Transgender

[cybercoma]

Next time a dude walks into the bathroom, you better grab his crotch to make sure he's not really a woman.

[Hal 9000]

Who is going to be in genital duty? That's all I want to know.

I answered your question and still you refuse to answer mine, Why?

All you offer is nonsensical drive-by comments - congratulations, you have nothing to offer!

[Bryan]

You're conflating rapists and transgender people.

No one is doing that.

[Guest]

Youre trying to tell me that men are denied access to jobs in male dominated industries when they try to find more female employees? You do understand how affirmative action works, right?

Evidently not. I always thought it was the practice of favouring members of historically disadvantaged groups when it came to hiring. It's not?

[cybercoma]

I answered your question and still you refuse to answer mine, Why?

All you offer is nonsensical drive-by comments - congratulations, you have nothing to offer!

Just as nonsensical as your question.

[cybercoma]

Evidently not. I always thought it was the practice of favouring members of historically disadvantaged groups when it came to hiring. It's not?

You're trying to say that those who are advantaged in that field are disadvantaged by hiring quotas. Think about that.

[Hal 9000]

Just as nonsensical as your question.

Really? How is nonsensical? It's a simple question, one that requires a simple answer.

Do you think that the new laws allow for male bodied people to enter a change room and shower with female bodied people? Yes or no?

[TimG]

You're trying to say that those who are advantaged in that field are disadvantaged by hiring quotas.

I suggest you think about that. The fact is there are a finite number of jobs and if someone is given a job because they meet some arbitrary diversity criteria then an equally or more qualified person is denied that job because they failed to fulfill the diversity criteria.

The spell out the point which you will likely miss: if someone who meets the diversity criteria is also the best qualified then they are hired because of their qualifications and no affirmative action is required. Hiring quotas are only needed when it is necessary to justify hiring less qualified people, which by design, has the effect of denying opportunities to more qualified people.

Edited May 28, 2016 by TimG

[Guest]

You're trying to say that those who are advantaged in that field are disadvantaged by hiring quotas. Think about that.

I'm talking about individuals. You're talking about groups.

[-1=e^ipi]

designed to alleviate historical discrimination

See, this is the thing, people are individuals. But SJWism is a collectivist ideology.

Somehow disadvantaging a young boy today relative to his sister is justified because their great grandmother might have been oppressed relative to their great grandfather.

That boy wasn't alive 50 years ago and neither was his sister.

Yet the sister having a 33% higher chance of completing university due to greater emotional support, greater access to scholarships and more pushes to get girls into higher education, or the sister having a higher chance of obtaining employment later in life (for example, females have a 2 to 1 hiring advantage in stem) is somehow just.

Yet SJWs can't see the unfair treatment of people at the individual level and instead think punishing the young boy for things he did not do is just. It makes as much moral sense as original sin (that somehow all humans are guilty because some talking snake told a magic rib lady to eat a magic fruit) or North Korea's 3 generations of punishment for crime.

[-1=e^ipi]

Means you don't get a job? You know the laws are designed to help prevent discrimination against the people who have historical been kept from those jobs.

A young women in her 20's was somehow historically kept from a job where as a young man in his 20's was not? You realize that people in their 20's weren't alive 30 years ago, right?

The orwellianly named 'employment equity' is designed to cause discrimination. But in the warped mind of SJWs, such discrimination is just and somehow doesn't count as discrimination.

[-1=e^ipi]

You're trying to say that those who are advantaged in that field are disadvantaged by hiring quotas. Think about that.

It's far more than just hiring quotas. There is a cultural bias in Canada to hire women over men. It's more socially just, makes people feel all warm and fuzzy inside, and helps such an organization portray the image of 'diversity'.

[Charles Anthony]

Folks,

Please avoid thread drift.

[Bryan]

Folks,

Please avoid thread drift.

What drift? It's really broad topic.

[Michael Hardner]

Hiring Quotas as a general area of discussion is a different topic, I'm sure you would agree...

Not to drift the thread - let's take it to the Moderation threads if you do disagree thanks Bryan !

[Argus]

I think Margaret Wente's take on this is as close to reality as we're likely to get. She sees it as an example of intolerent extremists on the left pushing an agenda. Hard to argue with her that this is being pushed on behalf of a tiny minority, more as a cause celebre than anything else, by the oh-so-fashionably 'progressive'.

The turning point was the case of a transgender high-school student in suburban Chicago, who was born a male but now identifies as female. School districts across North America have been grappling with the issue of accommodating transgender kids, and this school had already done much to support the student. She’s on a girls’ sports team, goes by a girl’s name, and went to the prom in a sparkly dress. The big question was: Should she be allowed to use the girls’ locker room?

School officials decided that she could – so long as she changed behind a curtain. Sounds reasonable enough.

But it did not sound reasonable to the American Civil Liberties Union, which argued that the teenager’s rights were being violated because she was restricted from behaving exactly like every other girl.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/bathrooms-the-culture-wars-new-frontier/article30189859/

Edited May 28, 2016 by Argus

[The_Squid]

suburban Chicago? Who cares??? Where is Bush-Cheney when we need him???

[Argus]

suburban Chicago? Who cares??? Where is Bush-Cheney when we need him???

I think the point was that it seemed accommodation had been made, yet the plaintiffs wanted to be treated exactly as if they were a girl - which they are not - and change with the other girls in the same locker room. To me that's ridiculous and unreasonable. The federal government supporting it is idiotic.

[BC_chick]

I think the point was that it seemed accommodation had been made, yet the plaintiffs wanted to be treated exactly as if they were a girl - which they are not - and change with the other girls in the same locker room. To me that's ridiculous and unreasonable. The federal government supporting it is idiotic.

Why is it 'ridiculous and unreasonable' to want acceptance instead of partial 'accommodation'? Sounds quite reasonable to me.

[TimG]

Why is it 'ridiculous and unreasonable' to want acceptance instead of partial 'accommodation'?

Biologically this kid is male. Nothing can change that reality and this kid must accept that. There are certain female things such as menstruation which this kid will never have to deal with and that sets the kid apart from biologically defined girls. Hiding the kid's junk from girls who may not want see it is reasonable accommodation. Edited May 28, 2016 by TimG

[Hal 9000]

Why is it 'ridiculous and unreasonable' to want acceptance instead of partial 'accommodation'? Sounds quite reasonable to me.

The law can give ensure your rights, but can never give you acceptance. I'm pretty sure there was acceptance at that particular school, but how accepted will that person feel when the actual girls reject wanting to shower with them and choose to (as school boards even in Canada have suggested) shower in the smaller staff, disability or family change areas.

In a number of situations in the US, entire groups of girls have had to cram into the smallest of change areas while the transgender had pretty much the entire facility to himself.

How accepted did he feel? And, did he care?

[WestCoastRunner]

Biologically this kid is male. Nothing can change that reality and this kid must accept that. There are certain female things such as menstruation which this kid will never have to deal with and that sets the kid apart from biologically defined girls. Hiding the kid's junk from girls who may not want see it is reasonable accommodation.

The sooner society gets over their Puritan beliefs the better. It's just a flaccid penis. Good grief.

[TimG]

The sooner society gets over their Puritan beliefs the better. It's just a flaccid penis. Good grief.

You are now in favor of co-ed changing rooms in schools? Amazing how cognitive dissonance works.

[WestCoastRunner]

You are now in favor of co-ed changing rooms in schools? Amazing how cognitive dissonance works.

It's gotta be better than this reaction to a minority of students wanting to be treated with the same rights as any other student.

I have no problem with co Ed change rooms. Maybe if children were raised in this fashion society would truly treat everyone as equal.

[Hal 9000]

It's gotta be better than this reaction to a minority of students wanting to be treated with the same rights as any other student.

I have no problem with co Ed change rooms. Maybe if children were raised in this fashion society would truly treat everyone as equal.

I actually wondered what your take on this would be.

On one hand there are guys claiming to be women and wanting to shower with them - as is their new found right, but on the other hand, every time this situation has arisen in the real world setting, women have shown to want no part of the experiment. There are also a number of instances with women feeling violated by guys in the dressing room/shower - as has happened in Toronto.