Author Topic: Gender Culture  (Read 39820 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4757
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #45 on: June 26, 2017, 12:40:03 am »
Yes, as I said it has to be resolved.  The case of Muslims is a whole other complexity I haven't thought about.

I'm sure that some hypothetical Muslim could get her imam to explain to a human rights committee that under Islam people with penises aren't considered women even if they claim they are, and that it's haram for a Muslim woman to be in the presence of a strange ****, especially if she's naked.  I think she'd have a winning case here.  And so then we ask... if a Muslim woman gets special consideration here, why not a Christian woman?  I'm pretty sure that most Christian denominations don't consider people with dicks to be women under any circumstances, and I'm pretty sure it's not considered godly for Christian women to be in that situation either.   Eventually it'll be just us filthy non-believers who don't have an "out" of this wretched situation.

You're scoffing at the constitution, but ok.

I don't even care.  If the law says I'm wrong, then it's a stupid law.

"My religion doesn't let me kill anyone."
"Ok, you are assigned to the Alternate Service corps."

"My conscience won't allow me to kill anyone."
"I don't give a ****. Here's your rifle."

Does that seem right to you? It doesn't seem right to me.  It doesn't seem right to me that a conclusion that a conclusion that somebody has arrived at through a lifetime of experience and reflection would have less value under the law than a conclusion somebody else got out of a magic book. And I think that if that's the way the law works in Canada then more Canadians will be embracing satirical religions like the Pastafarians or the Satanic Temple, which exist just to ridicule religious privilege.

I don't know if the above draft scenario would actually play out that way in Canada. It might be a moot point, since we haven't had a draft in many decades.  In the United States, though, it wouldn't, by the way.     In the US, courts have ruled that non-religious right to conscience is protected the same way that religious freedom.  You don't have to be religious to be a conscientious objector in the US. If the same case were fought in Canada, I am pretty confident we'd see the same result.


Point taken, but I was speaking to the comments that people "don't feel comfortable" which to me is not a reasonable test of accommodation.  If people have trauma around seeing penises, then that is a serious matter to consider IMO.

I think you're well aware that the concerns of women about sharing accommodation with biologically male, self-identified women extend well beyond aesthetic quibbles.

I addressed the trivializing point above.

I'm not referring specifically to you here.  There seems to be a desire to heap scorn on anybody who isn't onboard with your "emerging view" here... you mentioned your Facebook friends "absolutely roasted" Megan Murphy for disagreeing with the PC hive-mind, for example.

You call it 'ivory tower', I call it an 'emerging view'.  I expect ultra-progressives will in fact live up to it, but the tough work is ahead in any case as this will be policy soon.

I'm skeptical that the Ivory Tower academics and ultra-progressive granola-brigade spend much time at the gym and I'm skeptical whether they actually have any skin in the game (no pun intended.)  It's easy to *say* you're in favor of something if you don't actually have to do it. 

Likewise, I'm confident that most of the women who think trans-women should be allowed to compete in women's athletics have no intention of ever setting foot in a boxing ring or wrestling mat against a physiologically male opponent.


It may be that women will not visit the spa, or that the spa will change its nudist policy.  It's a tough question, but I will point out there are other women-only spas that don't have nudity which is why BodyBlitz is such a lightning rod.

So there are other women-only safe-spaces that they *could* attend, but they want access to this one in particular?  Perhaps that suggests that it's not simply a matter of seeking a safe space that's the motivation here.   Perhaps there is a desire to push a political agenda.   Or perhaps what they are seeking isn't a safe space, but validation... perhaps what they really want is for cisgendered women to look at their dong and still accept them as women. But that kind of validation isn't going to come from a lawsuit or a human rights committee ruling.

So similar question to last time... if the end result of this is that Body Blitz has to abandon their **** spa environment and adopt a clothed environment like every other women-only gym in Toronto, is that a tremendous victory for human rights?

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10783
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #46 on: June 26, 2017, 06:47:54 am »

Does that seem right to you? It doesn't seem right to me.

I think freedom of religion is an easy way to keep groups satisfied, and also keep out the spectre of government telling you what to think.  We're actually debating that now, with a UofT professor claiming that the new law forces him to use pronouns, rather than simply avoid offensive words.
 
Quote
I think you're well aware that the concerns of women about sharing accommodation with biologically male, self-identified women extend well beyond aesthetic quibbles.
  Yes, they extend beyond and include those quibbles also.


Quote
I'm not referring specifically to you here.  There seems to be a desire to heap scorn on anybody who isn't onboard with your "emerging view" here... you mentioned your Facebook friends "absolutely roasted" Megan Murphy for disagreeing with the PC hive-mind, for example.

Yes, the PC-hive-mind is on one side and 'TERFs' on the other, ie. trans-exclusionary radical feminists.  Both sides are dug in.

Quote
I'm skeptical that the Ivory Tower academics and ultra-progressive granola-brigade spend much time at the gym and I'm skeptical whether they actually have any skin in the game (no pun intended.)  It's easy to *say* you're in favor of something if you don't actually have to do it. 

My friends in discussion are young, gender-fluid and very open about nudism and many things.  It's a ew world.

Quote
So there are other women-only safe-spaces that they *could* attend, but they want access to this one in particular?  Perhaps that suggests that it's not simply a matter of seeking a safe space that's the motivation here.   Perhaps there is a desire to push a political agenda.   Or perhaps what they are seeking isn't a safe space, but validation... perhaps what they really want is for cisgendered women to look at their dong and still accept them as women. But that kind of validation isn't going to come from a lawsuit or a human rights committee ruling.

This is a common criticism of groups wanting equality.  The story was about a trans woman whose mate booked them a spa date, and that seems to be how it started - if that matters.

Quote
So similar question to last time... if the end result of this is that Body Blitz has to abandon their **** spa environment and adopt a clothed environment like every other women-only gym in Toronto, is that a tremendous victory for human rights?
 

It's not to me to say the size of the victory.  I firstly ask for dialogue, and reasonable accommodation.  Peace will be achieved through those means.  Equality will happen over a much longer timeframe.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4757
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #47 on: June 30, 2017, 02:19:48 am »
This was posted in another thread but I thought I'd reply here:

So... my thoughts on the subject were just that... thoughts.  Based on intellectual ideas of rights and so on.  Until I read my friend's posts on her life before she changed.

Laws and economics can sometimes be ends in themselves, but they exist to make lives better overall.  Trans people have very painful lives.

I fully understand that there's a lot of hatred and violence and mistrust and fear directed towards trans people. I really do. And I support efforts to make their lives better, within reasonable limits.  I think we just have differing ideas about what might be reasonable and what might be unreasonable.

This is probably not a very good analogy, but suppose for a moment we're talking about someone confined to a wheelchair. I support making buildings and businesses accessible. I support washroom facilities with room for a wheelchair and handrails and whatever else they need. I support public facilities like gyms and pools having equipment and programs that meet the needs of a person confined to a wheelchair.   On the other hand, I wouldn't support closing a hiking trail that can't feasibly be made wheelchair-accessible.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect everything to be 100% equal.   Nothing is 100% equal.   

Banning trans women from athletics might seem unfair to trans women, but allowing physiologically male competitors to compete against biologically female competitors would be grossly unfair to the biologically female people these events were created for in the first place. There's a point at which you have to say "sorry, but no". 

Personally I feel that demanding an end to spaces for biologically female women is unfair to the people these spaces were created for in the first place.

We can't make everything 100% equal. Everybody has limits of some kind-- limits imposed by health, or finances, or religion, or physiology, or whatever.

Quote
This is a common criticism of groups wanting equality.  The story was about a trans woman whose mate booked them a spa date, and that seems to be how it started - if that matters.
That may be how it started, but now it appears to be a group action where trans women and their allies are calling for Body Blitz to be boycotted until they admit trans women.  So again it seems while the friendly optics would be to say they're asking for access to a safe-space, it appears that there are other safe spaces available but they are demanding access to this one in particular.

Quote
It's not to me to say the size of the victory.  I firstly ask for dialogue, and reasonable accommodation.  Peace will be achieved through those means.  Equality will happen over a much longer timeframe.

My suggestion is that closing Body Blitz or forcing it to abandon its unique format and become like other womens' gyms would actually be a victory for nobody at all. Women who enjoy the existing format lose that, and it either vanishes altogether or becomes a Spa Lady clone in a city that already has a Spa Lady and Spa Lady clones. So what does anybody gain?  I guess the Social Justice Warriors get their pound of flesh. Yay for them, I guess?

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10783
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #48 on: June 30, 2017, 07:32:45 am »

I don't think it's reasonable to expect everything to be 100% equal.   Nothing is 100% equal.   

Absolutely agree.  To get down to the details and mechanics of how reasonable accommodation works, honest, open and clear dialogue is the platform for discussion.

"I'm not comfortable with this" would not pass a test of needing to be accommodate.
"I am traumatized by this and feel unsafe" would pass.

I can accept all views if they're open, honest and clear.  And then we take our best shot, and all accept the results.

Quote
There's a point at which you have to say "sorry, but no". 

Of course.

Quote
it appears that there are other safe spaces available but they are demanding access to this one in particular.

That argument wouldn't fly if we were considering rights for other groups, so I can't buy it here.

Quote
My suggestion is that closing Body Blitz or forcing it to abandon its unique format and become like other womens' gyms would actually be a victory for nobody at all.

False choice - there are other options that could be explored I'm sure.

Quote
   I guess the Social Justice Warriors get their pound of flesh. Yay for them, I guess?

Tagging people who disagree with you isn't helpful either.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4757
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #49 on: June 30, 2017, 09:34:08 am »
Absolutely agree.  To get down to the details and mechanics of how reasonable accommodation works, honest, open and clear dialogue is the platform for discussion.

"I'm not comfortable with this" would not pass a test of needing to be accommodate.
"I am traumatized by this and feel unsafe" would pass.

Ok, so if we decide that some peoples' desire for a space free from male physiology is legitimate, then what next?  Do we appoint a gate-keeper or a panel or something to decide which women are allowed in and which aren't?

Say, **** victims and abuse victims and our hypothetical religion-based objector get allowed in?

That argument wouldn't fly if we were considering rights for other groups, so I can't buy it here.

It frames the demand differently, IMO.  "We need a safe space!" makes it sound as if they don't have any alternatives which doesn't appear to be true. "We demand access to this particular establishment" makes clear that this is about their objection to this particular establishment's policy, which to me appears to be a more accurate description of the conflict.

False choice - there are other options that could be explored I'm sure.

Ok, we've talked about three options-- let them continue as is, put an end to open nudity in their establishment, or let the dongs run wild and let the market decide if Body Blitz lives or dies.

What other possibilities do you envision?

Tagging people who disagree with you isn't helpful either.

Do you object to the characterization as "Social Justice Warriors", or the suggestion that people are after the proverbial pound of flesh?

 -k
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline Squidward von Squidderson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5311
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #50 on: June 30, 2017, 10:06:41 am »
Quote
We're actually debating that now, with a UofT professor claiming that the new law forces him to use pronouns, rather than simply avoid offensive words.

"He" and "she" are not offensive words. 

Offline BC_cheque

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1746
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #51 on: June 30, 2017, 10:33:08 am »
"He" and "she" are not offensive words.

To you.

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10783
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #52 on: June 30, 2017, 01:26:33 pm »
Ok, so if we decide that some peoples' desire for a space free from male physiology is legitimate, then what next?  Do we appoint a gate-keeper or a panel or something to decide which women are allowed in and which aren't?

Say, **** victims and abuse victims and our hypothetical religion-based objector get allowed in?


What's next ?  It's sometimes called 'solutioning' which is difficult and which you are starting to do here.

As a straight, cis, male I have no say in that part of the discussion nor do I have any idea what solutions may come.

Quote
It frames the demand differently, IMO.  "We need a safe space!" makes it sound as if they don't have any alternatives which doesn't appear to be true. "We demand access to this particular establishment" makes clear that this is about their objection to this particular establishment's policy, which to me appears to be a more accurate description of the conflict.

"Why don't black people just go to their own beaches ?"

Quote


Ok, we've talked about three options-- let them continue as is, put an end to open nudity in their establishment, or let the dongs run wild and let the market decide if Body Blitz lives or dies.

What other possibilities do you envision?

As I said, I can't really say.  If I throw out some possibilities here, it's to show that there are some that haven't really been discussed so please don't just shoot them down as a way to say dialogue is pointless.

They could ask ****-bearing ladies to show discretion.  They could discover that nobody at the club is actually traumatized by the mere sight of a ****.  They could put parameters around nudity in other ways, cover up in certain areas or what have you.  They could find out that the ones who object don't want any trans women OR men in there.  etc.

Quote

Do you object to the characterization as "Social Justice Warriors", or the suggestion that people are after the proverbial pound of flesh?

 

I think tagging people is at once a mental shorthand, but also a way of boxing people into a category to dismiss them.  TERFs vs SJWs.  It's party politics, but in a different arena.  The people who I personally know who are in this debate are standing up for their friends and relatives and not on any kind of path to punishing those who aren't like them.

Offline Squidward von Squidderson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5311
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #53 on: June 30, 2017, 02:33:50 pm »
To you.

If someone takes offence to common pronouns used by everyone everyday, that's not my problem.   That might work fine in universities where PC-group-think seems to be the norm and nothing else is tolerated, but good luck in the real world. 

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10783
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #54 on: June 30, 2017, 02:52:57 pm »
So I can call you the c-word and that's ok ?

I realize it's hyperbole but to deny that people have no say in how they're referred to is a dumb starting position.  If somebody called you "she" repeatedly, you would damn well have grounds to complain formally or otherwise, in any traditional setting.

Offline BC_cheque

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1746
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #55 on: June 30, 2017, 04:21:39 pm »
If someone takes offence to common pronouns used by everyone everyday, that's not my problem.   That might work fine in universities where PC-group-think seems to be the norm and nothing else is tolerated, but good luck in the real world.

Language is not static.  It evolves and is a reflection of society. 

Our present language is a reflection of a time when heterosexual white men had all the say.  For example, I dislike word mankind which was quite common was I was young.  It's now evolving and more people say humankind. 

We are on the another paradigm shift where gender binary is being challenged as the accepted norm.  There is no reason language should should not evolve to show more inclusiveness to reflect this shift. 

Language is always evolving.

Offline MH

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10783
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #56 on: June 30, 2017, 04:23:25 pm »
Language is always evolving.

Blargyx fremple con muxike !
Like Like x 1 View List

Offline Squidward von Squidderson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5311
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #57 on: June 30, 2017, 07:08:42 pm »
Quote
So I can call you the c-word and that's ok ?

Since when did "****" become a pronoun by which everyone is referred?   ::)

Quote
If somebody called you "she" repeatedly, you would damn well have grounds to complain formally or otherwise, in any traditional setting.

I will call someone he/she...   whatever they wish.  I don't care, and I don't wish to cause offence.  But to start making up new pronouns based on what someone "feels" is rather silly.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4757
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #58 on: June 30, 2017, 09:04:25 pm »
So I can call you the c-word and that's ok ?

I realize it's hyperbole but to deny that people have no say in how they're referred to is a dumb starting position.  If somebody called you "she" repeatedly, you would damn well have grounds to complain formally or otherwise, in any traditional setting.

I have no complaint about addressing a trans woman with feminine pronouns or a trans man with masculine pronouns, if that is their wish.  I'm still a little skeptical about the use of "xe" and "xer" and similar previously fictional pronouns, however. If some accepted standard emerges I will adopt it, but until then I will stick with "he" and "she" as preferred by the recipient.

I confess that I have no understanding of gender-descriptors outside of "he" and "she"... the "non-binary" world somewhat baffles me, and I will wait for others to point me which way to go.

A colleague from my writing group (a progressive gay man from Toronto, if that matters) used "e" and "er" in place of "he/she" and "his/her" when referring to a hypothetical 3rd party whose gender was unknown (in place of using "he" and "his" as an all-encompassing placeholder for someone who may have been male or female).   For example, his critique might have read something like:

"The reader might be confused at this point. E might feel as if e is reading a description from the point of view of a neutral observer rather than the biased point of view of the protagonist."

I didn't find this practice to be unreasonable, although I didn't adopt it in my replies.

 -k
« Last Edit: June 30, 2017, 09:11:35 pm by kimmy »
Paris - London - New York - Kim City

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4757
  • Location: Kim City BC
Re: Gender Culture
« Reply #59 on: June 30, 2017, 10:01:29 pm »
What's next ?  It's sometimes called 'solutioning' which is difficult and which you are starting to do here.

As a straight, cis, male I have no say in that part of the discussion nor do I have any idea what solutions may come.

I'm not going to come at you with the ole "you're a straight white male so your opinion doesn't matter!!!" if that's what you're concerned about. I ask because I'm genuinely curious. It may be that I'm simply short-sighted and not seeing the possibilities because I'm biased.

If we look at the question "do women have a right to a space free of male physiology?" there are just 3 possible answers.

1)  Yes, all do.

2) Some do, others do not.

3) No, none do.

If your opinion was (1), we wouldn't be having this discussion.  If your answer was (3), you didn't say so when I pressed you on this earlier. If your answer is (3) I don't think we'll be able to come to any consensus here.   

I gather your view is basically (2) -- some do, others don't, based on the distinction of "traumatic" vs "aesthetics problems for the delicate" as discussed previously. You seemed to be open to the possibility that victims of male violence or religious objectors may have a legitimate claim to a safe-space free of male physiology, for example.

So if the answer is (2) -- some do, others don't...  then the question of a "gatekeeper" immediately follows. If you feel that some do and others don't, then the question of deciding which is which is unavoidable.  (feel free to correct me, if you feel I am wrong. I am trying to be as logical as I can be when I have consumed this much alcohol.)

I want to get into this "gatekeeper" issue because one of the tenets of the trans community and their allies is that any sort of "gatekeeping" is demeaning and degrading to trans people.  The expectation expressed by the trans community and their allies is that anyone demanding access to women's facilities as a trans woman should be taken at their word, and that any demand for "proof" is inherently insulting and degrading.

So now we're at the position where anyone claiming to be a trans woman must be taken at their word, while someone claiming the right to a female safe-space-- a victim of male violence or a religious objector, for example-- must meet some gatekeeper's criteria before qualifying-- which is clearly unfair.

If one proposes that some gatekeeper function be applied to biological females wanting access to a female-only safe-space, then I suggest that fairness dictate that some gatekeeper function ought also be applied to biological males demanding access to female safe spaces.

"Why don't black people just go to their own beaches ?"

I don't think that's a fair comparison, for two reasons.

First off, "the beach" is public land, while Body Blitz is a privately owned facility.

Secondly, I think everyone agrees that there's no rational basis behind a desire for a white-people-only safe-space, while I don't think we've yet agreed that there's no rational basis for a female safe-space free of male physiology.

As I said, I can't really say.  If I throw out some possibilities here, it's to show that there are some that haven't really been discussed so please don't just shoot them down as a way to say dialogue is pointless.
And as I said, I'm genuinely open to ideas that I haven't considered.

They could ask ****-bearing ladies to show discretion. 

IMO this is just an optimistically reworded repeat of my earlier "let the dongs run wild and let the market decide if Body Blitz lives or dies".

They could discover that nobody at the club is actually traumatized by the mere sight of a ****

IMO this is just an optimistically reworded repeat of my earlier "let the dongs run wild and let the market decide if Body Blitz lives or dies".

They could put parameters around nudity in other ways, cover up in certain areas or what have you. 

IMO this is just an optimistically reworded repeat of my earlier "let the dongs run wild and let the market decide if Body Blitz lives or dies".

They could find out that the ones who object don't want any trans women OR men in there.  etc.

Perhaps their reasons for a safe-space free of physiologically male people is valid.

I think tagging people is at once a mental shorthand, but also a way of boxing people into a category to dismiss them.  TERFs vs SJWs.  It's party politics, but in a different arena.  The people who I personally know who are in this debate are standing up for their friends and relatives and not on any kind of path to punishing those who aren't like them.

I apologize if the description of "SJWs" was out of line.

As an outsider-- I'm not from TO, I don't "Facebook", and I'm not part of any social networks that have any opinion one way or the other on this--  there seems to be a definite appearance that some people want to "get" Body Blitz for being anti-trans. And it seems like a lot of people want to "get" Megan Murphy for going "off the reservation" in expressing a view that goes against the grain.
"Boycott her website!" etc.

 -k
« Last Edit: June 30, 2017, 10:11:37 pm by kimmy »
Paris - London - New York - Kim City