When two worldviews collide.

[Ana the Ist]

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

There's the culprit...

• Families today are smaller and more affluent than in 1965, so more time can be invested in each child

Less children.

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

We can say the same of female refugees.

They have homes in the refugee camp or somewhere else.

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).

No...no it's not. Women aren't fleeing their nations if safe secure housing is available.

What you're not proving is that life outcomes are caused primarily by IQ.

Mean regression analysis wouldn't be a thing if averages didn't exist.

Given that the workforce is basically designed for men as the default employee,

Huh?

they're not really needed in the same way. (Men have no biological burden analogous to pregnancy, either).

It's called a wife.

That said, it's often pointed out that accommodations like flexibility benefit everyone, men included.

They don't benefit the employer, the coworkers, or the replacement.

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

Interesting way to look at a child.

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

Let's assume we're talking about a man with a job already.

Should his work pay him to not come in and go to college? Should they guarantee his job upon return?

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?

I'm just saying the employer should have a choice. Certainly he can keep her if she's great. Perhaps he prefers her replacement though.

You're the one insisting merit be taken out of the situation.

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.

Hopefully she has social support. A husband.

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

All you have are "perceived" barriers. Like the scar study... you seemed primed to see these barriers where they don't actually exist.

Dartmouth Scar Experiment | Younique

www.aknowbrainer.com

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.

You don't have to agree to how it's split...how do you decide who gets the 18 weeks pay?

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

That sounds awfully like wanting them to prove innocence instead of her proving guilt.

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

They clearly aren't. It's the 52 weeks of leave causing any problems, along with the multitude of guarantees surrounding it. Take away those benefits and suddenly those "barriers" disappear....because we aren't talking about barriers, we're talking about employers trying to work around these insane benefits.

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.

Sometimes I forget how small Australia is despite its size. In a nation of 330 million (at least) every scam has been tried before.

Not that I agree that discrimination is "thought crime,"

Well it's the behavior that's illegal....it's the thoughts that make it a 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.

Nor do I.

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.

I've never told anyone about discussions I have online.

 

[Paidiske]

There's the culprit...

• Families today are smaller and more affluent than in 1965, so more time can be invested in each child

Less children.

The point, though, is that working doesn't automatically mean poor parenting.

We can say the same of female refugees.

They have homes in the refugee camp or somewhere else.

That's not a home.

Huh?

Workplaces are largely designed around male norms. It's like that example I gave earlier that when the first woman was elected to parliament there wasn't even a ladies' toilet. But all sorts of workplace norms essentially operate as if the default employee is a man who, if he has a family, has a spouse in the background taking care of all domestic things so that the employee can be undistracted in the workplace.

It's called a wife.

That's not a biological burden.

They don't benefit the employer, the coworkers, or the replacement.

In the specific case of maternity leave, maybe not. But flexibility in general benefits everyone; the employer attracts and retains the best staff, the coworkers also have flexibility when they need it, and so on.

Let's assume we're talking about a man with a job already.

Should his work pay him to not come in and go to college? Should they guarantee his job upon return?

I'd argue that workplaces should certainly be open to facilitating the professional development of their employees. The best ones do. After all, they then get the benefit. Paying someone while they do an entire degree is definitely at the more extreme end; I doubt many but the military do that.

I'm just saying the employer should have a choice.

He did; when he employed her.

Hopefully she has social support. A husband.

That doesn't prevent workplace disadvantage.

You don't have to agree to how it's split...how do you decide who gets the 18 weeks pay?

From what I can work out, single parents can claim the lot without having to lodge a shared agreement, but partnered parents each need to lodge their agreement about how it's split.

That sounds awfully like wanting them to prove innocence instead of her proving guilt.

More like, they have to prove her guilt (incompetence) as grounds for dismissal.

It's the 52 weeks of leave causing any problems, along with the multitude of guarantees surrounding it. Take away those benefits and suddenly those "barriers" disappear....because we aren't talking about barriers, we're talking about employers trying to work around these insane benefits.

If that were true, we wouldn't see the same problems in countries with less generous entitlements, but we do. America apparently guarantees twelve weeks unpaid leave, but they face the same sorts of problems.

I've never told anyone about discussions I have online.

I often bounce ideas around in our household, and if I've been thinking about them here it often sparks irl conversations. Which makes for good variety of input.

 

[stevevw]

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

And Fair Trade allows products from countries that breach human rights such as China.

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.

Not sure what you mean.

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

What that subjective feelings determine the reality of identity even over the reality of biological sex..

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.

Why when its deleting an entire identity group (not individuals) out of potential candidates. That speaks more of descrimination against an entire identity group.

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

Isn't erasing an entire group (transwomen) from society descrimination against that identity group..

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

Its exactly what you are talking about. These clients of the State cannot get a date to even have sex. The State and its agents have deemed sex a right as part of being human. So they pay for sex workers to have sex with clients they don't necessarily like.

If sex is seen as a human right by the secular State then I guess transwomen have a complaint that their human rights are being denied because their identity is not even being recognised by Lesbians and biological males before they even have a chance.

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.

According to Woke ideology you do have the Right to these things based on your identity. If an employer or housing organisations don't regard transwomen or any identity as a real identity or a valid identity to qualify for these rights to have employment or housing then thats descrimination.

just a footnote that came to mind. If as you say gender identity doesn't have rights to employement and participation in the economy then why do Feminist complain about womens Rights to employment and economic independence. Why does anyone demand this Rights if employment is not a Right and its just dog eat dog.

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.

But hypocritically their making everyone else conform to something they disagree with and could change from day to day because its subjectively felt and has no way to measure things.

Talk about making people jump through hoops where people are made to give up their common sense understanding and the physical reality of biological sex and then pretend to go along with someone elses deluded feelings of self perception that could change day to day to keep everyone happy except the person who has to pretend to go along with these games.

What if the biological male or female turns things around and wants the GNC person to go along with their pronouns. Say someones pronouns are they should be address as a cat with 'meows' and 'purrs' or identifies as an alien with some strange made up alien pronouns. Should we go along. Now we have this situation where everyone is telling everyone else what words to use based on subjective feelings about themselves that can change whenever they feel like it and everyone must follow.

That's not an answer to my question.

Yes it is. If identity is no longer an ethical issue then it removes the problem. Identities should not be enforced at work as that is the very meaning of creating a descriminating work environment by highlighting identities and making rules around them where everyone must behave according to identities. Its also forcing speech laws by controlling free speech which is an actual ethical problem not an imagined one.

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

The ideologues want to make out its being nice but its more than that. Its forcing a subjective ideological belief and set of morals onto people. Its religious with all the religious aspects.

Like I said someone could subjectively feel and identify that they are the 'boss' of the company and want everyone to use pronouns that make them feel like the boss such as 'yes sir, no sir, or your Royal Highness or Master. Why should people just go along with subjective felt beliefs about themselves and the world when they may not even be a true reflection of who they are and what is reality.

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

So why add another crazy idea when we have enough problems to deal with. In fact if we do go along with these crazy ideas then we become more open to go along with other crazy ideas because now we are willing to abandon all rational thought and reality.

You say potato...

So your saying that everyone which is the majority are just complaining about semantics and have no real complaint. They should just shut up and go along.

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.

So should Fernwoods now allow men to join. Seems hypocritical. That you don't even like the idea of seperate sex spaces seems troubling and a very narrow view of reality. That your happy that conditions be placed on people to force them to become inclusive according to an assumption that everything should be equal regardless of the fact that sometimes sex needs to be seperated for good reasons is a concern.

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?

No theres good reasons according to most fair and honest people. Feminist don't stipulate any reason except that everything should reflect equality for genders and that when its not its because of a male oppressive system. They are good at pointing out this difference in board rooms and STEM fields but are awefully quiet about heavy and dirty work jobs.

If there is no reason but oppression then their own logic says that the reason males dominate brickie laborers is because men have oppressed them out of the jobs. But we never hear the equivelent objections like they complain about with company boards and the glass cieling.

That seems more about envy of not having the same power and position as men and wanting to join or beat them and not about equality across the board for all. Thats what most people object to about feminism as being too narrow a view of reality, moralistic and hypocritical.

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.

Innocence before the law is about that innocence before a court hearing has been heard. If someone plants evidence that doesn't change this fact as that is illegal. If the system gets away with it then thats a corrupt system and not the Truth that everyone is innocent before the law. But no change to this Truth can happen such as that a State decides that certain people are guilty without a trial at all.

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

Yes that is human nature and they recognised this despite their failings. They held that Truth up despite knowing that they or future governments would breach this. The point was that it was made an untouchable Truth that everyone could refer to in those times when society treated people badly.

This Truth was referred to by the US fathers themselves and anti slave advocates and it led to a reduction in slavery and human Rights breaches and continuede to until this day. Well not lately thanks to Woke identity politics.

And they killed him for it.

Yes and that is why it repsented the Truth because like Christ they hated what it repsented, a threat to their sin and corruption.

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

Fundementally these Rights were already established like in later stopping slavery and other injustices. It was just taken up again for new injustices over and over again. The same principle that all individuals regardless of race or gender have the same Rights and that no one should be jusged by the colour of their skin in Dr Kings case but by their gender in feminist case.

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.

The Roman Empire under Christianity after it was established gradually overturned the Greco-Roman norms of sex and relationships, women being inferior and slavery. Women we given more rights in marriage. adultery was outlawed and sexual immorality was looked down on. That it didn't happen right away doesn't matter.

Christianity first brought the awareness that all humans were worthy and began to regulate respectful slavery. That also reduced slavery. That there were periods where it came back doesn't matter because humans have this tendency to relapse. But it was the same Truth principles that once again led to stopping slavery. But now we are abdoning those Truths we are slipping back into these sins.

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).

Not really. Australia like most Western nations was very much aligned with Americias ideas in its Declaration. These ideas are not alien to Human Rights such as the Right to Life, the Freedom to be human in every way including happiness and wellbeing.

March 20 is the International Day of Happiness, the result of a UN resolution adopted in 2012 that identifies the pursuit of happiness as "a fundamental human goal" and promotes a more holistic approach to public policy and economic growth — one that recognizes happiness and wellbeing as important pieces of sustainable and equitable development.

https://www.npr.org/sections/13.7/2017/03/20/520803361/is-happiness-a-universal-human-right

Including trans people.

No one is stopping Trans people from achieving these things.

 

[Ana the Ist]

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

There's some confusion over exactly what it is this supposed community wants.

For example, try offering the possibility of a pill that removes "gender dysphoria" and brings their brain in alignment with their body instead of the multitude of pills and surgeries to do the opposite.

Turns out they aren't fond of the idea.

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.

Would you approve of a law requiring trans people to be honest about their biological sex? That waiting until the moment of coitus to let your romantic partner find out you have the wrong "equipment" is tantamount to rape or sexual assault?

Because I think if we pass something like that....a lot of this other nonsense flat out disappears with it.

We require consent for basically all sexual behavior to be legal...seems like consent should be made clear in those situations as well.

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.

No...the key word is perceived.

Yes I'm aware that isn't part of the phrase "preferred pronouns" but is part of the answer to "why do you prefer these pronouns?".

That answer being "I perceive myself X way."

This creates a social paradox. This paradox occurs whenever a trans person demands their "preferred pronouns" be used all the time. Why? Because as they claim "that's how I perceive myself and I cannot be incorrect".

If we follow the same line of reasoning for anyone referring to the transperson by any pronouns....it's also correct, because that's how they perceive that person and they cannot be wrong.

Any demands to use preferred pronouns create a sort of tyranny of perception. Mainly, the trans person is always correct and anyone who disagrees is wrong....regardless of how they perceive that person. Why would we ever demand this of people in a fair and equitable society? We wouldn't. We'd demand this of people in an authoritarian society that demands you subjugate your own perception of reality to someone else's perception of reality. A rather disgusting and tyrannical demand that no good person makes.

In my perception, anyone making such a demand is such a vile and contemptible person it immediately becomes justified and indeed good to disobey their demand. No one should be required to lie about their perception and if you wish to live in a society that does this....try N Korea or any other extreme authoritarian societies. Compare this demand for gay people to be allowed to marry under the law. Christians and Christianity has no exclusive claim to the institution of marriage which had existed in non-Christian societies in many forms before and after Christianity. Yet this wasn't a problem for the request....the request was for the law to recognize their marriages....not Christians or Christianity. They did not demand preachers change their preaching nor demand recognition from the Christian church. They didn't demand anyone recognize their marriage valid apart from the court. This is, ultimately a very different demand that strips no one of the ability to speak whatever they see as the truth. As such, I have no problem with gay people getting married.

The demand for pronoun use however requires subjugation of the views of those who aren't trans by the views of those who are...and as such, they should be embarrassed to even request it....and it is justice to deny them their demands.

Even if the whole world but one were in agreement on this....they would have no right to deny him his say and expression of what he believes true....anymore than he would have the right to deny the whole world their say on what they percieve as true. I understand that it's often presented as a triviality, a politeness, or minor request....it's none of these things. If it were trivial, they wouldn't demand it, if it were a minor request, they wouldn't seek to punish those who didn't fulfill the request, if it were a politeness....I would tell them the polite thing is to accept the views of those who disagree with you as their right which isn't to be trampled upon over minor trivialities.

That's if we were to accept this bizarre double standard and paradoxical logic to begin with....and we shouldn't. I see no reason why someone couldn't percieve themselves incorrectly as they often do, every single day, and it's obvious to me frequently when I speak to them. Every one of us has known someone beautiful who perceives themselves ugly and flawed or perhaps someone dumb who imagines themselves smart. Self perception can frequently be wrong....and we need not defer to anyone else's without evidence or proof (of which gender has none).

Of course, that's not to say they cannot politely make the request....they simply shouldn't be offended if they are denied. I recall a goofy boy in high school who claimed he was a psychic vampire who could drain the energy of others....I recall him being laughed at over this. I knew a girl that I worked with who once claimed she could see my aura and it was purple. I recall talking to her much less after that.

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

Why isn't it a real representation of the trans person's unwillingness to accept those around them, and their hospitality to those who disagree with them?

 

[Ana the Ist]

The point, though, is that working doesn't automatically mean poor parenting.

Then what we would need to compare is working parents today who have the same number of children as 1965. Obviously, if today's parent has half the children (or less) on average than in 1965...they can devote the same amount of time to raising children (or even more time) I'm pretty sure we have on average around half the number of children per household....so realistically, we should cut the number of hours raising children today in half (at least).

That's not a home.

Workplaces are largely designed around male norms. It's like that example I gave earlier that when the first woman was elected to parliament there wasn't even a ladies' toilet.

I asked you why there would be a ladies toilet before there were any ladies. I don't recall you answering. Which is to say....I don't think you even responded, not that you responded in a way which I don't remember.

Feel free to give your reply if I'm wrong though....what was the answer you had?

I could point out that the doorways to parliament probably don't accomodate anyone who is 9 feet tall (even though such people can exist) nor do they accommodate someone 800lbs heavy (who also exist). Why would they though....if no such person has been elected? These aren't male norms....anymore than the lack of a female toilet was.

Of course, you're on the side that argues women should be fine using the restrooms with men and vice versa so I'm not sure why you thought this was a good example in the first place.

That's not a biological burden.

Perhaps not to the men whose women are in that 30% of primary earners or to that 1% of house husbands who don't work at all....but my wife doesn't put food on her own plate, that's my responsibility. She doesn't pay the bills and she is biological.

In the specific case of maternity leave, maybe not. But flexibility in general benefits everyone; the employer attracts and retains the best staff, the coworkers also have flexibility when they need it, and so on.

Our military rejects anyone below a certain IQ. I don't recall if it's 83, 85, 87 or what....but that's a very inflexible policy. Not only does it benefit the military....it also benefits those rejected. I believe it was McNamara who tried the experiment known as "McNamara's idiots". It turns out...this particular inflexibility benefits even the idiots....not just the military.

I'd argue that workplaces should certainly be open to facilitating the professional development of their employees.

That doesn't equate to higher education for a lot of jobs.

He did; when he employed her.

I would agree if he were allowed to ask about her plans for having children in the future and reject her if he thinks accomodating her will be a barrier to his success....or if she changes her plans after being hired.

Since he isn't allowed to do this....he has to guess....and avoid anyone he suspects will hamper his business.

So no...he doesn't have a choice, as not hiring her for those reasons is illegal.

That doesn't prevent workplace disadvantage.

Why would her workplace be responsible for her children?

From what I can work out, single parents can claim the lot without having to lodge a shared agreement, but partnered parents each need to lodge their agreement about how it's split.

But you don't know what happens in the hypothetical. Who takes maternity leave more often? Women or men?

More like, they have to prove her guilt (incompetence) as grounds for dismissal.

That doesn't make any sense at all. Being incompetent isn't illegal. Being fired isn't illegal.

Why would her employer be taking her to court? She is innocent of any crimes. Is she going to have to return her pay to her employer for being found incompetent? Is there some weird law in Australia that allows employers to seek damages from incompetent employees who they've fired?

If that were true, we wouldn't see the same problems in countries with less generous entitlements, but we do. America apparently guarantees twelve weeks unpaid leave, but they face the same sorts of problems.

Do they? I haven't heard of many cases of women being fired from their jobs for taking 12 weeks of leave. Particularly if it's just leave....and not maternity leave.

Give me an example of a country where the women have no such benefits at all....do these barriers still exist? If so....how?

I often bounce ideas around in our household, and if I've been thinking about them here it often sparks irl conversations. Which makes for good variety of input.

I don't crowdsource opinions or ideas. I find that the practice of trying to consider every possible argument or viewpoint one can take to be more challenging and ultimately, makes me better at choosing a good argument to make. It's not often I encounter arguments I haven't considered already before someone makes them.

 

[Paidiske]

Not sure what you mean.

I mean your accusation was baseless and unsubstantiated.

What that subjective feelings determine the reality of identity even over the reality of biological sex..

That identity might be more complex than biological sex alone.

Why when its deleting an entire identity group (not individuals) out of potential candidates.

Why? Because nobody gets to force anyone else to date them. It really is that simple.

Iedf sex is seen as a human right then I guess transwomen have a complaint that their human rights are being denied by everyone not wanting to have sex with them.

Sex is not a human right. There are human rights around sex, like the right to express your sexuality, but there's no right to have sex with someone else.

According to Woke ideology you do have the Right to these things based on your identity. If an employer or housing organisations don't regard transwomen or any identity as real enough or even a valid identity to qualify for these rights to have employment or housing then thats descrimination.

I was saying you don't have the right to discriminate against others in provision of employment, housing etc. You do have the right to discriminate against others when choosing your sexual or romantic partner.

What if the biological male or female wants the GNC to go along with their pronouns that the person doesn't agree with. Say a persons pronouns are they should be address as a cat with meows and purrs or identifies as an alien with some strange made up alien pronouns. Should we go along. Now we have this situation where everyone is telling everyone else what words to use based on subjective feelings about themselves.

Steve, it's a far cry from, "my pronouns are she/her," to being addressed with purrs. Get back to me if you're ever asked to purr at someone in the workplace, otherwise I'm going to put that in the "slippery slope fallacy" basket.

Yes it is. If identity is not longer an ethical issue then it removes the problem.

No, it isn't. I asked, if people are not required to use someone's preferred pronouns as a form of courtesy and respect, how you would prevent their being misgendered as a form of workplace bullying. Your answer did not even acknowledge that this might be a form of bullying, but rather wanted to entrench that misgendering. You don't even see the problem, let alone propose a solution.

Identities should not be enforced at work as that is the very meaning of creating a descriminating work environment. Its also forcing speech laws controling free speech with is an actual ethical problem.

Your workplace has both the right and the legal responsibility to have in place policies which create a safe and supportive environment for everyone. That's not discrimination and it's not a breach of free speech laws.

Its forcing a subjective ideological belief and set of morals onto people.

No one can force you to believe anything. They can, however, require you to behave respectfully and politely.

So your saying that everyone which is the majority are just complaining about semantics and have no real complaint.

When it comes to using preferred pronouns, pretty much. I don't see it as a real issue. (And, for the record, from what I can find, it's only a minority of people who resist the idea).

That you don't even like the idea of seperate sex spaces seems troubling and a very narrow view of reality.

My main objection is that it tends to lead to all the problems we've been talking about; gender division and stereotyping, exclusion, limitation, discrimination and so on. Particularly in the church, the whole men's groups/women's groups thing on the whole reinforces some very ugly dynamics. I'm not a fan and avoid gender-divided groups, myself.

That your happy that conditions be placed on people to force them to become inclusive according to an assumption that everything should be equal regardless of the fact that sometimes sex needs to be seperated for good reasons.

Really? It's so terrible that a space be used by men in the morning and women in the afternoon, rather than not available to women at all? That's a hill you want to die on?

Innocence before the law is about that innocence before a court hearing has been heard. If someone plants evidence that doesn't change this fact as that is illegal. If the system gets away with it then thats a corrupt system and not the Truth that everyone is innocent before the law.

I'm not talking about planting evidence; I'm talking about admissability of evidence. And whether certain evidence is prejudicial, and so on. See the debates about disclosing prior history and whether this speaks to a tendency, for example.

Fundementally these Rights were already established

Rights aren't established until people actually benefit from those rights being upheld.

The Roman Empire under Christianity after it was established gradually overturned the Greco-Roman norms of sex and relationships, women being inferior and slavery.

Not as much as you might think. As I said, the Roman Empire never did remove slavery. Nor did it give women legal equality with men. In fact, over time, women's rights (such as to inheritance) actually became less, not more.

adultery was outlawed and sexual immorality was looked down on.

Sort of. Adultery was outlawed for women, and curtailed for men (who could still use prostitutes or slaves for sex, but not someone else's wife or unmarried citizen daughter). It was as much about women as reproductive assets as what we would think of as sexual morality.

My point is really, it's not a fair reading of history to claim that Christianity led in a straightforward way to the establishment of human rights for everyone. The seeds of some ideas are there, I agree, but the application was by no means immediate or obvious to early Christians.

Australia like most Western nations was very much aligned with Americias ideas in its Declaration.

Hmm. That one of the driving reasons for federation was to prevent non-white immigration seems to me to argue against that.

No one is stopping Trans people from achieving these things.

Some are arguing hard against it, though.

Would you approve of a law requiring trans people to be honest about their biological sex? That waiting until the moment of coitus to let your romantic partner find out you have the wrong "equipment" is tantamount to rape or sexual assault?

I'd want it to be very carefully drafted, but in principle, yes, I think that would be fair. And from what I can see, that is actually the case. (Eg. see here: Does ‘Gender Deception’ Invalidate Sexual Consent in New South Wales?).

Self perception can frequently be wrong....and we need not defer to anyone else's without evidence or proof (of which gender has none).

Well, that's the thing, though. In some contexts, at least, we might need to defer to someone else's self perception. In this case, where workplaces as a matter of policy (which they have in order to fulfill their legal obligations about providing a safe workplace) require you to do so.

Why isn't it a real representation of the trans person's unwillingness to accept those around them, and their hospitality to those who disagree with them?

They shouldn't have to accept and be hospitable to someone else's hostility towards them.

 

[Paidiske]

I asked you why there would be a ladies toilet before there were any ladies. I don't recall you answering. Which is to say....I don't think you even responded, not that you responded in a way which I don't remember.

Why would you create building plans assuming (falsely, as it turns out) there would be no ladies? It neatly illustrates that set of patriarchal assumptions.

These aren't male norms....anymore than the lack of a female toilet was.

The lack of a female toilet absolutely demonstrates the assumption that "the people who will work (or visit, or have other business) here will all be men." That's saying the default, the norm, in public life was a man.

Perhaps not to the men whose women are in that 30% of primary earners or to that 1% of house husbands who don't work at all....but my wife doesn't put food on her own plate, that's my responsibility. She doesn't pay the bills and she is biological.

Having a wife is not analogous to pregnancy and birth. It's not a biological process which impacts your ability to work.

Our military rejects anyone below a certain IQ. I don't recall if it's 83, 85, 87 or what....but that's a very inflexible policy. Not only does it benefit the military....it also benefits those rejected. I believe it was McNamara who tried the experiment known as "McNamara's idiots". It turns out...this particular inflexibility benefits even the idiots....not just the military.

That's not the kind of flexibility I'm talking about. I'm talking about flexibility of conditions, like being able to adjust working hours, work from home, time in lieu, that kind of thing.

I would agree if he were allowed to ask about her plans for having children in the future and reject her if he thinks accomodating her will be a barrier to his success....or if she changes her plans after being hired.

Since he isn't allowed to do this....he has to guess....and avoid anyone he suspects will hamper his business.

So no...he doesn't have a choice, as not hiring her for those reasons is illegal.

And we're back to discriminating against women for the burden of our reproductive biology.

Why would her workplace be responsible for her children?

Her workplace is responsible for not treating her unfairly because she has children.

That doesn't make any sense at all. Being incompetent isn't illegal. Being fired isn't illegal.

No, but unfair dismissal is illegal. So it's on the employer to make sure that if they fire someone, it's for a valid reason, and they've followed due process. Or they can find themselves facing an unfair dismissal claim. This is pretty standard advice around how to go about it in an appropriate way: How to avoid an Unfair Dismissal claim | Fairwork Online

Do they? I haven't heard of many cases of women being fired from their jobs for taking 12 weeks of leave. Particularly if it's just leave....and not maternity leave.

Being fired, maybe not. But discriminated against? This is fairly recent data: BPC – Morning Consult: 1 in 5 Moms Experience Pregnancy Discrimination in the Workplace | Bipartisan Policy Center

Give me an example of a country where the women have no such benefits at all...

I can't find one. Even the least generous country seems to have some provision for unpaid leave.

I don't crowdsource opinions or ideas.

Not so much crowdsourcing as just exploring other people's perspectives. Astonishingly, I married a bloke who doesn't always think the way I do.

 

[Bradskii]

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.

And many thanks for it. Your daughter would be proud of you.

 

[stevevw]

I mean your accusation was baseless and unsubstantiated.

Ok so your saying that there are only socially constructed differences in gender and sex and their outcomes for equality.

That identity might be more complex than biological sex alone.

It may be and it may not be. Its too hard to tell as its primarily a subjective determination. Even GNC people admit this that identity is on a spectrum and they may feel a different points on the spectrum sometimes male, sometimes female, sometimes neither, sometimes both and everything in between. Even for the same person.

Why? Because nobody gets to force anyone else to date them. It really is that simple.

Your still side stepping the issue. Transwomen are not wanting to force people to date them. They are objecting that they are being rejected by some as a legitimate identity.

Sex is not a human right. There are human rights around sex, like the right to express your sexuality, but there's no right to have sex with someone else.

I think the idea behind those who advocate for clients to have sex is part of a belief about what consitutes a happy and fullfilled life. Many people with disorders or disability cannot socialize and engage like others and miss out on even the opportunity. So I guess its that Affirmative action again to bring the opportunity to them to make it fair. So if sex is part of being fullfilled and having the same opportunities as everyone else as a human then I guess thats the rational.

I was saying you don't have the right to discriminate against others in provision of employment, housing etc. You do have the right to discriminate against others when choosing your sexual or romantic partner.

Why though. If no race or gender can be descriminated against on the basis of providing housing and employment ie no one can deny someone a job based on their gender. Then that is the same as someone denying a person the right to be part of a gender identity that you would normally date. Its not asking you to date transwomen but its the principle that lesbians reject transwomen from the very gender identity group they want to date as potential partners.

To apply it to your example it would be like only allowing biological women to a womens only job like say if a women only therapist and rejecting all transwomen because they were not seen as real women for the job.

Steve, it's a far cry from, "my pronouns are she/her," to being addressed with purrs. Get back to me if you're ever asked to purr at someone in the workplace, otherwise I'm going to put that in the "slippery slope fallacy" basket.

You are missing the point. The idea is if you identify as a women when every cell in your body is a mans which defies reality ie you can look like one thing with all the physical features but claim that your something else without those features and its real. Then why can't you also identify as other unreal things. Same logic follows it doesn't matter what you identify as because you only have to feel that way and theres no objective measure for it..

No, it isn't. I asked, if people are not required to use someone's preferred pronouns as a form of courtesy and respect, how you would prevent their being misgendered as a form of workplace bullying. Your answer did not even acknowledge that this might be a form of bullying, but rather wanted to entrench that misgendering. You don't even see the problem, let alone propose a solution.

No I offered that we just call each other by their names and you thought that was not good enough. So tell me if you say its work place bullying to not use peoples pronouns what evdience is there that the pronouns they use represent a true entity that needs protecting and not a made up one.

Also if it is workplace bullying do you think forcing people who don't want to do this because they feel and believe its against their beliefs and identity is that also workplace bullying that they are forced.

Your workplace has both the right and the legal responsibility to have in place policies which create a safe and supportive environment for everyone. That's not discrimination and it's not a breach of free speech laws.

It depends on your definition of safe. It is a breach of Free speech when people are shut down and cancelled when they have not made any threats but merely speak a truth. Ideologues want to cencor truth. This goes back to the Postmodernist idea that there is no truth or objective reality.

Notice has theres an increasing push to delete certain words, often harmless and factual words or figures, or parts of our history even science itself as being threatening to certain peoples subjective sense of self. The majoirty of people are being penalized for a very, very small number of people who seem to be dictating what is allowed or not.

Why is it the majority are being forced to go along. What about the majority in a Democracy don't they count, don't their views and beliefs matter.
Poll: Overwhelming majority say cancel culture has gone too far
https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-ame...majority-say-cancel-culture-has-gone-too-far/

No one can force you to believe anything.

if no one can force you to believe anything then why are we being indoctrinated by ideological beliefs even forced to take it on. Its infiltrated our institutions and politics, Its called PC and identity politics and governs how society should be ordered and everyone must follow or else.

They can, however, require you to behave respectfully and politely.

No they can't in todays society. People don't care and are narcistic and selfish. They put themselves first before others. People are disrepectful to authority even police and no one can do anything about it. people attack, condemn and shame people for no good reason on social media. Its now become normal to denegrate others so as to make yourself feel better. This is the Utopia identity politics and Woke have created.

When it comes to using preferred pronouns, pretty much. I don't see it as a real issue. (And, for the record, from what I can find, it's only a minority of people who resist the idea).

Forced pronouns comes from the same ideology as identity politics, political correctness and cancel culture. I think you will find the majority are sick of these things and disagree.

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

Around half of people feel uncomfortable about being forced to use preferred pronouns. So its a real issueand its not a minority.

Americans are evenly divided on whether they would feel comfortable using a gender-neutral pronoun for someone if that person asked them to. Half say they would feel somewhat or very comfortable, and half say they would feel somewhat or very uncomfortable.

How Americans feel about gender-neutral pronouns in 2022 | YouGov

A recent YouGov poll finds that the number of people who know someone who uses gender-neutral pronouns such as “they” instead of “he” or “she” is slowly increasing.

today.yougov.com

 

[Ana the Ist]

Why would you create building plans assuming (falsely, as it turns out) there would be no ladies? It neatly illustrates that set of patriarchal assumptions.

Was it false? Sounds like the building was in use long before a woman was elected.

What's the name of the building and the date the first woman elected was serving?

We can sort this out rather quickly.

The lack of a female toilet absolutely demonstrates the assumption that "the people who will work (or visit, or have other business) here will all be men."

No, it's just pragmatic. It says, "what is needed here?" Was the main consideration. It looks like the provisional parliament house (the temporary one built in Melbourne while the permanent one was being debated) was built in 1927 while the first woman elected to federal parliament wasn't elected until 1943. For nearly 2 decades it was a practical matter. The architects weren't wrong....they were correct.

Your permanent federal parliament building wasn't constructed till the 1980s. Unless you're talking about that one....you're wrong.

Having a wife is not analogous to pregnancy and birth. It's not a biological process which impacts your ability to work.

She's a biological process that necessitates my ability to work.

That's not the kind of flexibility I'm talking about. I'm talking about flexibility of conditions, like being able to adjust working hours, work from home, time in lieu, that kind of thing.

Well this is a bit more comprehensive. It's about who can do the job and who requires so much accomodating that it isn't worth hiring them.

And we're back to discriminating against women for the burden of our reproductive biology.

You claimed the employer had a choice at hiring. He doesn't. You can't sit there and tell me that taking a year off work at a new business, particularly from a leadership position, isn't a rather big barrier to the businesses success. They are unlikely to find a candidate as qualified or competent who only wants to work a year.

Her workplace is responsible for not treating her unfairly because she has children.

What's unfair about firing an employee who takes a year off work? What if the woman in the hypothetical hotel gets pregnant again 6 months after the 1st baby? Is her employer supposed to accomodate her for another year? A woman who has held the job security for 2 years and 8 months but only put in about 8 months of work?

How is that fair to the employer?

No, but unfair dismissal is illegal. So it's on the employer to make sure that if they fire someone, it's for a valid reason, and they've followed due process.

Right so only the woman fired should be taking her employer to court... and he's presumed innocent, right? She has to prove he illegally discriminated against her, right?

I can't find one. Even the least generous country seems to have some provision for unpaid leave.

Not in the US. Pick a company that doesn't guarantee maternity leave and see if they have any cases of unfair discrimination against pregnant women against them.

Not so much crowdsourcing as just exploring other people's perspectives. Astonishingly, I married a bloke who doesn't always think the way I do.

Unfortunately, I've never had a long term relationship with a woman who doesn't eventually just turn into a mirror of my views. Odd, I know.

 

[Ana the Ist]

I'd want it to be very carefully drafted, but in principle, yes, I think that would be fair. And from what I can see, that is actually the case. (Eg. see here: Does ‘Gender Deception’ Invalidate Sexual Consent in New South Wales?).

Seems rather simple to me....deceive someone who is on a romantic date with you, we can equate that to fraud or misdemeanor sexual harassment.

If you deceive someone who doesn't learn the truth until the beginning of some sort of sexual encounter that isn't something like nearly having sex (kissing, petting, making out, etc) is equal to sexual assault. If you're naked and or they're naked and that's the point you learn....rape.

I bet the whole bathroom debate disappears completely.

Well, that's the thing, though. In some contexts, at least, we might need to defer to someone else's self perception.

Why?

In this case, where workplaces as a matter of policy (which they have in order to fulfill their legal obligations about providing a safe workplace) require you to do so.

I can't see why you would be required to lie to keep everyone "safe".

They shouldn't have to accept and be hospitable to someone else's hostility towards them.

Someone having a different viewpoint from you doesn't equate to hostility.

 

[Bradskii]

Forced pronouns comes from the same ideology as identity politics, political correctness and cancel culture. I think you will find the majority are sick of these things and disagree.

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

I rarely read your posts, Steve. I find it much easier to read @Paidiske's dismantling of each of your points. But this one caught my eye. Perhaps because it's wrong. Australia Talks - Find out where you fit, and how you compare to other Australians in 2021

'Overall, women and younger people are happier to use the pronouns someone identifies with, but the majority of men and Australians in all age groups also agree with this sentiment. About 1 in 5 Australians think we should be using pronouns that match the sex we are assigned at birth.'

When does 20% become a majority view? But now we know who is in that small minority. It's you, Steve. You. And seeing as it's a lot less for those under 30, guess which way the trend is going...

Plus this one:

'Half of Aussie men, including you, say men and women don't share a level playing field​

That compares to 4 in 5 Australian women who hold the same view.

Since 2019, there's been a big shift in how the youngest and oldest Australians answer this question, with both groups now much more likely to say men and women are not treated equally.'

 

[Paidiske]

Ok so your saying that there are only socially constructed differences in gender and sex and their outcomes for equality.

Sigh. You said: "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."

What I am critiquing here is your distinction between "human made" ideas and "anything natural." As if this was a neat, black-and-white dichotomy (it isn't).

Your still side stepping the issue. Transwomen are not wanting to force people to date them. They are objecting that they are being rejected by some as a legitimate identity.

I'm not side stepping the issue; I'm getting to the practical fact of the issue; they might not like being rejected romantically, but that doesn't take away the right of others to be romantically uninterested in them.

I think the idea behind those who advocate for clients to have sex is part of a belief about what consitutes a happy and fullfilled life. Many people with disorders or disability cannot socialize and engage like others and miss out on even the opportunity. So I guess its that Affirmative action again to bring the opportunity to them to make it fair. So if sex is part of being fullfilled and having the same opportunities as everyone else as a human then I guess thats the rational.

Don't misunderstand me. Fundamentally, I loathe prostitution and view it as the mass exploitation of (mostly) women. That said, if we're going to allow legal prostitution, then I think people with disabilities have just as much right to engage in it as anyone else, and if doing so means that someone else needs to help (for example) faciltitate the appointment then (much as I dislike it) I have to begrudgingly admit that that is fair.

But to my mind, there is a distinction between "having the right to participate in the sex work economy," and "having the right to sex."

Why though. If no race or gender can be descriminated against on the basis of providing housing and employment ie no one can deny someone a job based on their gender. Then that is the same as someone denying a person the right to be part of a gender identity that you would normally date. Its not asking you to date transwomen but its the principle that lesbians reject transwomen from the very gender identity group they want to date as potential partners.

Why do you have the right to choose your romantic partner? Really?

Look, if you're an employer, or a landlord, you're participating in public life in a situation where people have some legal protections against discrimination, for the good of society. And by entering that part of public life you consent to being bound by those legal protections.

But as a private person choosing to date, or not date, or whom to date, no one gets to force you to date someone you don't want to. Your consent to engage in a romantic liaison with someone else is paramount.

You are missing the point. The idea is if you identify as a women when every cell in your body is a mans which defies reality ie you can look like one thing with all the physical features but claim that your something else without those features and its real. Then why can't you also identify as other unreal things.

Maybe because there's a genuine developmental basis for being transgendered.

No I offered that we just call each other by their names and you thought that was not good enough.

I didn't object to that. That also wasn't a response to the question I asked.

So tell me if you say its work place bullying to not use peoples pronouns what evdience is there that the pronouns they use represent a true entity that needs protecting and not a made up one.

That's actually not the point. If the misgendering is done as part of teasing, pressuring, harassing someone, or the like, it's bullying. Repeatedly insisting to a trans person that their gender identity isn't real would definitely fall under that. That's the point; the impact the behaviour has on the person being targetted.

Also if it is workplace bullying do you think forcing people who don't want to do this because they feel and believe its against their beliefs and identity is that also workplace bullying that they are forced.

No. I don't believe it's workplace bullying to require employees to interact respectfully with others.

Why is it the majority are being forced to go along. What about the majority in a Democracy don't they count, don't their views and beliefs matter.

To the point of overriding the rights of minorities? Weren't you the one trying to emphasise the inalienable dignity and worth of each person? Should that be trampled by the majority now?

if no one can force you to believe anything then why are we being indoctrinated by ideological beliefs even forced to take it on.

You are required - in very limited contexts - to abide by basic shared norms of respect and courtesy. But that isn't forcing you to believe anything.

No, it's just pragmatic. It says, "what is needed here?" Was the main consideration.

And nobody thought women might have needs in the building. (Or the building might need women?) It's a perfect example of the assumption of the default male.

She's a biological process that necessitates my ability to work.

You wouldn't need to work if you were single?

Come on, Ana, surely you're just being contrary for the sake of it here. It's blindingly obvious that having a spouse doesn't impact working the way giving birth does.

It's about who can do the job and who requires so much accomodating that it isn't worth hiring them.

The point is that this kind of flexibility benefits everyone (including the employer). Far from "not being worth hiring" it lets the employer benefit from a wider talent pool than very restrictive employment practices would.

You claimed the employer had a choice at hiring.

He did. He got to pick the best candidate for the job.

You can't sit there and tell me that taking a year off work at a new business, particularly from a leadership position, isn't a rather big barrier to the businesses success.

Apparently not: Do companies suffer by offering paid parental leave? These economists believe they’ve found an answer

What's unfair about firing an employee who takes a year off work?

If that's the only reason, it's pure discrimination against a new parent. It's got nothing to do with her capability, her skills, knowledge, or performance in the role, or her potential contributions in the future. It's just, "I don't want to have to treat you fairly because you had a baby."

Right so only the woman fired should be taking her employer to court... and he's presumed innocent, right? She has to prove he illegally discriminated against her, right?

It's not usually that kind of process. There's an investigation, and if conciliation is not successful, a determination is made based on the evidence. If the employer can't demonstrate grounds, they may well find themselves penalised for unfair dismissal. The process for unfair dismissal claims | Fair Work Commission.

Not in the US. Pick a company that doesn't guarantee maternity leave and see if they have any cases of unfair discrimination against pregnant women against them.

You have a weird system where the laws are different for companies with fewer than 50 employees, and I can't find discrimination claims broken down by company size. But everything I can find says that unfair discrimination is highly prevalent.

Why?

The main reason, as noted in my extensive discussion with Steve, is the need for workplace policies which prevent bullying and harassment.

Someone having a different viewpoint from you doesn't equate to hostility.

But the way that is conveyed certainly can.

 

[Ana the Ist]

And nobody thought women might have needs in the building.

No women were there for nearly 2 decades.

You wouldn't need to work if you were single?

I wouldn't need to work if I were a woman.

Come on, Ana, surely you're just being contrary for the sake of it here. It's blindingly obvious that having a spouse doesn't impact working the way giving birth does.

I'm not saying it's the exact same thing. You're not legally obligated to take care of your kid after 18 years.

The point is that this kind of flexibility benefits everyone (including the employer). Far from "not being worth hiring" it lets the employer benefit from a wider talent pool than very restrictive employment practices would.

There's nothing about not giving women extra benefits that prevents them from being hired.

He did. He got to pick the best candidate for the job.

Unless that candidate takes a year off work.

Apparently not: Do companies suffer by offering paid parental leave? These economists believe they’ve found an answer

There's a reason you're citing economists and not businesses.

Survey: Employers Dialing Back Parental Leave | Wellable

If employers are reducing paid parental leave, they must holistically evaluate the impact that change has on the entire employee base and consider what other areas of support are needed to help parents navigate new stages of life.

www.wellable.co

Looks like when times are tough...businesses don't want to pay parental leave. It's one of the first things to go. Wonder why? It's so beneficial, right?

Nope. Paying someone to not work turns out to be a liability when profits are down and costs are up.
Do companies suffer by offering paid parental leave? These economists believe they’ve found an answer

If that's the only reason, it's pure discrimination against a new parent.

Because they aren't working.

It's got nothing to do with her capability, her skills, knowledge, or performance in the role, or her potential contributions in the future.

Potential contributions in the future aren't some measurable statistic.

It's not usually that kind of process. There's an investigation, and if conciliation is not successful, a determination is made based on the evidence. If the employer can't demonstrate grounds, they may well find themselves penalised for unfair dismissal. The process for unfair dismissal claims | Fair Work Commission.

Now you're telling me there's a criminal investigation if you fire the woman lol. Gee...would that possibly be a barrier for employers?

You have a weird system where the laws are different for companies with fewer than 50 employees, and I can't find discrimination claims broken down by company size.

It doesn't matter what size the company is. All we need to know are 2 things about it....

1. Does it offer maternity or parental leave? If no....

2. Do any of the "barriers" you listed regarding parental leave still apply to the company?

Because apparently you can't tell the difference between a bonus and a barrier. It's real simple. I can go back to the list and point them out one by one if you like.

But everything I can find says that unfair discrimination is highly prevalent.

I'm sure everything you looked at did....sure. We're only talking about the barriers you listed though because you're fully in favor of discrimination against white men.

The main reason, as noted in my extensive discussion with Steve, is the need for workplace policies which prevent bullying and harassment.

I don't think that's happening. Much like trans child suicide, trans murder rates, and trans people getting beat up in men's restrooms....it sounds like one of those things trans people say happens, without any proof, to get foolish people to concede to their demands.

I mean seriously, how many actual proven incidents of trans person "workplace harassment" does Australia have per year? Can you pull up a dozen examples?

But the way that is conveyed certainly can.

I don't know how someone could convey hostility in pronouns. Someone angrily says "he" or "she"? Give me a break lol. If you and I were having a face to face conversation....you'd use my name and I'd use yours. It's only if you were talking to someone else about me when I'm not around that you'd say "he". There's very few contexts when it could even come up as an issue. It makes zero sense. Just think for a moment about how you use pronouns....and try to think of a way you'd angrily call me "she" to my face.

This pronoun workplace harassment, much like trans child suicide, isn't a real thing that happens.

 

[Paidiske]

I wouldn't need to work if I were a woman.

You wouldn't need to work if you could convince someone else to support you. That may or may not be the case if you were a woman.

There's nothing about not giving women extra benefits that prevents them from being hired.

It will, however, place significant barriers in the way of those who become mothers.

Unless that candidate takes a year off work.

She's still the best candidate, and he gets her back afterwards.

Looks like when times are tough...businesses don't want to pay parental leave. It's one of the first things to go. Wonder why? It's so beneficial, right?

It's easy to treat your employees badly. Long term it's likely to backfire, though.

Because they aren't working.

Temporarily. And it's not like you're paying them while they're on parental leave.

Potential contributions in the future aren't some measurable statistic.

Isn't it what basically all hiring decisions are made on, though? What we think this person will be able to achieve in the role?

Now you're telling me there's a criminal investigation if you fire the woman lol. Gee...would that possibly be a barrier for employers?

It's a protection against discrimination. I'm not weeping for employers (who hold the power in the relationship) being held accountable for how they treat their employees.

It doesn't matter what size the company is. All we need to know are 2 things about it....

1. Does it offer maternity or parental leave? If no....

2. Do any of the "barriers" you listed regarding parental leave still apply to the company?

It does matter what size the company is, because from what I can tell in America only companies of a certain size are federally required to allow unpaid maternity leave. And I can't find information about discrimination broken down by company size.

Because apparently you can't tell the difference between a bonus and a barrier.

Facing discrimination, no matter the reason, is a barrier.

I mean seriously, how many actual proven incidents of trans person "workplace harassment" does Australia have per year? Can you pull up a dozen examples?

I can't easily find data purely on trans people (rather than on LGBTIQA+ folks in general). But I would guess that guidelines like this would not have been developed if it were not an issue. The section on bullying is helpfully illustrative.

"Bullying of trans people may involve deliberate or persistent ‘accidental’ use of wrong name or pronouns, confrontation, animosity and social exclusion. Employers have a general duty to reduce the risk to employees’ health and safety posed by workplace bullying, including the bullying of trans employees."

 

[Ana the Ist]

You wouldn't need to work if you could convince someone else to support you. That may or may not be the case if you were a woman.

Right....it's an option women have that 99% of men don't.

It will, however, place significant barriers in the way of those who become mothers.

Which includes none of the men.

Despite arguing against biology being a factor in workplace outcomes like leadership positions (and the robust evidence) and the corresponding difficulty for men on the low end of the IQ scale being homeless....

Your main "barrier" for workplace success is the idea that women have a biological tendency to (how did you put it?) "fall pregnant" and should be generously accommodated in ways men aren't so they aren't disadvantaged in the workplace.

Is that about correct?

Isn't it what basically all hiring decisions are made on, though? What we think this person will be able to achieve in the role?

Absolutely. And if they fail to succeed for any reason (if they're men) they can be fired from their position. There's no guarantees that men get, that a woman doesn't also get.....however it appears there's multiple guarantees for a woman that a man doesn't get.

And this is part of your feminist argument that women are just as capable/competent/able as men in the workplace (you know, as long as they get their guarantees and bonus year off)

It does matter what size the company is,

No...it doesn't. Pick any company without maternity leave.

Facing discrimination, no matter the reason, is a barrier.

Not true. There's plenty of reasons to discriminate against a potential employee. Experience for example.

I can't easily find data purely on trans people (rather than on LGBTIQA+ folks in general).

Right.

But I would guess that guidelines like this would not have been developed if it were not an issue.

Well it was made an issue. That doesn't mean it was happening.

See the problem is a certain politically leaning group decided they shouldn't ever question the "lived experiences" of certain types of people who they see as less than themselves in some way. That creates a lot of incentives for those people to fully lie about their "lived experiences" for personal gain and political power.

Cry victimhood became the strategy du jour

"Bullying of trans people may involve deliberate or persistent ‘accidental’ use of wrong name or pronouns, confrontation, animosity and social exclusion. Employers have a general duty to reduce the risk to employees’ health and safety posed by workplace bullying, including the bullying of trans employees."

No I get it....employers caved once enough people believed something that wasn't happening was happening. It's a private company so you really don't have any right to free speech but outside the workplace I don't think an employer has any right to require any sort of speech from employees.

 

[Paidiske]

Right....it's an option women have that 99% of men don't.

If you're bitter that you don't have the option, I'd suggest that's a conversation to have at home.

Nonetheless, the point is that choosing to support a spouse, is not the same as the biological realities of pregnancy.

Your main "barrier" for workplace success is the idea that women have a biological tendency to (how did you put it?) "fall pregnant" and should be generously accommodated in ways men aren't so they aren't disadvantaged in the workplace.

A significant barrier is unjust discrimination faced by women because of the realities of childbearing, is the way I'd put it. (Of course, it's hard to tease out how much of the discrimination is just due to sexism in general).

Absolutely. And if they fail to succeed for any reason (if they're men) they can be fired from their position. There's no guarantees that men get, that a woman doesn't also get.....however it appears there's multiple guarantees for a woman that a man doesn't get.

A man is already guaranteed not to be discriminated against for pregnancy and childbearing.

And this is part of your feminist argument that women are just as capable/competent/able as men in the workplace (you know, as long as they get their guarantees and bonus year off)

I've already agreed that the length of time is arbitrary and could be adjusted. But yes, women are just as capable and competent as men, but I would think even you could see, Ana, that trying to work around the very immediate realities of giving birth would be a challenge for anyone.

No...it doesn't. Pick any company without maternity leave.

That's not information I'm finding readily available. How about you find one, since you are so much better acquainted with the local context?

Not true. There's plenty of reasons to discriminate against a potential employee. Experience for example.

I don't mean the kind of discrimination that recognises different levels of ability to do the role, but discrimination on grounds that have nothing to do with the skills, knowledge or capability to do the role.

Well it was made an issue. That doesn't mean it was happening.

Given we've got people in here crying about how hideously awful it is that it might not be allowed any more, perhaps there is a cultural problem.

outside the workplace I don't think an employer has any right to require any sort of speech from employees.

I agree (and said as much to steve earlier in the thread) although employers do seem intent on encroaching on that. That is something I think could be reasonably pushed back on. In general, shifting the balance of power to benefit the employee (rather than the employer, at the employee's expense) seems to me to be a good thing.

 

[stevevw]

Sigh. You said: "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."

What I am critiquing here is your distinction between "human made" ideas and "anything natural." As if this was a neat, black-and-white dichotomy (it isn't).

No I am not saying there is not a clear destinction and that is why some Christians can be more supceptible to falling for ideologies that insist its all about social constructions.

I'm not side stepping the issue; I'm getting to the practical fact of the issue; they might not like being rejected romantically, but that doesn't take away the right of others to be romantically uninterested in them.

Yes if all things were equal and they treated transwomen like real women and preferred not to date that particular women then they have the right. But that is not what they are doing. They are rejecting transwomen as real women and therefore outof the category women before they have a chance to even be considered. Thats descrimination according to Trans ideology.

Don't misunderstand me. Fundamentally, I loathe prostitution and view it as the mass exploitation of (mostly) women. That said, if we're going to allow legal prostitution, then I think people with disabilities have just as much right to engage in it as anyone else, and if doing so means that someone else needs to help (for example) faciltitate the appointment then (much as I dislike it) I have to begrudgingly admit that that is fair.

The idea that humans need sex to fullfill themselves is a Postmodernist idea in that the individual and their identity is the utmost important thing and truth therefore fullfillment, expression and protection of individual identity equals good and their Right. This also relates to Feminism and the sexual revolution which places sexual freedom and expression as part of being your free self and an individual Rights .

In the case of the disadabled identity that means they are denied these Rights. In the case of ideology thats when ideas like DEI come in. Equity ensures equal outcomes so if the disabled person cannot have the same opportunity to find a mate or get laid then we must bring that to the person to make it fair and equal.

All this is the culimination of belief and progressive thinking and what we have ended up with today where now sex is arranged and paid for by the State. Thats how far the State has now entered our lives having control over our private lives and dictating what is moral or not. The idea that the State is neutral on morals is unreal. In rejecting God we now have a new religion and moral basis.

This is the two Worldviews conflicting. As the New State religion takes over Christianity and God will be squeeze out to the point where it will be seen as a threat.

But to my mind, there is a distinction between "having the right to participate in the sex work economy," and "having the right to sex."

Why, its the same thing. The sex was arranged for the disabled person based on his Right to have sex. I mean it is a pretty cynical way to look at it as usually wanting sex is driven by the want and need to have a mate. So theres ourting and all that. But that is what we have been reduced to that sex is seperated from all that and has become a commodity of human fullfillment to be happy and satified.

Why do you have the right to choose your romantic partner? Really?

Your not understanding the category destinction. You can choose your own partner with the category opposite or same sex that your attracted to. That brings things down to the individual level where you then choose individual temperament, personality, like/dislikes ect. But what Lesbians are edoing is not even allowing transwomen to qualify at the indibidual level.

So they have knocked out an entire identity group (transwomen) from the category women (biological women) because they don't believe they are real women.

Thats like saying a person deletes blacks out of their potential dating pool because they don't believe blacks are not real enough men to even consider dating, or marrying or having sex with.

 

[Ana the Ist]

Nonetheless, the point is that choosing to support a spouse, is not the same as the biological realities of pregnancy.

You're not choosing to support a child?

A significant barrier is unjust discrimination faced by women because of the realities of childbearing, is the way I'd put it. (Of course, it's hard to tease out how much of the discrimination is just due to sexism in general).

If they weren't taking the year off and working pregnant...or if they didn't get pregnant and take a year off....they wouldn't be discriminated against would they?

It's not the pregnancy, it's the benefits.

A man is already guaranteed not to be discriminated against for pregnancy and childbearing.

He's not discriminated against because he can't take a year off work lol.

I've already agreed that the length of time is arbitrary and could be adjusted. But yes, women are just as capable and competent as men,

As long as we give them benefits men don't get to protect them from the consequences of their actions lol.

That's not information I'm finding readily available. How about you find one, since you are so much better acquainted with the local context?

The CEO of a massive Christian-owned craft store had a surprising response when asked about maternity leave

Last month, David Green, the CEO of the craft retailer Hobby Lobby, came to Business Insider’s...

www.google.com

I don't mean the kind of discrimination that recognises different levels of ability to do the role, but discrimination on grounds that have nothing to do with the skills, knowledge or capability to do the role.

Ok, let's go back to the hypothetical where the woman hired as gm for the hotel and assume she and her replacement both have the same amount of experience at the start of working gm for the hotel. She works for 3 months and goes on 52 weeks of maternity leave, which her replacement works

Which of these two employees has more experience by the time her consequence free benefits expire? Her replacement, right?

So despite her having less experience than her replacement, she gets her job back, consequence free, and her more experienced replacement is fired.

And in your wild imagination, this is somehow a barrier for women and not anyone else.

Given we've got people in here crying about how hideously awful it is that it might not be allowed any more, perhaps there is a cultural problem.

I'd describe the problem as trans people trying to curtail free speech and the fascist authoritarian bootlickers cheering them on and helping.

That's one way of describing the problem.

Another way would be saying that if you can't work somewhere that people disagree with you on the fundamental nature of reality....that's your problem, not their's, and you should learn to adjust.

I agree (and said as much to steve earlier in the thread) although employers do seem intent on encroaching on that. That is something I think could be reasonably pushed back on. In general, shifting the balance of power to benefit the employee (rather than the employer, at the employee's expense) seems to me to be a good thing.

Well encroaching upon free speech sure isn't going to help....but I have a suggestion...

Perhaps when you consider which problems are worth pursuing and which ones to ignore, consider asking for evidence of the problem and not just taking their word for it because you pity them.. or they complain the loudest....or they don't understand that if all of society has to change to accomodate them....maybe the problem is them.

I mean, I gave you a literal example of people admitting to racial discrimination against a group of people and you were trying to consider "good reasons for it" in your very next post....meanwhile, trans people are complaining about pronoun usage, which is entirely based upon perception according to them, somehow constitutes harassment although both you and I can't even conceive of how that would realistically work in any sort of workplace setting and you seem to think it's probably a good thing to infringe on free speech to solve some non-problem that never really happens.

 

[stevevw]

I rarely read your posts, Steve. I find it much easier to read @Paidiske's dismantling of each of your points. But this one caught my eye. Perhaps because it's wrong. Australia Talks - Find out where you fit, and how you compare to other Australians in 2021

'Overall, women and younger people are happier to use the pronouns someone identifies with, but the majority of men and Australians in all age groups also agree with this sentiment. About 1 in 5 Australians think we should be using pronouns that match the sex we are assigned at birth.'

When does 20% become a majority view? But now we know who is in that small minority. It's you, Steve. You. And seeing as it's a lot less for those under 30, guess which way the trend is going...

Plus this one:

'Half of Aussie men, including you, say men and women don't share a level playing field​

That compares to 4 in 5 Australian women who hold the same view.

Since 2019, there's been a big shift in how the youngest and oldest Australians answer this question, with both groups now much more likely to say men and women are not treated equally.'

I am not sure if this was a discussion you wanted or just an opportunity to create a giant logical fallacy.

By the way, I think its the other way around where there are several putting up good evdence based arguements to Paidiskes claims. Paidiske has some good points but I don't think theres any dismantling going on. That sounds a bit extreme. But I noticed you have dropped out. At least Paidiske argues her case which I admire.