An argument over dinner

[FlakGunna]

Wow.

 

[Felon]

That's because you agree with the premise contained in the question, i.e. that democracy should be fundamentally undermined by denying people the chance to stand for election solely because of their sex. I reject that premise, so I consider any question containing it to be invalid.

I can see you disagree with gender based equality, you think that forcing employment or electing positions based on gender or sex isn't real equality, therefore you outright reject any further discussion relating to specific scenarios that may occur, within the framework of enforced gender based equality - because you reject the whole premise outright.

I don't agree or disagree with the premise in the original question, because it's a fact that it's happening regardless of my opinion on it, laws have been changed to enforce gender based employment and election quotas (France and Norway) so therefore the question of whether trans women can fill these quotas, stands as being perfectly valid.

 

[D.P.]

I can see you disagree with gender based equality, you think that forcing employment or electing positions based on gender or sex isn't real equality, therefore you outright reject any further discussion relating to specific scenarios that may occur, within the framework of enforced gender based equality - because you reject the whole premise outright.

The main problem with that position, is that it could only come from ignorance - because whether you like it or not, society is increasingly adopting employment methodologies, that discriminate based on gender, it's happening in boardrooms and in countries where the law has been changed to enforce quotas (France and Norway to name two), so therefore the question of whether trans women can fill these quotas, stands as being perfectly valid.

France and Norway are not hiring to fill quotas but supporting measures to facilitate equal opportunities and mitigate negative discrimination. It is illegal under EU rules to hire explicitly due to gender or other protected criteria. People tend to forget that when getting triggered by BBC trainiee adverts and the like.

 

[Felon]

France and Norway are not hiring to fill quotas but supporting measures to facilitate equal opportunities and mitigate negative discrimination. It is illegal under EU rules to hire explicitly due to gender or other protected criteria. People tend to forget that when getting triggered by BBC trainiee adverts and the like.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...ssional-state-fund-boss-idUSBRE98T0LM20130930

OSLO (Reuters) - Norway’s law requiring at least 40 percent of public limited company board members to be women has made the panels more professional and globally focused, the head of its largest domestic-focused investment fund said on Monday.

The penalty for not complying was drastic: if a company did not comply, it would be shut down. At the time the move caused an uproar in the Norwegian business community, but firms complied.

 

[Akagi]

I once made out with a girl who turned out to be trans. True story.

I was very drunk.

We played counterstrike instead of doing the do.

 

[ttaskmaster]

That's because you agree with the premise contained in the question, i.e. that democracy should be fundamentally undermined by denying people the chance to stand for election solely because of their sex. I reject that premise, so I consider any question containing it to be invalid.

That's not the premise of the question, though.
No-one is being denied the chance to stand. They have three chances, in fact.
The premise is whether someone who 'identifes' as a gender is deemed acceptable enough to those born of that same gender, as representative and as a representative of those born of that same gender.

Your only concern is the person's sex, since you treat that as their identity (which is another premise I reject).

I reject your rejection based on the number of minority genders and sexualities who centre much of their lives on such things and the cultures/subcultures developed from the communities of such people... to the point where that is basically all they use to define their identity.

I judged them as people and as politicians.

They can be both?
Since when?

 

[Angilion]

I can see you disagree with gender based equality, you think that forcing employment or electing positions based on gender or sex isn't real equality, therefore you outright reject any further discussion relating to specific scenarios that may occur, within the framework of enforced gender based equality - because you reject the whole premise outright. [..]

That's almost entirely right. The bits that are wrong are these:

1) I make a dictinction between sex and gender because they're completely different things. You're writing "gender" when you mean "sex" and as far as I can tell you think they're the same thing. I don't, so your interpretation of my position is flawed by that. Gender equality is a whole different thing and impossibly complicated because gender is a huge collection of spectrums of variations on which nobody has a fixed position. Also, gender is almost entirely artificial, frequently changes and even the few bits that are real are just statistical trends that don't apply to any individual. Height, for example, is genuinely gendered. Men really do tend to be taller than women. But that's just a statistical trend and may or may not be true for any individual.

2) The reason I disagree with forbidding people to even attempt to gain a job or political position because they're the "wrong" sex is because I don't consider that to be equality. So I don't disagree with any sort of equality. I disagree with deliberate inequality.

 

[Angilion]

That's not the premise of the question, though

The question contains that premise as a predicate.

No-one is being denied the chance to stand. They have three chances, in fact.

That is only true if you are also advocating that every political position is filled by two people - one of each sex. Are you? How about every job, since you also support sexual discrimination in jobs? That would do wonders for unemployment, but is it even possible, let alone affordable?

The premise is whether someone who 'identifes' as a gender is deemed acceptable enough to those born of that same gender, as representative and as a representative of those born of that same gender.

Which requires the premise that a person's sex is their identity to such an extent that any person of a sex can represent all people of that sex and only people of that sex.

On a number of occasions, the person I voted to represent me in parliament was a woman. Why do you think I was wrong to do that? You do think it's wrong to do that, since you think that a person's sex determines who they do and can represent in politics.

I reject your rejection based on the number of minority genders and sexualities who centre much of their lives on such things and the cultures/subcultures developed from the communities of such people... to the point where that is basically all they use to define their identity

I reject your rejection of my rejection based on the idea that people who define their identity by some arbitrary biological characteristic are wrong. For example, I have in the past clashed with whitists. They defined their identity by their "race". More importantly, people who believe in biological group identity define other people's identities by whatever arbitrary biological characteristic they consider to be of such importance.

So far I've had more death threats from whitists than feminists, but only just. Same ideology, different biological characteristic. I think the difference is because the whitists see me as a traitor and therefore even worse than being a "wrong" "race".

They can be both?
Since when?

There are decent politicians. Somewhere. I think. Probably

Seriously, though, I think many politicians have good intentions. It's a lot of time and effort without much chance of serious power or wealth, so I think many get into it because they really think they're doing the right thing and that they can make things better. Maybe I'm wrong and naive about that, but maybe not.

Although I do think that replacing the politicians in my city with randomly selected people who fancy a go would probably make the city run better. The ones we have no appear to have achieved a level of disconnection from reality so extreme that they manage to have less than no clue at all. A few people who have played Sim City would have a better grasp of how a city works.

 

[Felon]

1) I make a dictinction between sex and gender because they're completely different things. You're writing "gender" when you mean "sex" and as far as I can tell you think they're the same thing. I don't, so your interpretation of my position is flawed by that. Gender equality is a whole different thing and impossibly complicated because gender is a huge collection of spectrums of variations on which nobody has a fixed position. Also, gender is almost entirely artificial, frequently changes and even the few bits that are real are just statistical trends that don't apply to any individual. Height, for example, is genuinely gendered. Men really do tend to be taller than women. But that's just a statistical trend and may or may not be true for any individual.

None of this is relevant, the fact that there's a difference between sex and gender doesn't invalidate the original question being asked, you can still provide an answer regardless of whether you think gender / sex is a factor. I don't actually think that gender and sex are the same thing at all, but it doesn't matter - because the question of whether a trans woman can perform the job of a woman in a "woman's only" role, can still be answered, regardless of your opinions of gender / sex, and their respective effects.

2) The reason I disagree with forbidding people to even attempt to gain a job or political position because they're the "wrong" sex is because I don't consider that to be equality. So I don't disagree with any sort of equality. I disagree with deliberate inequality.

Whether or not you agree or disagree with enforcing gender quotas in employment, has nothing whatsoever at all do with the original question being asked, the question isn't about defining what constitutes equality, it's about whether it's socially legitimate or acceptable, to have a person from one group, represent the interests of another simply by identifying as being part of it.

I also find the idea of enforcing gender based quotas uncomfortable, because I don't think it's been demonstrated that it leads to real equality, but it has no real influence on the validity of the original question being asked.

 

[Angilion]

[..] I don't actually think that gender and sex are the same thing at all [..]

Then why are you writing "gender" when you're referring to sex?

 

[Vinno]

Stopped reading at "transgender women".

 

[ttaskmaster]

The question contains that premise as a predicate.

Not really.
The question says you have to elect 6 people. It also says three positions on either side of the gender division are up for grabs.
It says nothing about whether you agree with any of it, or even that it's a democracy. You have to decide who gets the roles, but whoever decides how many roles and what criteria permit their election has already done that. The premise you're debating has already been negated by the establishment of the roles and possibly not even through democratic methods in the first place.
It doesn't even say the candidates get to stand for the role, really... just that they'd be elected.

That is only true if you are also advocating that every political position is filled by two people - one of each sex.

If you want to take that track, then the political position in this case is being filled by six people, three of each sex.

Which requires the premise that a person's sex is their identity to such an extent that any person of a sex can represent all people of that sex and only people of that sex.

In this instance, that is the only requirement specified, which one can assume has been done for good reason, no?
Therefore, unless additional criteria is supplied to differentiate the electees, that is the only form of identity available.

I reject your rejection of my rejection based on the idea that people who define their identity by some arbitrary biological characteristic are wrong.

I reject your rejection of my rejection of your rejection, on the basis that you have nothing more than your own unsubstantiated opinion dictating that such people are wrong (which they are, IMO, but that's immaterial), and further postulate that this very trait is indicative of both many an individual and society in general, which would suggest that someone who does this is (unfortunately) a far better representative for a constituency than an all-loving liberal lefty who insists people are more than their gender identity.

For example, I have in the past clashed with whitists. They defined their identity by their "race". More importantly, people who believe in biological group identity define other people's identities by whatever arbitrary biological characteristic they consider to be of such importance.

That is how the human brain is programmed, really.
Tribalism, prejudice and all that survival stuff.
It's not a bad thing, so long as you don't 'diss' other people because of it - Recognition (and understanding) of differences is almost as important as recognition of symbioses or mutual benefits...

Seriously, though, I think many politicians have good intentions.

Road to hell.....