equality only goes one way?

Eurofighter said:
Girl guide leaders might be lesbians. Should they be able to sleep in the same room as the girls?
Click to expand...

danlightbulb said:
Why do women need one?

Re the girl guides issue i do find this very strange. A man who says he identifies as a woman, who has male anatomy, could sleep in the same room as a bunch of teenage or younger girls. Yes I find that disturbing. It will of course be rare, and probably self moderating because if the girls and/or parents have a problem with it then they'll find another group leaving the first group with no members.

I think the girl guide leaders are making a policy error here but are they constrained by human rights laws?
Click to expand...

Can't speak for the guides (although I would imagine it's similar), but Beaver/Cub/Scout leaders are not allowed to sleep in the same room/tent as the kids regardless of gender/sexuality, so the scenario you are suggesting shouldn't really happen

Edit: I stand corrected, looks like it is OK for guides, but there must be at least 2 leaders present if they are sharing with the kids
 
Last edited:
Girl guide leaders might be lesbians. Should they be able to sleep in the same room as the girls?
Click to expand...

Yes, that's a fair assumption that some leaders may be lesbians, maybe even [ gasp ] the parents are worldly enough to be OK with that [ the fact that Miss McClusky, our Cub Scout leader was a Ladies lady was no big deal even back in the 1970s ] but what's not an assumption, and probably NOT OK with parents, is a bloke dressed as a woman with functioning male genitals is in a position of trust with young girls.
 
explicit4u said:
Why would you need a male only space?

I doubt any sane person would have a problem with a male only whatever as long as it’s needed and not just because women have one too.
Click to expand...
Why would you need a female only space?

The idea (that it's needed for women but not for men) suggests that men cannot be trusted.

The idea of a female only space is as legitimate as a male only space. Neither are legitimate, or both are.
 
FoxEye said:
Why would you need a female only space?

The idea (that it's needed for women but not for men) suggests that men cannot be trusted.

The idea of a female only space is as legitimate as a male only space. Neither are legitimate, or both are.
Click to expand...

I think the only problem with sex exclusive "spaces" is if there isn't an alternative or at least a good reason why not. Women only gym/swimming sessions exist because so many women feel threatened by the very presence of men. There are a lot of terrible, knuckle dragging morons out there, and how real this perceived threat is up for debate, what isn't is how many idiots let our side down. I would not be surprised if every woman alive has had a run in with creepy, inappropriate guys. "Women in the old boys club? Nah, we don't like girls" is not equivalent.
 
d_brennen said:
I think the only problem with sex exclusive "spaces" is if there isn't an alternative or at least a good reason why not. Women only gym/swimming sessions exist because so many women feel threatened by the very presence of men. There are a lot of terrible, knuckle dragging morons out there, and how real this perceived threat is up for debate, what isn't is how many idiots let our side down. I would not be surprised if every woman alive has had a run in with creepy, inappropriate guys. "Women in the old boys club? Nah, we don't like girls" is not equivalent.
Click to expand...
So this would be a situation where there can never be equality (of purpose; of need), and therefore equality is not desirable? Or not possible?

So we have desirable equality and undesirable equality... which you could call an agenda, I guess :p Or practical considerations outweighing equality, but only if it's in favour of those calling for equality.

OK now I've confused myself, maybe!
 
FoxEye said:
So this would be a situation where there can never be equality (of purpose; of need), and therefore equality is not desirable? Or not possible?

So we have desirable equality and undesirable equality... which you could call an agenda, I guess :p Or practical considerations outweighing equality, but only if it's in favour of those calling for equality.

OK now I've confused myself, maybe!
Click to expand...

I think the term youre looking for is 'necessary'. Equality in everything is simply not necessary.
 
danlightbulb said:
I think the term youre looking for is 'necessary'. Equality in everything is simply not necessary.
Click to expand...
So equality is not necessary?

Basically those calling for equality are always pushing an agenda of some kind, because nobody actually wants equality, or believes it to be possible.
 
d_brennen said:
I think the only problem with sex exclusive "spaces" is if there isn't an alternative or at least a good reason why not. Women only gym/swimming sessions exist because so many women feel threatened by the very presence of men. [..]
Click to expand...

In segregrationist USA, quite a few "white people" felt threatened by the very presence of "black" people. Did that make racial segregation a good thing? If not, why not?

The regressive left appears to have read George Orwell's famous works and taken them as a guide to gaining power rather than as a warning. The authoritarianism and corruption of language is from 1984, but the group identity is biological rather than political, so that's from Animal Farm. All group identities are equal, but some are more equal than others.

If there is to be sexist segregation, it should at least be a case of "seperate but equal" rather than "seperate and deliberately unequal". Every second of every resource only available to people of one sex should be matched with exactly the same resource only available to people of the other sex for exactly the same length of time. Even if it's not used because fewer people of one sex support sexist segregation.
 
FoxEye said:
And your agenda determines what you believe is necessary to be equal, and what acceptable inequality looks like.

Since pan-issue equality is off the table.
Click to expand...

If by an agenda you mean simple common sense then sure. I, and Im sure most others, dont have some sinister agenda intended to stop women getting a fair shout in life.
 
danlightbulb said:
If by an agenda you mean simple common sense then sure. I, and Im sure most others, dont have some sinister agenda intended to stop women getting a fair shout in life.
Click to expand...
Oh I wasn't suggesting that to be your position, at all!

You want a fair outcome that isn't equal, but can be based in some cases purely on gender considerations alone...

It would seem that "common sense" would be a pretty hard thing to define... so that it allows the conclusion that inequality is fair; but when, and based on what criteria, should you favour one biological group over the other, based purely on their biological identity? And when should things be genuinely equal, given we know there are occasions when it shouldn't be?

I don't believe in absolute equality of genders; it's fairly nonsensical to me. But then you have to question where it can be applied, and why.

But by that token I suggest that people pushing for "equality" wrt some issue where outcomes aren't equal, are normally advocating for one group over another. Aka agenda. Like "Women should be 50/50 represented in all tech jobs" and the like. Well why? Because that equality suits someone's agenda, is why. And when you dig into it they don't want equality, just equal pay. Another, much more specific and selectively applied equality.

But it sounds good to use the word equality and those doing it imply a certain moral high ground... instead of the agenda they might actually have.
 
I think biological sex should be the overriding factor in most morality issues to be honest.

The girl guides thing is a clear example, as is sports.

Things like work and pay equality, well you have to accept that in our current culture there are genuine reasons why there is some degree of difference between men and women, on average. However for an individual person, man or woman, disabled or not, black or white; the legal frameworks are in place already for equal opportunities and anti discrimination so thats all fine.

Things like gay marriage, well they dont affect anyone else so if thats what a gay couple wants then let them have it. Anything to do with children and sexual identity or homosexuality will always be tricky (eg gay adoption).
 
danlightbulb said:
I think biological sex should be the overriding factor in most morality issues to be honest.

The girl guides thing is a clear example, as is sports.

Things like work and pay equality, well you have to accept that in our current culture there are genuine reasons why there is some degree of difference between men and women, on average. However for an individual person, man or woman, disabled or not, black or white; the legal frameworks are in place already for equal opportunities and anti discrimination so thats all fine.

Things like gay marriage, well they don't affect anyone else so if thats what a gay couple wants then let them have it. Anything to do with children and sexual identity or homosexuality will always be tricky (eg gay adoption).
Click to expand...
I assume you mean sports as in biological males shouldn't be competing as women, which is certainly "common sense" to me.

Rather than the point that someone brought up earlier; that being that women's sport is not always exactly equal to men's sport. And in some cases that's fine. E.g. I see no reason why women shouldn't play less tennis sets than men. I don't see either "they should" or "they shouldn't" as necessarily correct. When you watch women's tennis the competition between two female competitors is the point of interest; that they don't compete in exactly the same circumstances as the men compete isn't really an issue to me.

And their pay could be argued either way also. You could look at gate receipts/broadcaster interest as a reason to pay women less. Or you could argue that women are equally dedicated as the male counterparts, training as long and as just as hard to reach the top. That you should treat the income from both men and women as total income for the sport, and divide it equally among men and women. However in football that would just not wash. Can you imagine Chelsea, etc, agreeing to pay their female footballers the same (obscene) wages as the men? Business interest vs "equality" - in that case nobody should doubt the business interests win! In fact I'd love to see a Women's PL player try to sue for equal pay. Not sure why when other employers are bound by equality rules, that sporting organisations aren't...

Outside of sport, in the workplace, gender physical performance could be an issue in some cases but not others. A female prison officer in a female only prison might have a lower strength requirement than a male officer in a men-only prison. However if men and women were to apply for a role as a prison officer in a male prison, they should absolutely consider the woman's relatively lower strength as a disadvantage (if she were "front line" so to speak). That situation arose with a female police dog handler recently. Imagine if 50% of all riot police had to be female :p
 
Well they let quite small women be medics in the army, even though one of the requirements is to be able to carry a fully grown man quite a distance. They can't, but get the role anyway. Figure that one out. Lives at risk for "equality" reasons :p
 
some interesting points rasied re front line police and prison officers. the army medic one is interesting also if one of the requirements it to carry a fully grown man a certain distance then they should be able to do that. if they cant they don't get the job simple as that

FoxEye said:
I assume you mean sports as in biological males shouldn't be competing as women, which is certainly "common sense" to me.

Rather than the point that someone brought up earlier; that being that women's sport is not always exactly equal to men's sport. And in some cases that's fine. E.g. I see no reason why women shouldn't play less tennis sets than men. I don't see either "they should" or "they shouldn't" as necessarily correct. When you watch women's tennis the competition between two female competitors is the point of interest; that they don't compete in exactly the same circumstances as the men compete isn't really an issue to me.
:p
Click to expand...

but why should women receive the same prices money as the male players when they play less sets? they've asked for equal prize money so should have to compete in the same way and provide the same level of spectacle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom