Author Topic: Gender Culture  (Read 56011 times)

0 Members and 5 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline kimmy

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5033
  • 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