Changing Perspectives On Gender.

[Wosbald]

+JMJ+

[…]

The distinction that is unarguably a moral distinction.

Tru dat.

Every sphere of human activity is inherently a moral sphere, inasmuch as each bears moral implications whether those implications be grave, slight, or indifferent.

Why would any sphere of human activity be exempt from this universal human truism, as for example, the free-pass that Smithian economists and the Disciples of the Invisible Hand tried to gain for economic activity?

[Fist and Faith]

We're not discussing this in a vacuum. We're discussing this because it's an issue that's been in the news and which people are taking sides on. Why can't this be mentioned? If no one can introduce facts into a discussion, there would not be much discussion.

Absolutely. Of course, I would think it's easy to understand how addressing a point another poster made, particularly if your (general) post comes right after theirs, can give the impression that you're responding to them. Maybe everyone could try to remember to indicate whether they're responding to a particular post here, what someone off the Watch said, or a general impression they have of what the world at large thinks? It might prevent some back-and-forth that was never intended.

Not saying this is a rule. I just think it would be helpful.

[Skyweir]

Interesting but how do we achieve that without breaking a rule given you can’t reference their name lol

[Fist and Faith]

Interesting but how do we achieve that without breaking a rule given you can’t reference their name lol

wayfriend wrote: ↑
But I am a slave to the sex I was born as?

It’s hard to know if your comment is a question or a statement And it’s kind of weird to ask without mentioning your name (but I’ve edited this post to remove my reference to it though it remains in my quote lol

I had been thinking the same thing lately. I understood the reasoning of the rule when Z came up with it. But it's a bit awkward at times. Let's try things a different way that will, hopefully, achieve the intended results. Everybody please check out the first post of the Current Events thread.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

We as a society though are required to treat transgender women as women.

Indeed. I am reminded of Asimov's Bicentenial Man. How much being a woman is considered enough to be a woman? (And the same for men.)

Being a woman is what's required, and a man who identifies as a woman is no more a woman than a white man in blackface is a black man. A genuine, deep-seated belief that you are something you are not does not make you that thing.

This doesn't preclude that person's rights and protections under the law, but it does preclude that person's ability to enjoy the legal benefits of that protected class.

[Fist and Faith]

This doesn't preclude that person's rights and protections under the law, but it does preclude that person's ability to enjoy the legal benefits of that protected class.

Legally speaking, I believe you're wrong. At least with some laws, and likely more all the time.

[wayfriend]

We as a society though are required to treat transgender women as women.

Indeed. I am reminded of Asimov's Bicentenial Man. How much being a woman is considered enough to be a woman? (And the same for men.)

I have actually been pondering this since yesterday. Imagining a movie called Bicentenial Woman. About a transgender woman who is continually confronted by people who won't recognize her as a woman for ostensibly technical reasons but ultimately because society won't accept her as she is. After undergoing hormone therapy, she is still rejected. After having a "sex change" operation, she is still rejected. She has her muscles artificially atrophied, and she is still rejected. She has a womb implanted, gets impregnated, and bears a child, but still people refuse to admit she is a woman. Finally, she undergoes gene modification to remove all her Y chromosomes, even though this will cause her entire body to destabilize and die in a few months. .... Well the ending of the movie would be a spoiler.

This is not in reply to anyone who posted in this thread. This is not about anyone on the Watch. There are no claims in this post about why anyone is doing anything, or even what they are doing.

[Fist and Faith]

.... Well the ending of the movie would be a spoiler.

ARGH!

This is not in reply to anyone who posted in this thread. This is not about anyone on the Watch. There are no claims in this post about why anyone is doing anything, or even what they are doing.

I think you're wrong.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

This doesn't preclude that person's rights and protections under the law, but it does preclude that person's ability to enjoy the legal benefits of that protected class.

Legally speaking, I believe you're wrong. At least with some laws, and likely more all the time.

Therein lies the rub. Reactionary laws are being passed, and SCOTUS has butchered Title IV to accommodate trans women, and is equating them with actual, biological women.

So we're crystal clear, I couldn't care any less what adults do with their bodies, and I'm 100% against laws that criminalize or discriminate agains men and women who - for whatever reason - chose to identify as the opposite sex. What I object to is the appropriation of the legal spoils which are attached to certain protected classes by people who are not a member of that class. Do away with Title IV and make everything unisex, and my objection goes away. We all know that's not going to happen though, so we are where we are.

So the question becomes, how do we accommodate these people without disturbing the laws and protections that were, until recently, strictly in place for women? Do we create a third set of sports leagues and classifications? Do we pass a duplicate Title IV to protect trans people?

[wayfriend]

I feel it appropriate to point out a FACT.

"Women" is not a protected class. Saying it is is not only wrong but perpetuates an incorrect narrative of what "protected class" means.

Edit to add: I find the notion that all, or most, transgenders are guys seeking to dominate a women's sports team (and who find gender reassignment a small cost to pay!).

Also: if you are a women, then the law should treat you as one, no matter how you "got there". (If I become handicapped, am I not handicapped in the eyes of the law? If I become Christian, am I not Christian in the eyes of the law? If I get old, am I not elderly in the eyes of the law?)

So the [erroneous] argument about protected classes only makes sense when you refuse to consider a transgender woman as a woman.

This is important because it shows that this line of reasoning doesn't say anything about transgender women. It is predicated on refusing to acknowledge them, rather than explaining why we should not acknowledge them. And so, it only says something about those who refuse to accept them.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

I feel it appropriate to point out a FACT.

"Women" is not a protected class. Saying it is is not only wrong but perpetuates an incorrect narrative of what "protected class" means.

https://www.eeoc.gov/discrimination-type

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ ... x_dis.html

I feel it even more appropriate to quote the law. Now if you want to argue that Title IV had nothing to do with protecting women, then by all means, go ahead.

[wayfriend]

You cannot prove your point by quoting things that don't assert your claim.

Shall I explain it to you? I feel like I have many times already.

"Sex" is a protected class. As your referenced laws assert.
"Women" is not. As your referenced laws fail to assert.

Most importantly, this means that "women" are not more privileged than "non-women".

Also, Title IV was all about removing barriers that prevented women from being equal to men. It did not raise them above them.

[Fist and Faith]

I can't claim any expertise in this stuff. But I would not take that to mean it is a protected class. Rather, that they cannot ...how to say it... be a discriminated class.

Am I misunderstanding?

[wayfriend]

It means you cannot discriminate based on sex.
Discriminating against any sex is prohibited.

It does not mean discrimination is only prohibited against women.
More importantly, it does not mean women are more protected than anyone else.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

I can't claim any expertise in this stuff. But I would not take that to mean it is a protected class. Rather, that they cannot ...how to say it... be a discriminated class.

Am I misunderstanding?

No. Sex discrimination is illegal. The laws, especially Title IV, were crafted to specifically protect women, even though they all can apply to men. So it's (somewhat) sloppy legal shorthand to refer to certain groups (blacks, gays, women) as "protected classes", even though all races, sexual orientations, and sexes are covered by the law.

So you can parse that to say that there are no official protected classes, but in looking at various laws, ordinances, and administrative decrees, it's quite obvious that there are.

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/f ... report.pdf


And my apologies for butchering Roman Numerals, "IX" is "nine", not "IV".

[wayfriend]

The laws, especially Title IV, were crafted to specifically protect women, even though they all can apply to men.

Are you asserting that women have more rights and privileges under the law than men do?

If not, then "the appropriation of the legal spoils which are attached to certain protected classes by people who are not a member of that class" is referring to something that does not exist.

So I am thinking that you are making this assertion.

I, for one, am able to recognize that a law designed to prevent one sex from being treated less equitably than the other does not constitute a law that treats the other sex less equitably instead. Equality is a funny thing that way.,

[Fist and Faith]

Seems it’s ok to call transgenderism a social contagion spread by social media but not ok to ask for such a claim to be backed with any semblance of evidence.

Incorrect. It is perfectly fine to ask for such a claim to be backed with evidence.

Seems ok to suggest that transgenderism was spread to children who were isolated and alienated during the Covid lockdowns. lol

What does that even mean? lol

I don't know. I'm sure these issues were around before the pandemic.

Seems perfectly acceptable to claim kids are being separated from their parents BECAUSE the parents failed to address their child with the appropriate pronouns.

This is an obvious oversimplification.

And none of the cases provided by any poster supports those irrational assertions.

Why is that?

Could it be because they are not factually accurate?

It could be.

I’m sure there are exceptions to the rule ~ cuz mistakes get made ~ but separating children from their parents should be only contemplated where there exists reasonable grounds to intervene, as in the cases linked previously, depicting child abuse.

I agree.

It’s specious assertions of this nature that stigmatises transgender people (children, youth & adults) yet it seems entirely acceptable here.

Why is that?

Free speech. And the nature of these kinds of discussions. People have different opinions, interpretations, values, etc. And they can express them. Others comment, question them, agree or disagree, etc.

[Fist and Faith]

We as a society though are required to treat transgender women as women ~ as there is no acceptable alternative.

I think this is the bottom line. We do it, or we don't. We treat people the way they want to be treated, or we don't. To me, that's the most important issue. It might be difficult to work out in some situations, but we should try to get as close to perfect as we can get.

[Avatar]

I agree with that. Thing is though, we are not required to. Should we? Personally I think it's just common decency to, as Fist said, treat people the way they want to be treated, or (for example) to use the pronoun they prefer, or whatever. But it's not a requirement. Whether it is (or should be) a moral or ethical imperative is a different question.

The real truth is that nobody is required to do anything in any way that is meaningful. We are required not to murder people, but people still get murdered. The reality is that everybody does what they want (or think they want, or think they are obligated to), and faces the consequences. One way or another.

--A

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

The laws, especially Title IV, were crafted to specifically protect women, even though they all can apply to men.

Are you asserting that women have more rights and privileges under the law than men do?

If not, then "the appropriation of the legal spoils which are attached to certain protected classes by people who are not a member of that class" is referring to something that does not exist.

So I am thinking that you are making this assertion.

I, for one, am able to recognize that a law designed to prevent one sex from being treated less equitably than the other does not constitute a law that treats the other sex less equitably instead. Equality is a funny thing that way.,

I'm stating exactly what my last link stated. That Title IX (got it right this time!) applies to both sexes, but was crafted to deal with women's issues. Allowing men to compete in women's sports creates an inequality that the crafters of the law could never have foreseen. Unfortunately when it comes to scholarships, this is a zero-sum game.

Again, I'm not saying that trans people shouldn't be able to compete in sports, rather that we've created a bright line between men and women in sports, and allowing men to compete in women's sports constitutes both an unfair advantage and a hardship for female athletes when it comes to scholarship money and/or promotion to major league sports.