An argument over dinner

Shocky-FM said:
It's been at the point where the best people are not getting jobs because of gender equality for a long time and it works both ways, but your not allowed to say that because it upsets women.
Click to expand...

I think it’s a fallacy to believe that the best person for the job was hired before gender equality came along.

Look at the current cabinet. Do you believe that David Davis, Jeremy Hunt, Chris Grayling, Boris Johnson et al are the best this country can do?
 
Tunney said:
I think it’s a fallacy to believe that the best person for the job was hired before gender equality came along.

Look at the current cabinet. Do you believe that David Davis, Jeremy Hunt, Chris Grayling, Boris Johnson et al are the best this country can do?
Click to expand...

That's different, ask the numpties that voted for them.
 
6 candidates is not enough to have an equal spread of current genders, that's where you went wrong.

assuming all the candidates are career politicians they're all going to be the same anyway.
 
Tunney said:
I think it’s a fallacy to believe that the best person for the job was hired before gender equality came along.

Look at the current cabinet. Do you believe that David Davis, Jeremy Hunt, Chris Grayling, Boris Johnson et al are the best this country can do?
Click to expand...

The pool for potential Ministerial candidates is somewhat limited though. They might well be the best out of what is available.
 
Ahhhh, intersectionality, what would we do without it...

You're right that if equal representation with the general population is something you value, then 3 trans women and 0 biological women would be a poor representation. However, we shouldn't really care about representation for representation's sake. The measurement is a useful tool for finding places to search for discrimination and prejudice, but thats about it. Its the start of a conversation instead of the end of one, and we shouldn't assume that representation of all peoples in all sectors will be equal.
 
Transgender dysphoria is a well-defined and accepted and legitimate medical condition, as valid as if a doctor has diagnosed you with schizophrenia or Cancer. It is not something you choose to have, the process of diagnosis and to obtain the certificate to be on the register is lengthy and laborious. It is not something you wake up one morning thinking you are the other sex and then the day after you are one. It takes years and years. In all intends and purposes, they become the new sex they diagnosed with. It is not up to debate from that point onwards which sex they are, not medically, not legally. The only question hereon is whether you personally think otherwise.


Now no one can object to your own opinion, but that’s all that is, your opinion. You are free to have it, however the resulting decision of whether you prevent someone doing something base on their sex can be since the basis of it isn’t valid in both medically or legally. So what reasons are left? Bigotry?


By the way, the legislation for the Transgender Act 2004 is as a result of decades of case laws and considerations by many experts and judges, it wasn’t a decision made on a whim or by the lefties Tories; Labour was actually in power when this law was passed and the law was passed after many consultations and debate. It wasn’t a regulation from Europe, it’s a law that our own country had written.
 
Orionaut said:
The pool for potential Ministerial candidates is somewhat limited though. They might well be the best out of what is available.
Click to expand...

They’re absolutely not the best of what’s available. Many dedicated and capable ministers have been sidelined by this government.
 
I think the question is a bit flawed here as we are making the assumption that gender is the most important factor for fair representation (why not class, for example). Are we trying to represent mothers or are we trying to represent women as a whole? Etc

Within the parameters of the question, however, I'm inclined to agree with the OP. You could consider the luxury tax on birth control as an example of how periods are misunderstood at government level, and that's something you could argue would be aided more by natural born women than trans.

My actual opinion, of course, is that you simply let the constituents vote for whoever they feel best represents them and let democracy do its thing.
 
Raymond Lin said:
Now no one can object to your own opinion, but that’s all that is, your opinion. You are free to have it, however the resulting decision of whether you prevent someone doing something base on their sex can be since the basis of it isn’t valid in both medically or legally. So what reasons are left? Bigotry?
Click to expand...

If the person has been given a position on the basis of their sex, for the sole purpose of championing, legislating, law making, on issues from the perspective of that sex - if in the final analysis such a person, hasn't experienced many of the core characteristics that a natural member of that sex would have experienced, (motherhood, childbirth, periods, discrimination, dating, social stigmas, physical appearance, puberty, hormones, fashion, etc) then how can they be a legitimate voice for concerns related to that group, when they've not "been there and done it" so to speak?

I don't think it's bigotry, to point out there's an obvious difference between a natural born woman and a trans woman, the question is - how does that difference play out in the wider context of forced equality.
 
Last edited:
Screeeech said:
If the person has been given a position on the basis of their sex, for the sole purpose of championing, legislating, law making, then from the perspective of that sex - if in the final analysis such a person, hasn't experienced any of the core characteristics that a natural member of that sex would have experienced, (motherhood, childbirth, periods, discrimination, dating, social stigmas, physical appearance, puberty, hormones, fashion, etc) then how can they be a legitimate voice for concerns related to that group, when they've not "been there and done it" so to speak?

I don't think it's bigotry, to point out there's an obvious difference between a natural born woman and a trans woman, the question is - how does that difference play out in the wider context of forced equality.
Click to expand...

If the position is that of a woman, and then it is given to this woman.

/end of story.
 
Tunney said:
They’re absolutely not the best of what’s available. Many dedicated and capable ministers have been sidelined by this government.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, For a PM, capability, on its own, is unlikely to be the most important factor in choosing a cabinet minister. (Or even particularly high up on the list)

There might well be Labour members who would make better candidates (Both in terms of capability and promoting government policy) but they would not be considered appropriate choices.
 
Raymond Lin said:
If the position is that of a woman, and then it is given to this woman.
Click to expand...

But then you're reduced to the position of having to enforce the notion, that there is zero difference between a trans woman and a woman - both are essentially "woman" so therefore the exact same rights and responsibilities filter down to them, because they're the same.

But to me, and many people - it seems there some vast, obvious differences between a trans woman and a natural born woman, it seems that you're sweeping them all under the carpet, presumably in the interests of equality itself?

Would it not stick in the craw a little, if you had a trans woman trying to champion issues relating to something like the tampon tax, or womens maternity rights? because surely, when it comes down to it - they're no more qualified than a man to talk about these sorts of problems?
 
Raymond Lin said:
In all intends and purposes, they become the new sex they diagnosed with.
Click to expand...
Who is qualified to make that diagnosis, though?
While I agree that some cases of gender dysphoria are completely genuine, I also believe that some are merely following a fashion/trend or doing it for attention. Others are somewhat unsure, as seen in some recent threads about transgendered people who later change their minds... one was as young as 12, I believe.

I further believe that, as better described by some of those doctors and psychologists, the dysphoria is due to the change (or lack of change) in society's understanding of gender roles and what it means nowadays to be either.
You can be a man and a nurse, for example, or a woman and a front line soldier.... some of the lines that previously used to define (in part, at least) your gender, and what it was to be that gender, have blurred... whereas in other walks of life, they have been further reinforced.

I have both acquaintances and colleagues who are trans, mostly female, and most of them admit they still (at least occasionally) question whether they made the right decision... almost as often and as casually, it seems, as I sit in rain-soaked traffic wondering whether I'd have been better off taking the bike.

But even if you don't transition, it still comes down to peer-acceptance. For some women, you just won't be female enough to represent them.

Devrij said:
I think the question is a bit flawed here as we are making the assumption that gender is the most important factor for fair representation (why not class, for example). Are we trying to represent mothers or are we trying to represent women as a whole? Etc
Click to expand...
You have to draw the line somewhere, otherwise you'd have every sub-group of every possible division screaming for equal and proportional representation, to the point where any suitably qualified candidate would need to be of a very specific gender, very exact racial mixed parentage, particular sexual orientation, social sub-class, graduating from certain type of school having studied specific subjects, having worked in certain jobs, lived in certain streets, supporting certain football teams, voting the right set of contestants out of the X-Factor, Big Brother and Love Island, who likes all the right music, eats the right food, etc etc etc........
 
Who is qualified? Doctors, psychologists, a panel of them. Yes, there is a panel of them to judge the merit of the applicant in order to be a transgender.

Not you, not us in our armchairs.
 
People should real the law, the debate for the consultation of the law, then come back and see if their opinions changes.

I did, I wrote my thesis on it:
 
Raymond Lin said:
People should real the law, the debate for the consultation of the law, then come back and see if their opinions changes.

I did, I wrote my thesis on it:
Click to expand...

The law states that once someone has transitioned to the opposite gender, they then also become the opposite biological sex? Wow? How do these people then have children or produce sperm?? Or am I massively missing something here?

edit: that isn't intended to come across as sarcastic as it sounds. I just always thought transgender people never actually 'become' the target sex but more just change their bodies to suit more what they are in their mind (not implying it's a mental issue by saying that) and they then just identify themselves as that sex. legalities seeing someone as a gender is not the same as the physical makeup of someone. Therefore transgender females are not the same as biological ones??
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom