ethical codes of conduct.

No, I mean communal change rooms. If we shifted to a social norm of individual changing cubicles, I don't think we'd lose anything that we currently benefit from in having communal sex-segregated changing rooms. (In fact, I'd prefer it, personally).

Are you saying like an enclosed room with individual multisex changing cubicles in it. A male or female can walk into the room and go into a vacant cubicle.

If everyone, including "real" women, use the same spaces, then they would be treated like natal women.

Yes there would be no destinction about what sex or gender uses the change room. I think this would work apart from losing the aspect of the special space associated with having things seperate. Especially in team sports where the team needs to get together.

The problem is though this is only dealing with a symptom and not the cause of why we have ended up with the silly situation of biological males entering womens spaces and sports. Like with any social issue treating the symptom will not deal with the root cause. In fact it can give a false sense of dealing with the issue.

But that objection fades if everyone is using the same thing.

Not really, I think its a bit like Affirmative action and it actually accentuates the problem by the fact that a norm is not being changed naturally but sort of being forced upon people by a minority which seems unfair and trying to socially engineer society to a particular belief about how we should live together. This may create resentment rather than being fair and just and lead to more division.

And there's no way to do this in some area that doesn't involve exposing one's genitals?

Its not just about exposing genitals but just personal stuff between the sexes. Could you imagine a couple of blokes or women were speaking about potential interests they met positively or negatively and they walk in or a women walks in to the men having the personal chat. It would go down like a led balloon. Its more than just a toilet or change room in certain situations.

In general, being the only woman in a group of men, in any setting, is pretty uncomfortable. There is almost always an undertone of hostility in the environment.

The point is we don't here the same level of protest and demaneds for women to enter mens sports and private areas which shows its more than just about equality and inclusion. The same with equality of work and pay. We hear protest about women not being equally represented in high profile positions like company boards and politics but we hear little about the massive unrepresentation of women in brick laying and oil rigging. Like its more about envy and resentment over power and priviledge.

Never having been much involved in team sports, I'll take your word for it, although I really don't understand why bonding and moral support can't happen somewhere other than where you're getting changed.

Well its just convient and avoids unecessary mucking around from room to room. Each side or school, State or nation will have an allocated change room. Usually with lockers, bench space, showers sometimes open showers and an area where they can sit to talk about the game and bond pre game or event. But even for just 2 or 3 individuals where they can get changed and speak about the coming event together in private.

The only time I've really seen significant interactions between women in bathrooms is when they're avoiding violent or threatening men. Or maybe if one of them is sick and the other is caring for her.

Well now thanks to Woke ideologues womens bathrooms are not even safe because they can legally enter them now. But you probably need to go to a public even like the pub or club and you will find that the toilets are a common place where people gather not just to releve themselves. Put on a bit of makeup ask their friend how they look and gather themselves. Ever notice when one female in the group excuses themselves to the toilet 2 or 3 follow.

Absolutely none of these mean we can't adjust our structures and systems to allow for the better flourishing of different groups of people (in this case, trans people). In fact some of them, such as the right to the pursuit of happiness, and the golden rule, would positively require such adjustment.

You said there were no Truths at all not in how we apply these truths. As though there are no truths and truth is relative. Truth is either truth or not truth. Fact is either objective or not a fact at all but a subjective determination. Don't confuse that there are different suvbjective positions and therefore theres no objective truth.

The problem at the moment is the other way around where these Western Truths and Facts are being undermined because Postmodernist ideologues think these Truths and Fcats don't exist and that they can be adjusted.

We already had the Golden Rule and the Right to persuit of happiness down pat and lived that way. But then ideologues decided that this was not good enough and implemented a new self created truth of identity politics where happiness is rooted in subjective identity and the Golden Rule is out the window because how we treat people now is basede on minority group identity and not the common human identity. So each group gets to be valued according to their identity which is very unfair and divisive.

 

[Paidiske]

Thats silly and unreal. Today people are dictated by costs. They buy what they can afford mostly regadless of where it comes from and who made it.

If that were true, fair trade certification wouldn't be a thing. But it is.

In fact if they do see any benefit in being socially aware its about it increasing their bottom line and not because they truely care.

I believe that was the point I was making. They engage in this kind of posturing in order to attract consumers who make values-based purchasing decisions.

I was talking generally regardless of politics and religion that everything comes down to either one that believes in something beyond our material existence at play or that everything has a naturalistic basis where nature itself including human nature is a construction that can be reduced by its parts to explain its being.

Yeah, no. I still don't think that's an accurate description of our disagreements (consider, for example, that you and I are disagreeing so consistently yet both believe in something beyond our material existence at play).

I agree.

Okay. So acknowledging this, does not threaten the identity of cis or natal women (which is the point I was originally making there).

Theres a genetic and neurological aspect to anorexia. But we don't then make society affirm this as a normal variation that is protected by Rights.

Well, to some extent we do. You can't discriminate against or mistreat someone on the basis of an eating disorder, either.

I am not sure why you keep denying the reality of this situation.

I"m not denying the reality of the situation. I'm saying that complaining because someone doesn't want to date you is a bit like complaining because it's raining. It might be true that it's raining, you have every right to not like that it's raining, but you don't get to change the fact that it's raining. Similarly, it might be true that someone, or even lots of someones, don't want to date you, you have every right to not like that fact, but since nobody owes you a date and you're not entitled to their romantic affection, at the end of the day it's still going to be true. They're not required to date you.

Your sort of denying transwomen by denying their complaints on this.

The complaint is real, but what are you going to do? Nobody owes anybody a date. Otherwise we end up in those incel-fantasy nightmares where rape is legal or the government provides sex workers to everyone who can't get a date, but I'm not exactly keen on going down that rabbit hole, are you?

Not if you reject an entire identity group like blacks, or men or Trans as being a real identity group. Then your rejecting people based on their race, sex or gender.

Which, when it comes to dating, you are perfectly entitled to do. See the above point that nobody owes anybody a date. You have every right to have personal preferences or requirements around who you choose as a romantic partner.

That may or may not make you a very nice person, in some cases, but it's reality.

Trouble is Trans ideology won't allow this as it pushes the binary rather than the spectrum.

If you're using someone's preferred pronouns, nobody knows (or needs to know) how you're rationalising it in your own mind.

I think the best way is to allow people to use their pronouns when they can but the rule is you can't make others use them if they don't want to.

And how do you then prevent misgendering as, say, a workplace bullying issue?

But that doesn't mean either side should be upset with each other, its just a socially constructed label that has little meaning in the end.

Aren't you the one arguing that it points to some unchanging transcendant truth and therefore it's lying to use someone's preferred pronouns? If it's just a socially constructed label, why on earth can't you use someone's preferred pronoun?

Are you saying like an enclosed room with individual multisex changing cubicles in it. A male or female can walk into the room and go into a vacant cubicle.

Something like that, yes.

I think this would work apart from losing the aspect of the special space associated with having things seperate. Especially in team sports where the team needs to get together.

Why on earth do they need to get together in the same space that they get naked?

The problem is though this is only dealing with a symptom and not the cause of why we have ended up with the silly situation of biological males entering womens spaces and sports.

It's an example of the fact that practical matters can be worked through with a bit of goodwill and creative problem solving.

...This may create resentment rather than being fair and just and lead to more division.

If people resent being hospitable to other people, maybe we need to work on building healthy communities, in general. (NB: whether something is fair or just is not measured by whether or not people resent it. People resent all sorts of things which are fair and just. Think of Ahab being resentful because Naboth wouldn't sell him his vineyard!)

Its not just about exposing genitals but just personal stuff between the sexes...Its more than just a toilet or change room in certain situations.

Maybe I'm just not very sociable in these settings, but I'm really not seeing this as a strong argument for communal sex-segregated spaces.

The point is we don't here the same level of protest and demaneds for women to enter mens sports and private areas which shows its more than just about equality and inclusion.

Lol. We've been fighting for women to enter men's-only areas for about a century now. We've broken down a lot of those barriers already, although some bastions of male privilege remain. (I once stayed as a guest at the Melbourne Club - there's a long story about that - and that was an experience in the erasure of women. Not even allowed to use the staircase, but having to use the back elevator, lest a woman be seen in the public spaces in the club).

We hear protest about women not being equally represented in high profile positions like company boards and politics but we hear little about the massive unrepresentation of women in brick laying and oil rigging.

Did you see the links I posted earlier in the thread about barriers women face in the construction industry?

Ever notice when one female in the group excuses themselves to the toilet 2 or 3 follow.

In primary school, maybe.

You said there were no Truths at all not in how we apply these truths.

No, I said (in post #1,682), "There's no self-evident truth that requires us to be entirely inflexible in the way we set up structures and systems."

We already had the Golden Rule and the Right to persuit of happiness down pat and lived that way.

No, we didn't! We never have! That's why there have been all these movements in the first place.

And here's an interesting thing; Locke's idea of the "pursuit of happiness" (and the wider writings in which he discussed it) were important for the American and French revolutions, but much less important for the British Empire and the countries to which it gave rise, including our own. It's never been a particularly Australian principle.

 

[stevevw]

If that were true, fair trade certification wouldn't be a thing. But it is.

Fair trade, when has fair trade ever considered ethics. China supplies around 25% of Australias total manufactored imports and Australia exports around 15% of its coal to China's, you know that nasty stuff that pollutes the planet. China is one of the worlds biggest violators of human Rights. Where is the fair and ethical trade in all that.

I believe that was the point I was making. They engage in this kind of posturing in order to attract consumers who make values-based purchasing decisions.

But it didn't work. They misread their customer base and they actually offended their existing customers. They fell for the Woke ideology like a new religious convert and started to preach where the preaching was not welcome or relevant.

The point is when people or even entire companies get sucked in to the ideology it shows how it can delude people from the reality that is right in front of them to the point where they completely miss the obvious.

Yeah, no. I still don't think that's an accurate description of our disagreements (consider, for example, that you and I are disagreeing so consistently yet both believe in something beyond our material existence at play).

True, but still even believers can hold beliefs that are more associated with human made ideas about nature and reality rather than anything natural as do many (Feminist, Queer theorist, CRT) regarding sex and gender as social constructions and I am sure some are Christians like yourself.

Okay. So acknowledging this, does not threaten the identity of cis or natal women (which is the point I was originally making there).

What acknowledging that their Trans identity may be the result of s developmental deisorder. Of course that would threaten them because its more or less saying your identity is disordered.

Well, to some extent we do. You can't discriminate against or mistreat someone on the basis of an eating disorder, either.

Yes just like we cannot descriminate on the basis of physical disability. But we acknowledge the disability or disorder as part of anti-descrimination law. You cannot descriminate against some disorder that is not there. In the case of identities we cannot even determine any objective basis to what it is we are protecting.

Is it a disorder that causes the identity or can anyone with a disoder or not have their subjectively determined identity protected. At least with other disorders and disabilities we have a basis such as anorexia where the person is grossly thin or physically disable in a wheel chair. But evenso the issue is Trans ideologues object to Trans and GNC identity being medicalized.

I"m not denying the reality of the situation. I'm saying that complaining because someone doesn't want to date you is a bit like complaining because it's raining. It might be true that it's raining, you have every right to not like that it's raining, but you don't get to change the fact that it's raining. Similarly, it might be true that someone, or even lots of someones, don't want to date you, you have every right to not like that fact, but since nobody owes you a date and you're not entitled to their romantic affection, at the end of the day it's still going to be true. They're not required to date you.

Your still missing the point. I will try and be more straight forward. The issue Transwomen complain about is that lesbians don't see them as real people, real women. That heterosexual biological males don't see transwomen as a real entity in society and the world. That heterosexual biological women don't see transmen as real entities. As far as I understand thats descrimination according to the new Woke laws.

The complaint is real, but what are you going to do? Nobody owes anybody a date. Otherwise we end up in those incel-fantasy nightmares where rape is legal or the government provides sex workers to everyone who can't get a date, but I'm not exactly keen on going down that rabbit hole, are you?

Lol then we are already in an "incel-fantasy nightmare". Providing a sex worker is regarded as a Right now and good therapy in some places.
NDIS funds may be used to pay for sex workers, court rules

NDIS funds may be used to pay for sex workers, court rules

Federal court finds against the national disability insurance agency, which had denied funding to a woman living with multiple sclerosis

www.theguardian.com

Which, when it comes to dating, you are perfectly entitled to do. See the above point that nobody owes anybody a date. You have every right to have personal preferences or requirements around who you choose as a romantic partner.
That may or may not make you a very nice person, in some cases, but it's reality.

But once again according to Woke law you don't have a right to deny an entire gender identity as not being real. Lesbians are not rejecting transwomen by personal preference. They are rejecting them as not being real women and legitimate identity.

In fact are saying they are actually still men dressed up to look like women so have rejected them out of the group known as women. That is denying Affirmation and the reality of transwomen as an identity.

If you're using someone's preferred pronouns, nobody knows (or needs to know) how you're rationalising it in your own mind.

Its not the person using the preferred pronouns whose going to think this but the transperson. Your making them conform to a Cisnorm of binary sex when even though ironically your idea would fit the bill it from our point of view it doesn't for Trans ideology because it doesn't allow for spectrum thinking.

It may be that a Transwomen doesn't go by male/female pronouns. As its subjective it has no binaries and is fluid and could be any number of pronoun definitions depending on how the individual feels which may even change on a daily basis.

And how do you then prevent misgendering as, say, a workplace bullying issue?

Well if the identity politics is taken out then it would not be such an issue as we would not have created all these subjective identities that everyone is getting upset about. It would be just workers getting the job done and working together as employees not identities. Call people by their name that seems to be legal and friendly.

Aren't you the one arguing that it points to some unchanging transcendant truth and therefore it's lying to use someone's preferred pronouns? If it's just a socially constructed label, why on earth can't you use someone's preferred pronoun?

No I am not agreeing with the idea of a completely socially constructed gender identity or sex. I am just making the case for the Woke and ideologues. Applying their own logic to the situation. You are right your now making my case.

If this is all just a socially constructed idea then why get upset about pronouns when its not a real representation of reality. Why make others follow a socially constructed idea that may not have any rational or last and could change tommorrow. It seems to be making people jump through loops to keep up with their changing language.

Something like that, yes.

Yeah I am not sure about this. It sounds good but I still don't like the idea that a parent can no longer feel secure in allowing their child to go into the toilets alone while they wait outside because their could be the opposite sex in the same room. It seems a big change to something that is already working for most people on the basis of a subjective idea of a minority. I think it would actually disadvanatge the majority and create division.

Why on earth do they need to get together in the same space that they get naked?

Really you need to sample what happens in pubs and clubs. Not that I frequent them nowadays. This should explain things
Everything that happens in the girls’ toilets on a night out

Everything that happens in the girls' toilets on a night out

There are tears

thetab.com

It's an example of the fact that practical matters can be worked through with a bit of goodwill and creative problem solving.

Yes so long as the reason for the practical matter is a valid one. You don't want to start working through and accommodating silly ideas. I am saying why were these silly ideas imposed in the first place. It exposes a type of thinking that is not open to practical applications but rather skewing things towards impracticle applications.

 

[stevevw]

If people resent being hospitable to other people, maybe we need to work on building healthy communities, in general. (NB: whether something is fair or just is not measured by whether or not people resent it. People resent all sorts of things which are fair and just. Think of Ahab being resentful because Naboth wouldn't sell him his vineyard!)

Actually they are not resentful at being hospitable to others they are resentful that a minority dictated how they should live. Considering we live in a democracy I can understand this as it doesn't seem fair that a minority dictates things. That is why revolutions happen as dictators dent freedom of life and the freedom to have a say in how their society should be ordered.

Lol. We've been fighting for women to enter men's-only areas for about a century now. We've broken down a lot of those barriers already, although some bastions of male privilege remain. (I once stayed as a guest at the Melbourne Club - there's a long story about that - and that was an experience in the erasure of women. Not even allowed to use the staircase, but having to use the back elevator, lest a woman be seen in the public spaces in the club).

Yeah theres still that sort of thing going on. They just lose potential customers when they do that. But then it also depends what sort of club or organisation it is. Like for example the Mens Shed is mainly for men to get together and talk about mens stuff,. They often find it hard to talk especially older men who may be isolated losing all their wife and occupation and especially talking about mens stuff.

So an exclusive club or organisation for men can be good. Same for women like the Lyceum Club restricted to women academics and high achievers or Fernwood Women’s Health Clubs.

Did you see the links I posted earlier in the thread about barriers women face in the construction industry?

You missed the point. There are differences in some industries for good reasons which have nothing to do with inequality.

In primary school, maybe.

That continues throughout life in some social settings. I think from memory kids get changed in a common room seperated by sex.

No, I said (in post #1,682), "There's no self-evident truth that requires us to be entirely inflexible in the way we set up structures and systems."

Yes there is. For example the Right to innocence until proven guilty is a fundemental truth principle and is inflexible to how it is setup aned applied. It can only be applied one way, as it is. a principle by which the court system works. It is untouchable by subjective opinion and cannot be taken away by States. Any less and it creates disorder and chaos.

No, we didn't! We never have! That's why there have been all these movements in the first place.

So didn't the early US fathers set the stage for this in the Declaration which stated
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

Didn't Dr King use the same idea in his civil rights movement. In fact all movements can only happen because these Rights were already establisheed. It doesn't mean there will be no battles to fight against descrimination and inequality. It means creating the culture in which these issues can be protested against when they come up. That the ordinary person has the freedeom to speak out against even a State to bring about change.

Christian belief brought the first movement in setting the stage in the Roman Empire for ending slavery and bringing about equality and the inherent worth of each individual. The US Declaration took it further and this led to endeing African slavery. Dr King used the same principles to set in motion and bring about ending racism and these same principles have been used many times.

And here's an interesting thing; Locke's idea of the "pursuit of happiness" (and the wider writings in which he discussed it) were important for the American and French revolutions, but much less important for the British Empire and the countries to which it gave rise, including our own. It's never been a particularly Australian principle.

Yes it has, its just not wordeed in the same way. Its also the basis for Human Rights. The Right to life entails the Right to some level of happiness otherwise its not a life. So measures need to be taken to allow the persuit of happiness among other qualities such as the Right to food and shelter, education and spirituality and belief which all contribute to being living out human potential.

No one should stop anyone being able to at least persuit these things as much as possible as they make for a happier and stable society.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Indirectly. What it was actually measuring was the amount of time spent with children, which has increased (despite more mothers working).

It doesn't compare mothers working. It doesn't compare how much they worked in the past. It doesn't even compare single parents vs dual parents.

Sorry, but I'm not letting you include any conclusions that weren't in the study.

Because that's not the same as being homeless. That's like arguing that if I'm away from home for work, I'm homeless for that time.

No....it's not. You definitely have a home to return to. Soldiers don't.

It is if fleeing means you don't have a home. (Isn't that incredibly obvious?)

A barracks isn't a home. A refugee camp isn't a home. Same thing.

I'm not arguing the point that you'll find more cognitively impaired people amongst the homeless population. I'm arguing that that doesn't account for the higher rate of homeless men than women.

It's a fact we have more men at both tail ends of the IQ distribution. We're sort of well past me being proven correct on this.

That would be the consequence of refusing accommodations

Accommodations. When was the last time you heard of accommodations for men, of any kind, being given or argued for

around giving birth, and allowing discrimination against women because they are or might become pregnant or parents. More women would be shut out of the workforce.

Why? Because they aren't as good workers as men because they become pregnant?

Abortion.

This is not analogous to giving birth. Women are disadvantaged by giving birth, unless we put in place protections around that.

Men are disadvantaged by going to college. It's a choice, about what sort of life you want to have. They could be working instead of accumulating debt and there's no guarantee of anything once graduated.

But what he applied for and was appointed to was a fixed-term, maternity leave contract. He took it with the understanding that it would end.

Right this would be an actual disadvantage, an actual barrier to full time employment. It's all that was available to him while the woman who isn't even working is guaranteed her job. You have the gall to claim she's facing the barrier.

Women don't choose to be born women.

Nobody chooses to be born anything....yet blaming people for the circumstances of their birth is essentially the heart of bigotry. You're saying this while just a few posts ago considering what "good reasons" might exist for discriminating against white men. We aren't talking about removing aspects of some bonus they get for being white men....we're talking about straight up racial discrimination, which you seemed to support.

So I did some investigation (online government systems being much more sophisticated now than they were when I did this) and it turns out that both parents need to fill in an agreement.

So maternity leave isn't available for single parents? Seems unlikely.

You're only guaranteed the right to come back. If you come back and are then incompetent or otherwise don't do your job, you have no guarantee of keeping it.

When a woman returns from maternity leave and gets fired....how do you know if it's incompetence or because she was on maternity leave?

No, I'm saying that having a child at all isn't something which drives men out of the workforce.

And?

About 30% of heterosexual couples have women as the higher earner.

Wanna guess what one of the highest predictors of divorce is?

Why Divorce Rate is Higher for Female Breadwinners

The number of women earning more than their husbands, while still relatively small, is growing. It is no surprise, as more women are attending and graduating college and entering the workforce right away. Fox Business claims these recent changes are also because women are more aware of their...

www.sflg.com

All 30% of those women are now 50% more likely to divorce.

I'm not quite sure why we settled on a year.

My guess....women.

I guess it's a nice round number and it corresponds with the length of time for which breastfeeding is recommended. Different countries have different lengths of time available and I don't think there's anything particularly necessary about that exact number, though.

Parental leave is given to the child's primary carer. It's not given to both parents simultaneously.

Right but let's assume they both applied for it and it's learned they're together, who gets it?

Which is notoriously difficult to prove to a legal standard. It's not an adequate protection. We need cultural change as much as legal provisions.

We do need cultural change. Thought crimes are notoriously hard to prove and I think the easy way to avoid this is to have as few on the books as possible.

 

[Paidiske]

Fair trade, when has fair trade ever considered ethics.

Fair trade is a measure of the ethics of the production of a product.

True, but still even believers can hold beliefs that are more associated with human made ideas about nature and reality rather than anything natural as do many (Feminist, Queer theorist, CRT) regarding sex and gender as social constructions and I am sure some are Christians like yourself.

If you're going to throw around that kind of accusation, you'd better have a well-worked out systematic account of the difference between "human made" ideas as opposed to "natural" ideas. Because I reckon that has more holes in it than Swiss cheese.

What acknowledging that their Trans identity may be the result of s developmental deisorder. Of course that would threaten them because its more or less saying your identity is disordered.

More to the point, it's acknowledging that their identity is, indeed, more complex than simple identification with their biological sex.

Your still missing the point. I will try and be more straight forward. The issue Transwomen complain about is that lesbians don't see them as real people, real women. That heterosexual biological males don't see transwomen as a real entity in society and the world. That heterosexual biological women don't see transmen as real entities. As far as I understand thats descrimination according to the new Woke laws.

No, I'm not missing the point. I get it. I just think that whether or not lesbians want to date transwomen is not something transwomen get to have a say in.

And no, there are no anti-discrimination laws around who you might date, or have a romantic relationship with.

Lol then we are already in an "incel-fantasy nightmare". Providing a sex worker is regarded as a Right now and good therapy in some places.
NDIS funds may be used to pay for sex workers, court rules

NDIS funds may be used to pay for sex workers, court rules

Federal court finds against the national disability insurance agency, which had denied funding to a woman living with multiple sclerosis

www.theguardian.com

Well, I can't say I'm immediately thrilled about that, but it's not quite what I was talking about, either.

But once again according to Woke law you don't have a right to deny an entire gender identity as not being real.

You don't have that right when it comes to things like employment, participation in the economy, access to housing, and so on. You do have that right when deciding whom you are willing to date.

Its not the person using the preferred pronouns whose going to think this but the transperson. Your making them conform to a Cisnorm of binary sex when even though ironically your idea would fit the bill it from our point of view it doesn't for Trans ideology because it doesn't allow for spectrum thinking.

The key here is in the word "preferred." If you use someone's preferred pronouns - the ones they choose for themselves - you're not making them conform to anything.

Well if the identity politics is taken out then it would not be such an issue as we would not have created all these subjective identities that everyone is getting upset about.

That's not an answer to my question.

If this is all just a socially constructed idea then why get upset about pronouns when its not a real representation of reality.

But it is a real representation of our willingness to be accepting of and hospitable to those around us.

You don't want to start working through and accommodating silly ideas.

We accommodate a heck of a lot worse ideas than trans inclusivity.

Actually they are not resentful at being hospitable to others they are resentful that a minority dictated how they should live.

You say potato...

Yeah theres still that sort of thing going on.

The point is, we've been having that fight - to break down the exclusion of women - for decades now. As for things like the men's sheds, personally I don't love the gender segregation but I see that it fills a need. I notice that our local one got its grants to get going on condition that there were times it was available to women, so the men meet in the morning and the women in the afternoon, and that seemed like a pretty good balance to me.

You missed the point. There are differences in some industries for good reasons which have nothing to do with inequality.

If they're good reasons, there's no reason to accuse women of being on about power and privilege when they aren't the focus of feminist critique, is there?

Yes there is. For example the Right to innocence until proven guilty is a fundemental truth principle and is inflexible to how it is setup aned applied.

No, it's not inflexible. For example, there is ongoing conversation and evolving case law about how that shapes rules around what evidence is admissable.

So didn't the early US fathers set the stage for this in the Declaration which stated
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

And they set up their society in a way which systematically denied those apparently self-evident truths.

Didn't Dr King use the same idea in his civil rights movement.

And they killed him for it.

In fact all movements can only happen because these Rights were already establisheed.

No, those movements happened because those rights weren't well established, and had to be fought for, one painful scrap at a time.

Christian belief brought the first movement in setting the stage in the Roman Empire for ending slavery and bringing about equality and the inherent worth of each individual.

Not really. The Roman Empire never abolished slavery, nor did it ever recognise equality or the inherent worth of each person. Over time slavery in Europe largely evolved into serfdom, but it didn't really go away. The last English serfs weren't freed until 1574. The last country to abolish serfdom did so in 1959.

Yes it has, its just not wordeed in the same way.

What I am trying to highlight for you is that even western thought on these matters is multi-stranded. Australia has a very different history and culture around these issues than America does (despite some people's attempts to model us on America).

No one should stop anyone being able to at least persuit these things as much as possible as they make for a happier and stable society.

Including trans people.

Sorry, but I'm not letting you include any conclusions that weren't in the study.

I found a more direct comparison: Working Mothers Spend More Time with Children Than Their Parents.

No....it's not. You definitely have a home to return to. Soldiers don't.

Umm... yes, they do. Whether that's on base or somewhere else.

A barracks isn't a home. A refugee camp isn't a home. Same thing.

No, I don't think that's really the same thing. A barracks is safe, secure housing. (And perhaps more to the point, generally one has chosen to live there).

It's a fact we have more men at both tail ends of the IQ distribution. We're sort of well past me being proven correct on this.

What you're not proving is that life outcomes are caused primarily by IQ. Rather than, say, discrimination and patriarchy (at the upper end) or inadequate social services, (at the lower end).

Accommodations. When was the last time you heard of accommodations for men, of any kind, being given or argued for

Given that the workforce is basically designed for men as the default employee, they're not really needed in the same way. (Men have no biological burden analogous to pregnancy, either). That said, it's often pointed out that accommodations like flexibility benefit everyone, men included.

Why? Because they aren't as good workers as men because they become pregnant?

Because pregnancy is a temporary interruption to our ability to work.

Men are disadvantaged by going to college.

That is both generally untrue, and a highly frivolous comparison.

It's all that was available to him while the woman who isn't even working is guaranteed her job. You have the gall to claim she's facing the barrier.

You're the one who wants her to lose her job for becoming a mother, and you have the gall to claim that's not a barrier?

Nobody chooses to be born anything....yet blaming people for the circumstances of their birth is essentially the heart of bigotry.

It's not a question of blame; it's a question of recognising that pregnancy and all that comes with it requires social support if it's not to end up disadvantaging women.

We aren't talking about removing aspects of some bonus they get for being white men....we're talking about straight up racial discrimination, which you seemed to support.

I supported people being able to weight their decision making between qualified candidates towards one whom (they percieved) had faced more barriers.

So maternity leave isn't available for single parents? Seems unlikely.

No, it is, but you don't have to each agree to how it's split. If you're partnered it looks like you both need to lodge part of the agreement.

When a woman returns from maternity leave and gets fired....how do you know if it's incompetence or because she was on maternity leave?

If they're firing her for incompetence, you'd sure hope they'd be able to provide clear, robust evidence of the grounds.

And?

And therefore, nor should women face workplace disadvantages for becoming parents.

Right but let's assume they both applied for it and it's learned they're together, who gets it?

In that incredibly unlikely scenario, I'd imagine that HR would be sitting everyone down for a meeting. But I've never known of it actually happening.

Thought crimes are notoriously hard to prove and I think the easy way to avoid this is to have as few on the books as possible.

Not that I agree that discrimination is "thought crime," in that it results in concrete actions, but removing discrimination protections just gives people carte blanche to treat people badly. Not really keen to go back to the bad old days in that way.

It's funny, I was telling my daughter (who's eleven) about some of this conversation yesterday, and her response was to hope that by the time she's working and has children, she won't have to face this kind of discrimination. And it's exactly for that reason that I keep having these kinds of discussions.