[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50000898]Why? How does that "logic" work for you there pal? What about being a man stops you from opening up a female gym? Like seriously, run this "logic" by me
This is dead easy simple shit man. "You don't get to discriminate"
That's it. That's all. Is that so hard for people to go by?
Why should you get to discriminate? Freedom of speech? Well you're a business, you don't have freedom of speech in the exact same way and denying someone service not because they're a potentially bad client or customer, but because of your own prejudices is absolute horseshit.[/QUOTE]
If you don't get to discriminate what gives a female only gym the right to refuse service to a man?
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;49998981]I really don't think the reason matters.[/QUOTE]
It matters because you should t be allowed to refuse service for completely arbitrary reasons.
Things like race, gender, religion, and sexuality does in no way influence how you are as a customer.
It's only okay to refuse service to someone if you have an actual valid reason for doing so, if the person For example if someone is acting threatening, drunk, disruptive, and so on.
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;50000856]I wouldn't force a homophobic to do business with a homosexual just as I wouldn't force a homosexual to do business with a homophobic.
By your logic I couldn't even open a female's only gym.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, if the female only gym doesn't allow men at all then yeah that's discriminatory as fuck. You could of course still advertise as being female only and have other ways to still have it promoted as a female centered gym but completely denying access to men would be discriminatory....
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;50000909]If you don't get to discriminate what gives a female only gym the right to refuse service to a man?[/QUOTE]
Because it's more complicated than that in most situations and certainly in this context. I'm playing devils advocate here because by and large, I'm not sure why womens gyms get to do so other than that's their prerogative as a business, to provide a safe space for women to exercise in.
Female only gyms turn down men to create a less threatening work out environment for women, and they usually supply women with classes relating to pregnancy, weight-loss, and other similar things that women need out of their gyms and they are able to provide a more secure environment for those things through being exclusive.
Womens gyms are certainly a different idea than saying "No faggots/blacks/jews/gypsies/etc allowed".
[editline]24th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;50000943]Yeah, if the female only gym doesn't allow men at all then yeah that's discriminatory as fuck. You could of course still advertise as being female only and have other ways to still have it promoted as a female centered gym but completely denying access to men would be discriminatory....[/QUOTE]
There are tons of women only gyms in both our countries so you'd better start waving that discrimination flag harder.
Yes it's discrimination, when it comes right down to it, but is it meaningful? I'm not sure and I'm honestly playing devils advocate to point where I'm questioning my own thoughts on the subject.
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;50000943]Yeah, if the female only gym doesn't allow men at all then yeah that's discriminatory as fuck. You could of course still advertise as being female only and have other ways to still have it promoted as a female centered gym but completely denying access to men would be discriminatory....[/QUOTE]
This is my point. Either everyone should be able to refuse service or no one should. Unless you're being disruptive or you're doing something illegal and what not.
Gender specific places seems a bit weird, because on paper it discriminatory as fuck.
It seems it's just one of those things that society has deemed to be okay.
I guess mostly because there are almost always plenty of options for the other gender.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50000951]Because it's more complicated than that in most situations and certainly in this context. I'm playing devils advocate here because by and large, I'm not sure why womens gyms get to do so other than that's their prerogative as a business, to provide a safe space for women to exercise in.
Female only gyms turn down men to create a less threatening work out environment for women, and they usually supply women with classes relating to pregnancy, weight-loss, and other similar things that women need out of their gyms and they are able to provide a more secure environment for those things through being exclusive.
Womens gyms are certainly a different idea than saying "No faggots/blacks/jews/gypsies/etc allowed".[/QUOTE]
Oh so NOW it's complicated. Because in the last post you said it was simple.
[QUOTE]
This is dead easy simple shit man. "You don't get to discriminate"
[/QUOTE]
Also, are you right now assuming that men are by default threatening to women? That has a name you know, sexism.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;50000951]
There are tons of women only gyms in both our countries so you'd better start waving that discrimination flag harder.
Yes it's discrimination, when it comes right down to it, but is it meaningful? I'm not sure and I'm honestly playing devils advocate to point where I'm questioning my own thoughts on the subject.[/QUOTE]
Oh, so it's not meaningful because it's discrimination against men.
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;50000962]This is my point. Either everyone should be able to refuse service or no one should. Unless you're being disruptive or you're doing something illegal and what not.[/QUOTE]
Wait what? What was the meaning of your first post in the thread then?
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;50000992]Oh so NOW it's complicated. Because in the last post you said it was simple.
Also, are you right now assuming that men are by default threatening to women? That has a name you know, sexism.
Oh, so it's not meaningful because it's discrimination against men.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. So what? Things get complicated when you get into detailed specifics. But in general, yes it is dead simple. You don't get to discriminate. You don't want gays or jews in your store? Too bad, you don't really have a right to refuse them based on that.
And while yes it is sexism to say that all men are threatening to women, I agree, that's totally sexist, the statistics that lead women to actually be scared of men aren't sexist because they're statistics and not an argument in and of themselves and the facts can't really be called "sexist" just because you don't like it.
Men are not by default threatening to women. Does that mean that you want to do potentially embarrassing things in front of the other sex? No? Shouldn't that be a decision you yourself can make rather than have made for you?
Men should have their own gyms(they do, they're the ones that women just don't want to go to) because men too get shy and embarrassed in front of women and should have the choice to avoid that.
I would say the complicated socio-political dance that men and women, the two largest groups on the planet go through, is a lot more complicated than just "I don't want fucking black people in my store".
[QUOTE=TornadoAP;50001000]Wait what? What was the meaning of your first post in the thread then?[/QUOTE]
If I understood correctly, the bill makes it okay to discriminate against some groups of people.
Freedoms end when they start interfering with other people's freedoms and ability to have their place in society. We need to stop looking at freedom as some infallible rule of God that shouldn't be interfered with and look at it as something we as people mutually agree upon what others find acceptable. For example, if it harms someone's ability to have a place in society. Discriminating against a group that makes no choice to be part in that group is actively harmful to that person and society as whole and brings no benefits whatsoever, so why do we allow it? Is that freedom beneficial? Does it bring us economic, moral, or social prosperity? Again, freedom is what society agrees what it should be, not a "natural" act of some mysterious force.
TBH, here in NY, the laws are toxic, I mean it's a [b]FELONY[/b] to accidentally call someone the wrong gender.
[QUOTE=GarbageCan;50002730]Discriminating against a group that makes no choice to be part in that group[/QUOTE]
What defines "no choice"? Is religion a choice? What of say political beliefs? We could also go into the "fun" parts where if something is a choice is debated (e.g. being gay).
If freedom is not viewed as an infallible rule--so long as those freedoms do not hurt others--, these questions become problematic because there is no absolute truth; it is, as you say, something society decides. The problem is, "freedom" from discrimination based upon being a member of some group of people is a way to prevent the majority from driving away the minority, for better or worse.
Making exceptions to such a rule is dangerous as it can very easily lead down a path where groups are shunned by society.
[QUOTE=GravyKing;50002807]TBH, here in NY, the laws are toxic, I mean it's a [b]FELONY[/b] to accidentally call someone the wrong gender.[/QUOTE]
No it's a [B]FELONY[/B] for a business to REPEATEDLY and KNOWINGLY misgender someone
[QUOTE=Uzbekistan;50002934]No it's a [B]FELONY[/B] for a business to REPEATEDLY and KNOWINGLY misgender someone[/QUOTE]
It shouldn't be a law regardless, if it looks like a male, talks like a male, walks like a male, then what do you think it is?
[QUOTE=GravyKing;50002962]It shouldn't be a law regardless, if it looks like a male, talks like a male, walks like a male, then what do you think it is?[/QUOTE]
Whatever the person identifies as?
[QUOTE=GravyKing;50002962]It shouldn't be a law regardless, if it looks like a male, talks like a male, walks like a male, then what do you think it is?[/QUOTE]
Intentionally misgendering a transgender individual brings a lot of emotional grief to them and contributes to the very high depression and suicide rate among them. If it's a mistake the law doesn't have any place; however if it's being used to harass someone then it would be considered a crime.
Hell, I identify myself as a dragon, do you think it's okay to have someone arrested if they call me a human?
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Shitpost" - Starpluck))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=GravyKing;50002999]Hell, I identify myself as a dragon, do you think it's okay to have someone arrested if they call me a human?[/QUOTE]
No but I think it's pretty okay to call you an asshat
[QUOTE=GravyKing;50002999]Hell, I identify myself as a dragon, do you think it's okay to have someone arrested if they call me a human?[/QUOTE]
That argument is complete nonsense and anyone who uses it demonstrates that they lack the knowledge required to actually participate in a discussion about trans issues
Ah yes, the ever so clever "if I identify as the queen of england they still won't let me into palace" argument.
[QUOTE=GravyKing;50002999]Hell, I identify myself as a dragon, do you think it's okay to have someone arrested if they call me a human?[/QUOTE]
Good to know you don't want people to take your arguments seriously.
[QUOTE=Fourm Shark;49997546]how is it legal to pass laws that ban the enaction of other laws?[/QUOTE]
I don't know about the US, But we have things here that prevent that.
Still.. It happens, Not sure if people in power are just dumb or haven't read the laws and guiding documents of our country.
[QUOTE=GravyKing;50002807]TBH, here in NY, the laws are toxic, I mean it's a [b]FELONY[/b] to accidentally call someone the wrong gender.[/QUOTE]
No, its illegal to knowingly and repeatedly misgender a trans individual. Kinda like how its illegal to call a gay employee fagboy or something.
I don't think calling someone her/him is the same as calling a gay guy fagboy.
If they were calling them tranny boy/girl sure.
[editline]123[/editline]
Honestly sure it's offensive but I think it's a overreaction that that's a felony. Like how come in the same state if you verbally abuse someone by say calling them a "stupid fuckhead" it's just a misdemeanor?
[QUOTE=Slim Charles;50003104]I don't think calling someone her/him is the same as calling a gay guy fagboy.
If they were calling them tranny boy/girl sure.[/QUOTE]
No its pretty much the same thing. Its willing and knowing harassment.
[editline]25th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Slim Charles;50003104]
Honestly sure it's offensive but I think it's a overreaction that that's a felony.[/QUOTE]
Outing people as trans is an incredibly dangerous thing to do in a lot of places. The felony punishment is justified.
Ok. It's just I personally think something with a slur in it is more offensive than the wrong pronoun but that's just me. Not saying that both aren't offensive though.
[QUOTE=Kyle902;50003109]Outing people as trans is an incredibly dangerous thing to do in a lot of places. The felony punishment is justified.[/QUOTE]
In New York though? Isn't it a primarily leftist state though.
[QUOTE=Slim Charles;50003119]Ok. It's just I personally think something with a slur in it is more offensive than the wrong pronoun but that's just me.[/QUOTE]
How offensive something is is entirely subjective.
[editline]25th March 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Slim Charles;50003119]
In New York though? Isn't it a primarily leftist state though.[/QUOTE]
The left can still be as bigoted as the right.
[QUOTE=Slim Charles;50003104]I don't think calling someone her/him is the same as calling a gay guy fagboy.
If they were calling them tranny boy/girl sure.
[editline]123[/editline]
Honestly sure it's offensive but I think it's a overreaction that that's a felony. Like how come in the same state if you verbally abuse someone by say calling them a "stupid fuckhead" it's just a misdemeanor?[/QUOTE]
If they're doing it intentionally and repeatedly then there's no getting around that they're causing the person psychological and emotional stress and trauma for no discernible reason other than their bigotry
Gender dysphoria is very serious and I have no sympathy for someone who is grossly insensitive to it
Having it be a felony is pretty fucking absurd honestly
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
