Airbnb faces outcry after transgender guest was denied stay by a host - Polidicks

[QUOTE=karlosfandango;50483069]Certain members here who purport to crusade for empathy and political correctness are actually the most divisive. [/QUOTE] Crusade for empathy, can you get any more pretentious and non-specific? [QUOTE=karlosfandango;50482770][QUOTE=axelord157;50481122]Orwell was a social democrat who believed in politically correct speech.[/QUOTE] You do know that 1984 was a work of fiction?[/QUOTE] This just takes the cake, you didn't get what he was saying AT ALL

[QUOTE=Killuah;50483446]Crusade for empathy, can you get any more pretentious and non-specific? This just takes the cake, you didn't get what he was saying AT ALL[/QUOTE] I wondered when keyword Killuah would crawl out, did that bit hit a nerve? I quoted something from a work of fiction and they quoted the authours ethics. Who didn't get what?

[QUOTE=karlosfandango;50483698]I wondered when keyword Killuah would crawl out, did that bit hit a nerve? I quoted something from a work of fiction and they quoted the authours ethics. Who didn't get what?[/QUOTE] You used the work of fiction to somehow do a sarcastic jab at not tollerating intollerance by saying "maybe we should consider Orwell's thought police." and his reply was "Orwell was a social democrat who believed in politically correct speech." so obviously it's you who didn't get the authors viewpoint by using his work sarcastically AGAINST politically correct speech. [quote]I wondered when keyword Killuah would crawl out, did that bit hit a nerve?[/quote] I don't know how you think that someone pointing out your demagogic and pathetic rhetoric indicates that you "hita nerve". [editline]9th June 2016[/editline] "your rhetoric is bad can we stay factual?" "oooooh did I hit a nerve?"

[QUOTE=Killuah;50484138]You used the work of fiction to somehow do a sarcastic jab at not tollerating intollerance by saying "maybe we should consider Orwell's thought police." and his reply was "Orwell was a social democrat who believed in politically correct speech." so obviously it's you who didn't get the authors viewpoint by using his work sarcastically AGAINST politically correct speech. I don't know how you think that someone pointing out your demagogic and pathetic rhetoric indicates that you "hita nerve". [editline]9th June 2016[/editline] "your rhetoric is bad can we stay factual?" "oooooh did I hit a nerve?"[/QUOTE] Your posts are always critical by way of insult, vague and repetitive. You use a lot of words out of context too. Along the lines of it's a generalisation, rhetoric, sarcastic blah blah. I never really quite understand your point apart from the fact that I know you are disagreeing.

[QUOTE=karlosfandango;50483069]Certain members here who purport to crusade for empathy and political correctness are actually the most divisive. [editline]9th June 2016[/editline] I am not comparing trans people to spiders as you already know. I have never argued the airbnb/contract angle as she is clearly in breach of her contract.[/QUOTE] You're saying the discomfort caused by a trans person is similar to that of a spider. How else can that actually be taken? You're getting all high and mighty and killuah but have you even taken a moment to think about the choice of words you've applied to this situation? Would you be comfortable being described "As uncomfortable to be around as a spider"?

What about "the only thing you don't tolerate is intolerance" or as others posted "treat people like you want to be treated" was vague or out of context? [editline]9th June 2016[/editline] ( or eben better the categorical imperative of course)

[QUOTE=karlosfandango;50483698]I wondered when keyword Killuah would crawl out, did that bit hit a nerve? I quoted something from a work of fiction and they quoted the authours ethics. Who didn't get what?[/QUOTE] Are you an art piece relating to terrible posting or something because you're becoming more and more shitposty and vague with each post. Most people learn to quit whilst they're ahead, but not you apparently.

I'm sorry but I have two questions. 1) Why is this AirBnB's fault/responsibility? 2) Why should be host be punished for this? The way I see it, it's the host's HOME. I could understand there being outrage if a COMPANY did this. Like if a fucking Hilton Hotel said "no trans people allowed" yeah that's bullshit But this isn't a hotel chain. It's not a company. It's some person trying to make some extra money using their own home, while they are still living in it. It's not a matter of "You aren't going to be there it's a rental". They should be well within their rights to deny an occupant of their choosing from staying at their home. [editline]9th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Raidyr;50474384]Which she can still do, just not through the Airbnb service.[/QUOTE] Actually, not true. I read the AirBNB's terms and conditions and it only states that you're not allowed to post content that encourages discrimination. It doesn't state anywhere in their ToS that you can't deny someone based on orientation, creed, ethnicity, religion, or any other 'discriminatory' manner. Just that you cannot publicly encourage it (i.e. on your listing say something like "no jews")

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50487199]I'm sorry but I have two questions. 1) Why is this AirBnB's fault/responsibility? 2) Why should be host be punished for this? The way I see it, it's the host's HOME. I could understand there being outrage if a COMPANY did this. Like if a fucking Hilton Hotel said "no trans people allowed" yeah that's bullshit But this isn't a hotel chain. It's not a company. It's some person trying to make some extra money using their own home, while they are still living in it. It's not a matter of "You aren't going to be there it's a rental". They should be well within their rights to deny an occupant of their choosing from staying at their home.[/QUOTE] Because the HOME is listed with Airbnb, a COMPANY engaged in the home rental business (with lots of regulatory arbitrage to cover that fact but that's a story for another day). Therefore they cannot engage in discriminatory practices, which includes making sure that the people listing their homes on Airbnb do not discriminate. I don't actually know whether Airbnb itself is legally required to ensure that homeowners do not discriminate, since the aforementioned regulatory arbitrage may cover them from that, but it sure as hell seems like it should be the case.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50487228]Because the HOME is listed with Airbnb, a COMPANY engaged in the home rental business (with lots of regulatory arbitrage to cover that fact but that's a story for another day). Therefore they cannot engage in discriminatory practices, which includes making sure that the people listing their homes on Airbnb do not discriminate. I don't actually know whether Airbnb itself is legally required to ensure that homeowners do not discriminate, since the aforementioned regulatory arbitrage may cover them from that, but it sure as hell seems like it should be the case.[/QUOTE] AirBNB is nothing more than a listing agency. They cannot/should not control the preferential actions of the people merely using their application to list available rooms for short stays. That's a ridiculous precedent. People should be free to deny an occupant for a reason that makes them uncomfortable. The review system will sort them out naturally. The way this should have gone is 1) Trans girl gets denied stay 2) Trans girl leaves negative review on host's listing/property 3) Trans girl finds somewhere else to stay, and anyone else in the future who disagrees with the host's actions also find somewhere else to stay and the host loses business It's a free market. That means you're free to make whatever decisions you want, and suffer the logical outcome. But the woman shouldn't be formally reprimanded/punished for it. It's not like she said "fuck off slag no she-men in my house burn in hell" she was fairly polite and explained she didn't want to make her CHILD uncomfortable.

[QUOTE=Snoberry Tea;50487254]AirBNB is nothing more than a listing agency. They cannot/should not control the preferential actions of the people merely using their application to list available rooms for short stays. That's a ridiculous precedent. People should be free to deny an occupant for a reason that makes them uncomfortable. The review system will sort them out naturally. The way this should have gone is 1) Trans girl gets denied stay 2) Trans girl leaves negative review on host's listing/property 3) Trans girl finds somewhere else to stay, and anyone else in the future who disagrees with the host's actions also find somewhere else to stay and the host loses business It's a free market. That means you're free to make whatever decisions you want, and suffer the logical outcome. But the woman shouldn't be formally reprimanded/punished for it. It's not like she said "fuck off slag no she-men in my house burn in hell" she was fairly polite and explained she didn't want to make her CHILD uncomfortable.[/QUOTE] The homeowners are effectively landlords renting out their properties. You can dress it up in fancy new-age startup lingo all you want but that won't change the fact that they're engaged in the rental business, and therefore should be subject to the same non-discriminatory regulations that all landlords are subject to.

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50487266]The homeowners are effectively landlords renting out their properties. You can dress it up in fancy new-age startup lingo all you want but that won't change the fact that they're engaged in the rental business, and therefore should be subject to the same non-discriminatory regulations that all landlords are subject to.[/QUOTE] Once again. Private rentals are not subject to the same non-discriminatory regulations as businesses and companies. A private rental can chose to deny any occupant they want for any reason they want. They just cannot ADVERTISE it on the listing. This is seen most often on craigslist "room for rent" or "home for rent" listings. If you are renting your private property and are not a representative of a corporate interest or business, you may deny occupancy to whomever you choose provided that it isn't advertised in the listing. I'm sure it's different in the UK but that's how it is in the US. If I wanted to rent out a room in my house, but didn't want to rent it to a Muslim (Just an example. I don't actually have a problem with any religion/race/creed/whatever) I could simply screen applicants and refuse to rent to those I don't want to rent to. Nothing could be done about it, except my listing would be removed if I advertised in the listing "No muslims" You can see this all the time on craigslist where you'll most commonly see "Female only" listings. This is technically not allowed since they're advertising it, and the listing will be taken down. However if it doesn't advertise it, you call, and they say "sorry, I'm only looking for female room-mates" and then call a housing authority they will tell you there's nothing they can do.

You clearly don't understand contracts if this is your take on the issue

[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50487266]The homeowners are effectively landlords renting out their properties. You can dress it up in fancy new-age startup lingo all you want but that won't change the fact that they're engaged in the rental business, and therefore should be subject to the same non-discriminatory regulations that all landlords are subject to.[/QUOTE] So is the homeowner a registered corporation? A registered LLC? If they are not a registered business, then no, they are not under the same regulations as a business/landlord.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50485970]You're saying the discomfort caused by a trans person is similar to that of a spider. How else can that actually be taken? You're getting all high and mighty and killuah but have you even taken a moment to think about the choice of words you've applied to this situation? Would you be comfortable being described "As uncomfortable to be around as a spider"?[/QUOTE] You're reading way too much into that comparison and assuming ill will of an innocent comment that's intention was not negative. Not everything needs to be taken exactly or literally, and some comparisons are only surface deep or narrow in scope. When someone says "it's like comparing apples to oranges" you don't go "are you saying X is a fruit you asshole?" because that would be taking a comparison too literally. The intention of something spoken is more important than the literal interpretation, as language is just using sounds to communicate the idea we have to another, and sometimes the words we say are not properly conveyed or understood by someone else. The reason I assume he brought up a spider comparison is not to suggest transgendered people are insects, creepy, venomous, or have 8 legs, he used it as an example of some organism that people generally fear for no logical reason other than emotion. An intelligent person understands the role a spider plays in its ecosystem, their usefulness, and their docile nature, and is not afraid of them. An uneducated person relying on primal fears is going to stay away from a spider because the person is afraid of something they don't understand. For spiders, the fear is rooted in evolutionary fear of disease and infection. For transgendered people, it's fear of someone different than ourselves, and evolutionary was a helpful skill in survival of the tribe that nowadays is detrimental. The average person has no clue what transgenderism is. They are not educated about gender dysphoria, "having the right brain but the wrong body," and are afraid of things they don't understand. All they see is a man dressed like a woman or a woman dressed as a man, and associate that with being unlike themselves or those they know. People instinctively are afraid of people unlike them, the "other," and that sort of thinking leads to tribalism, racism, bigotry, and the like but also just to avoidance and anxiety/feeling uncomfortable. It takes interaction, exposure, and understanding to overcome that. It's an irrational fear, and it's not something that goes away in an instant. The mother most likely holds no ill will towards this person, but she doesn't understand them, and her primal instincts kick in. She feels uncomfortable around someone she doesn't understand, and thus does not want her children to be around something she is uncomfortable with as she wants to "protect" her children. I'm not suggesting this is a good thing or accepting her decision, I'm just explaining her train of thought. It's not logical reasoning, she's not running through these thoughts in her head, this is all happening in an instant and she most likely is unaware of it. This is all unconscious stuff happening here that ends with the fear emotion, and human beings are not logical 100% of the time anyways. If she was exposed to transgendered people more frequently (she most likely had never met a single transgendered person before), understood the science behind it, and was able to connect and emphasize with transgendered people, she would have been perfectly fine allowing that person to rent her house. But she did not have experience with trans people as most Americans don't and not everybody even knows trans people even exist. As intelligent people who use the internet (and who may have transgendered friends) we are fortunate enough to be able to learn and communicate with people from all walks of life and that naturally makes us less uncomfortable around people who are different than us, as long as we're not stuck in an echo-chanber or never look things up. People need to look at this situation less as a hateful and bigoted woman and more of an ignorant and sheltered woman. You don't break barriers by berating and shaming people, you break them by explaining, teaching, connecting with and talking with them.

[QUOTE=SleepyAl;50488001]You're reading way too much into that comparison and assuming ill will of an innocent comment that's intention was not negative. Not everything needs to be taken exactly or literally, and some comparisons are only surface deep or narrow in scope. When someone says "it's like comparing apples to oranges" you don't go "are you saying X is a fruit you asshole?" because that would be taking a comparison too literally. The intention of something spoken is more important than the literal interpretation, as language is just using sounds to communicate the idea we have to another, and sometimes the words we say are not properly conveyed or understood by someone else. The reason I assume he brought up a spider comparison is not to suggest transgendered people are insects, creepy, venomous, or have 8 legs, he used it as an example of some organism that people generally fear for no logical reason other than emotion. An intelligent person understands the role a spider plays in its ecosystem, their usefulness, and their docile nature, and is not afraid of them. An uneducated person relying on primal fears is going to stay away from a spider because the person is afraid of something they don't understand. For spiders, the fear is rooted in evolutionary fear of disease and infection. For transgendered people, it's fear of someone different than ourselves, and evolutionary was a helpful skill in survival of the tribe that nowadays is detrimental. The average person has no clue what transgenderism is. They are not educated about gender dysphoria, "having the right brain but the wrong body," and are afraid of things they don't understand. All they see is a man dressed like a woman or a woman dressed as a man, and associate that with being unlike themselves or those they know. People instinctively are afraid of people unlike them, the "other," and that sort of thinking leads to tribalism, racism, bigotry, and the like but also just to avoidance and anxiety/feeling uncomfortable. It takes interaction, exposure, and understanding to overcome that. It's an irrational fear, and it's not something that goes away in an instant. The mother most likely holds no ill will towards this person, but she doesn't understand them, and her primal instincts kick in. She feels uncomfortable around someone she doesn't understand, and thus does not want her children to be around something she is uncomfortable with as she wants to "protect" her children. I'm not suggesting this is a good thing or accepting her decision, I'm just explaining her train of thought. It's not logical reasoning, she's not running through these thoughts in her head, this is all happening in an instant and she most likely is unaware of it. This is all unconscious stuff happening here that ends with the fear emotion, and human beings are not logical 100% of the time anyways. If she was exposed to transgendered people more frequently (she most likely had never met a single transgendered person before), understood the science behind it, and was able to connect and emphasize with transgendered people, she would have been perfectly fine allowing that person to rent her house. But she did not have experience with trans people as most Americans don't and not everybody even knows trans people even exist. As intelligent people who use the internet (and who may have transgendered friends) we are fortunate enough to be able to learn and communicate with people from all walks of life and that naturally makes us less uncomfortable around people who are different than us, as long as we're not stuck in an echo-chanber or never look things up. People need to look at this situation less as a hateful and bigoted woman and more of an ignorant and sheltered woman. You don't break barriers by berating and shaming people, you break them by explaining, teaching, connecting with and talking with them.[/QUOTE] I'm not trying to shame anyone. Communication is important, and it's how we'll break these walls down. Starting off a conversation with a description of your feelings that is as visceral as the fear of spiders for some people isn't a great way to start it off from that side of the fence. I'm not trying to shame anyone, how would you suggest I educate someone to not use a phrase that is easily understood to be offensive in the context? No, I don't believe for a second he's describing them as actual arachnids or possessing any characteristics of it, I understand the emotional element of it, they're describing trans people as something that is emotionally volatile to them. If people want to be educated, they'll be open to information. If they don't, they won't be and will continue with their train of thought as before. If someone holds the view that a trans person is as discomforting as the discomfort generated by a spider, then no, they're not being logical, nor rational. So, how does one go about breaking down that barrier of irrationality on the subject? If they're emotional, then logical explanations of why that's offensive, why they're not scary, why they're just people is rarely going to be absorbed. I don't think asking people to start being conscious of their language when they get into these conversations is as really as bad as you're making it seem.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50488065]I'm not trying to shame anyone. Communication is important, and it's how we'll break these walls down. Starting off a conversation with a description of your feelings that is as visceral as the fear of spiders for some people isn't a great way to start it off from that side of the fence. I'm not trying to shame anyone, how would you suggest I educate someone to not use a phrase that is easily understood to be offensive in the context? No, I don't believe for a second he's describing them as actual arachnids or possessing any characteristics of it, I understand the emotional element of it, they're describing trans people as something that is emotionally volatile to them. If people want to be educated, they'll be open to information. If they don't, they won't be and will continue with their train of thought as before. If someone holds the view that a trans person is as discomforting as the discomfort generated by a spider, then no, they're not being logical, nor rational. So, how does one go about breaking down that barrier of irrationality on the subject? If they're emotional, then logical explanations of why that's offensive, why they're not scary, why they're just people is rarely going to be absorbed. I don't think asking people to start being conscious of their language when they get into these conversations is as really as bad as you're making it seem.[/QUOTE] Some people might genuinely have a similar level of fear, and I can understand a trans person being offended by that, but when the goal is trying to change someone's opinion you sometimes have to let ignorant comments slide and judge them based on intent rather than what you interpret it as. If it was clearly meant as an insult that's one thing, but usually when people are discussing things insults are not intended (unless someone has anger issues or something). It's definitely not a good feeling to be compared to an insect but you have to remember that (usually) people saying something like that is not intentional and they are using the comparison to show some idea or feeling they have. The best way to change someone's opinion is to not challenge it but rather make them come around to it on their own terms. Studies have shown the more you challenge someone's beliefs the stronger they hold on to them, and studies also show that people who are forced to be in habitation and cooperate with each other (who may be different genders, races, sexuality, etc.) eventually will have less animosity and fear/hatred of the group that person is a part of (the contact hypothesis). There is a lot of psychological research on reduction and management of prejudice and discrimination, and [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approaches_to_prejudice_reduction]Wikipedia[/url] lists some basic information. Exposure is the best way to change prejudice, simply. To show someone that trans people are perfectly normal people (aside from the brain-body mismatch which is a medical condition) and aren't threatening, weird or scary, people need to be exposed to them, see them more often, understand who they are as a person, interact with them, ideally cooperate together on something. It's the same thing with racism, bigotry, etc. The more you're around people the more you warm up to them, and for most Americans they rarely if ever see a trans person so they don't see them the same way they see other people. Arguments aren't going to change someone's mind, which is why internet arguments on forums rarely do any good, but in the real world there are ways to make people understand other people's identities without just giving up. Then again it's not yours or anyone else's job to fix a bigot's perspective, but if it's something you wish to change and that person doesn't have the impetus to do it themselves there are options available and communities/governments could do a lot more to foster group activities to break boundaries. Sorry if this was a little rambling/random, it's like 3AM here and I'm zonked, just wanted to respond before I forget I posted in the thread lol

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50485970]You're saying the discomfort caused by a trans person is similar to that of a spider. How else can that actually be taken? You're getting all high and mighty and killuah but have you even taken a moment to think about the choice of words you've applied to this situation? Would you be comfortable being described "As uncomfortable to be around as a spider"?[/QUOTE] That isn't what I said and you know it isn't. What i said was that this woman felt uncomfortable with a transgender person staying in her house. Her feeling uncomfortable is as real to her as for instance someone feeling uncomfortable about whatever it is they feel uncomfortable about, I only used examples but did not make a comparison, you did that. I personally have nothing against transgender people but if this woman chooses not to have a transgender person stay in her home because she isn't comfortable with it or for whatever reason then I can respect that. As I said before this woman isn't on a mission to discredit all transgender people, she simply made a choice. The rest was created by the media and then blown out of all proportion here. [editline]10th June 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=hexpunK;50486378]Are you an art piece relating to terrible posting or something because you're becoming more and more shitposty and vague with each post. Most people learn to quit whilst they're ahead, but not you apparently.[/QUOTE] In what way? In that you disagree, so therefore I am shitposting?

No you're really just shitposting [quote]I wondered when keyword Killuah would crawl out, did that bit hit a nerve?[/quote]

[QUOTE=Killuah;50489734]No you're really just shitposting[/QUOTE] I think accusing everyone of generalisation and using the same keywords over and over is shitposting? Isn't quoting one sentence in a post to prove a point, shitposting?

Excuse me for thinking "I wondern when keyword Killuah would crawl out" is shitposting but you might have noticed that it's not just me thinking this and we are not gonna debate whether your posts are shitposts or not here any further See ya

[QUOTE=Killuah;50489953]Excuse me for thinking "I wondern when keyword Killuah would crawl out" is shitposting but you might have noticed that it's not just me thinking this and we are not gonna debate whether your posts are shitposts or not here any further See ya[/QUOTE] Your last post below in it's entirety was quality: [QUOTE] What are you even trying to say Bat-shit[/QUOTE]

We are also not gonna debate wether MY posts are shitposts or not here any further

[QUOTE=Killuah;50489984]We are also not gonna debate wether MY posts are shitposts or not here any further[/QUOTE] I won't miss it.