Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

USSODDO- The Equal Rights Bill

Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 3:31:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
(This is a separate thread to thin the soup a bit and because I anticipate that it'll take a while to hammer out an agreement.)

Right then. Buddamoose, you said you couldn"t support something that would cost innocent lives. I"m arguing that your bill costs innocent lives; here"s an alternative version of the bill that would, at least, reduce the impact. Tragically we probably don"t have enough power to completely eliminate the impact, but we can at least attempt to reduce it further than it would be reduced by the current bill.

Clause 1: The citizens of the United States of Debate.Org deserve to live among each other as equals.

Clause 2: Living amongst each other as equals does not necessitate that everyone be given or afforded the same resources, money, or property.

Clause 3: Living among each other as equals means that opportunities will not be denied a person based on their:

-Race
-Religion
-Sex
-Age
-Sexual orientation
-Gender identity
-Disability (but see Clause 7)

Opportunities are to include, but are not limited to:

-Jobs
-Wages
-Medical treatment
-Education
-Housing

Clause 4: A person has the right t ovoice "discriminatory" opinions upon these things due to Clause 1 of the U.S. of DDDO Bill of Rights, but acting upon these opinions in a violent, or prejudicial manner is prohibited.

To clarify, to deny someone something in the public sphere, or to act violently towards another, based of any of the aforementioned things, is prohibited. The public sphere is defined as places that are considered open to the public: businesses, government buildings, public parks, certain non-profit attractions (ex. zoos, aquariums, museums), etc. Places that are not considered open to the public (ex. private functions, meeting places for certain organizations) are not covered by this law.

Clause 5: Congress and states shall levy no discriminatory taxes.

Clause 6: Just because a "trait" is not listed in the list of traits that discrimination is prohibited against, does not necessarily mean that it is permissible to discriminate against these things.

Clause 7: Not all forms of discrimination are prohibited as certain nones are necessary, such as qualifications for jobs in terms of experience, aptitude, and other various requirements as necessary to fulfill duties.

Clause 8: Religious groups are not mandated to comply with these requirements.

Now, I recognize that this will face opposition from a few corners. And to assist in the passage of this bill, I am willing to consider several trades"for this bill will do a great good to the USODDO, and so long as the trades do not outweigh the good done by this bill (at which point I would be obligated not to agree to such trades), I will agree to them, and work for them. Instances of acceptable trades include but are not limited to:

-Elimination (well, technically not having it in the first place, but whatever) of the inheritance tax
-Not having the government involved in marriage at all, and instead give out civil unions only (my constituents will probably not like this, but they will understand, I hope, that I have relatively little choice)
-I may be willing to consider certain restrictions on abortion, though I"ll have to do more research into the timeline of development to say anything more specific.
THEVIRUS
Posts: 1,321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 4:06:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 3:31:07 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
(This is a separate thread to thin the soup a bit and because I anticipate that it'll take a while to hammer out an agreement.)

Right then. Buddamoose, you said you couldn"t support something that would cost innocent lives. I"m arguing that your bill costs innocent lives; here"s an alternative version of the bill that would, at least, reduce the impact. Tragically we probably don"t have enough power to completely eliminate the impact, but we can at least attempt to reduce it further than it would be reduced by the current bill.

Clause 1: The citizens of the United States of Debate.Org deserve to live among each other as equals.

Clause 2: Living amongst each other as equals does not necessitate that everyone be given or afforded the same resources, money, or property.

Clause 3: Living among each other as equals means that opportunities will not be denied a person based on their:

-Race
-Religion
-Sex
-Age
-Sexual orientation
-Gender identity
-Disability (but see Clause 7)

Opportunities are to include, but are not limited to:

-Jobs
-Wages
-Medical treatment
-Education
-Housing

Clause 4: A person has the right t ovoice "discriminatory" opinions upon these things due to Clause 1 of the U.S. of DDDO Bill of Rights, but acting upon these opinions in a violent, or prejudicial manner is prohibited.

To clarify, to deny someone something in the public sphere, or to act violently towards another, based of any of the aforementioned things, is prohibited. The public sphere is defined as places that are considered open to the public: businesses, government buildings, public parks, certain non-profit attractions (ex. zoos, aquariums, museums), etc. Places that are not considered open to the public (ex. private functions, meeting places for certain organizations) are not covered by this law.

Clause 5: Congress and states shall levy no discriminatory taxes.

Clause 6: Just because a "trait" is not listed in the list of traits that discrimination is prohibited against, does not necessarily mean that it is permissible to discriminate against these things.

Clause 7: Not all forms of discrimination are prohibited as certain nones are necessary, such as qualifications for jobs in terms of experience, aptitude, and other various requirements as necessary to fulfill duties.

Clause 8: Religious groups are not mandated to comply with these requirements.


Now, I recognize that this will face opposition from a few corners. And to assist in the passage of this bill, I am willing to consider several trades"for this bill will do a great good to the USODDO, and so long as the trades do not outweigh the good done by this bill (at which point I would be obligated not to agree to such trades), I will agree to them, and work for them. Instances of acceptable trades include but are not limited to:

-Elimination (well, technically not having it in the first place, but whatever) of the inheritance tax
-Not having the government involved in marriage at all, and instead give out civil unions only (my constituents will probably not like this, but they will understand, I hope, that I have relatively little choice)
-I may be willing to consider certain restrictions on abortion, though I"ll have to do more research into the timeline of development to say anything more specific.

Cross out Clause 8 and we're good ;P
"So you want me to go to the judge with 'unit, corps, God, country'?" - A Few Good Men

"And the hits just keep on comin'." -A Few Good Men
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 4:20:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 3:31:07 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
(This is a separate thread to thin the soup a bit and because I anticipate that it'll take a while to hammer out an agreement.)

Right then. Buddamoose, you said you couldn"t support something that would cost innocent lives. I"m arguing that your bill costs innocent lives; here"s an alternative version of the bill that would, at least, reduce the impact. Tragically we probably don"t have enough power to completely eliminate the impact, but we can at least attempt to reduce it further than it would be reduced by the current bill.

Clause 1: The citizens of the United States of Debate.Org deserve to live among each other as equals.

Clause 2: Living amongst each other as equals does not necessitate that everyone be given or afforded the same resources, money, or property.

Clause 3: Living among each other as equals means that opportunities will not be denied a person based on their:

-Race
-Religion
-Sex
-Age
-Sexual orientation
-Gender identity
-Disability (but see Clause 7)

Opportunities are to include, but are not limited to:

-Jobs
-Wages
-Medical treatment
-Education
-Housing

Clause 4: A person has the right t ovoice "discriminatory" opinions upon these things due to Clause 1 of the U.S. of DDDO Bill of Rights, but acting upon these opinions in a violent, or prejudicial manner is prohibited.

To clarify, to deny someone something in the public sphere, or to act violently towards another, based of any of the aforementioned things, is prohibited. The public sphere is defined as places that are considered open to the public: businesses, government buildings, public parks, certain non-profit attractions (ex. zoos, aquariums, museums), etc. Places that are not considered open to the public (ex. private functions, meeting places for certain organizations) are not covered by this law.

Clause 5: Congress and states shall levy no discriminatory taxes.

Clause 6: Just because a "trait" is not listed in the list of traits that discrimination is prohibited against, does not necessarily mean that it is permissible to discriminate against these things.

Clause 7: Not all forms of discrimination are prohibited as certain nones are necessary, such as qualifications for jobs in terms of experience, aptitude, and other various requirements as necessary to fulfill duties.

Clause 8: Religious groups are not mandated to comply with these requirements.


Now, I recognize that this will face opposition from a few corners. And to assist in the passage of this bill, I am willing to consider several trades"for this bill will do a great good to the USODDO, and so long as the trades do not outweigh the good done by this bill (at which point I would be obligated not to agree to such trades), I will agree to them, and work for them. Instances of acceptable trades include but are not limited to:

-Elimination (well, technically not having it in the first place, but whatever) of the inheritance tax
-Not having the government involved in marriage at all, and instead give out civil unions only (my constituents will probably not like this, but they will understand, I hope, that I have relatively little choice)
-I may be willing to consider certain restrictions on abortion, though I"ll have to do more research into the timeline of development to say anything more specifi

You're going overboard with this discrimination thing.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 4:38:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Really? All I really did was add age, disability-if-not-related-to-capability-to-perform-the-task, and gender identity, as well as define public sphere versus private sphere.

TV... Okay. Before people jump all over me I would note that arguably they already covered by the difference between private/public spheres.
THEVIRUS
Posts: 1,321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 4:44:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 4:38:25 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
Really? All I really did was add age, disability-if-not-related-to-capability-to-perform-the-task, and gender identity, as well as define public sphere versus private sphere.

TV... Okay. Before people jump all over me I would note that arguably they already covered by the difference between private/public spheres.

Okay. Still not entirely sure. And call me virus or I think the actual TV is here
"So you want me to go to the judge with 'unit, corps, God, country'?" - A Few Good Men

"And the hits just keep on comin'." -A Few Good Men
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 5:00:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 4:38:25 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
Really? All I really did was add age, disability-if-not-related-to-capability-to-perform-the-task, and gender identity, as well as define public sphere versus private sphere.

TV... Okay. Before people jump all over me I would note that arguably they already covered by the difference between private/public spheres.

It was against my better judgement to vote for the bill, as it was, but I'm definately not supporting a bill protecting gender identity, or further intruding into property rights, which your version does.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 5:06:54 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 5:00:36 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/8/2013 4:38:25 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
Really? All I really did was add age, disability-if-not-related-to-capability-to-perform-the-task, and gender identity, as well as define public sphere versus private sphere.

TV... Okay. Before people jump all over me I would note that arguably they already covered by the difference between private/public spheres.

It was against my better judgement to vote for the bill, as it was, but I'm definately not supporting a bill protecting gender identity, or further intruding into property rights, which your version does.

So you believe that, say, housing, should be able to be denied to people based on gender identity, despite the fact that this creates severe psychological/fiscal/physiological strain, which will almost certainly result in decreased lifespan, increased suicide rates, etc.?

And you call yourself pro-life?

By the way, I'll be gone for the next week or so, so that gives everybody a fair amount of time to think out what they'd want for this bill to pass.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 5:16:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 5:06:54 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/8/2013 5:00:36 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/8/2013 4:38:25 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
Really? All I really did was add age, disability-if-not-related-to-capability-to-perform-the-task, and gender identity, as well as define public sphere versus private sphere.

TV... Okay. Before people jump all over me I would note that arguably they already covered by the difference between private/public spheres.

It was against my better judgement to vote for the bill, as it was, but I'm definately not supporting a bill protecting gender identity, or further intruding into property rights, which your version does.

So you believe that, say, housing, should be able to be denied to people based on gender identity, despite the fact that this creates severe psychological/fiscal/physiological strain, which will almost certainly result in decreased lifespan, increased suicide rates, etc.?

And you call yourself pro-life?

This is absolutely silly to make that comparison.

By the way, I'll be gone for the next week or so, so that gives everybody a fair amount of time to think out what they'd want for this bill to pass.
THEVIRUS
Posts: 1,321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 5:17:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 5:16:32 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/8/2013 5:06:54 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/8/2013 5:00:36 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/8/2013 4:38:25 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
Really? All I really did was add age, disability-if-not-related-to-capability-to-perform-the-task, and gender identity, as well as define public sphere versus private sphere.

TV... Okay. Before people jump all over me I would note that arguably they already covered by the difference between private/public spheres.

It was against my better judgement to vote for the bill, as it was, but I'm definately not supporting a bill protecting gender identity, or further intruding into property rights, which your version does.

So you believe that, say, housing, should be able to be denied to people based on gender identity, despite the fact that this creates severe psychological/fiscal/physiological strain, which will almost certainly result in decreased lifespan, increased suicide rates, etc.?


And you call yourself pro-life?

This is absolutely silly to make that comparison.

By the way, I'll be gone for the next week or so, so that gives everybody a fair amount of time to think out what they'd want for this bill to pass.

Okay, just wondering what you don't like about protecting gender identity
"So you want me to go to the judge with 'unit, corps, God, country'?" - A Few Good Men

"And the hits just keep on comin'." -A Few Good Men
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2013 8:41:49 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 5:17:53 PM, THEVIRUS wrote:
At 3/8/2013 5:16:32 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/8/2013 5:06:54 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/8/2013 5:00:36 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/8/2013 4:38:25 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
Really? All I really did was add age, disability-if-not-related-to-capability-to-perform-the-task, and gender identity, as well as define public sphere versus private sphere.

TV... Okay. Before people jump all over me I would note that arguably they already covered by the difference between private/public spheres.

It was against my better judgement to vote for the bill, as it was, but I'm definately not supporting a bill protecting gender identity, or further intruding into property rights, which your version does.

So you believe that, say, housing, should be able to be denied to people based on gender identity, despite the fact that this creates severe psychological/fiscal/physiological strain, which will almost certainly result in decreased lifespan, increased suicide rates, etc.?


And you call yourself pro-life?

This is absolutely silly to make that comparison.

By the way, I'll be gone for the next week or so, so that gives everybody a fair amount of time to think out what they'd want for this bill to pass.

Okay, just wondering what you don't like about protecting gender identity

Protecting is one thing, but telling business owners and property owners that they can't refuse to hire, or rent to a group of people who have emotional problems is an invasion of their property rights. It's going too far.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 7:11:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/8/2013 8:41:49 PM, medic0506 wrote:
Protecting is one thing, but telling business owners and property owners that they can't refuse to hire, or rent to a group of people who have emotional problems is an invasion of their property rights. It's going too far.

That rests on the assumption that transgender = having emotional problems. It doesn't; it is not aligning with the gender norms and a matter of self-identification that, due to harassment and prejudice and discrimination based on the matter, has a correlation (not causation) with higher rates of emotional problems.

The bill doesn't even say they can't refuse to hire them, it states that they cannot refuse to hire them based only on gender identity or one of the other categories. Obviously if they were both transgender and had emotional problems that made them disruptive/bad at performing their duties/unable to pay rent, they wouldn't be covered by the bill. The only way such an individual conceivably could be covered by the bill would be if people with emotional problems as severe, or more severe, were kept while they were fired, and even then it would be questionable.

I'm trying to cut down on emotional problems, medic. And I'm trying to cut down on mortality rates. In exchange I'm offering to try and help you in banning abortion during the embryonic period--basically the first trimester.

So. Are you so opposed to the idea of anti-discrimination protections that you will not only hurt the people I fight for, but hurt the people you purport to fight for as well? Because I believe that I, at the very least, would be able to help you increase the length of time an abortion was banned, even if I can't stretch it all the way to the point where the brain forms.

I'm even willing to add a provision into the bill that renders it void if I go back on my deal.

And I'll cut multiple deals, if necessary, so long as the harm caused by those deals do not outweigh the good caused by this bill.

So, libertarians, what do you want in exchange?
THEVIRUS
Posts: 1,321
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/15/2013 7:38:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Actually, add clause:

x) Religious buildings, call centers, etc. are NOT required to allow anyone from any religion into their company or service
"So you want me to go to the judge with 'unit, corps, God, country'?" - A Few Good Men

"And the hits just keep on comin'." -A Few Good Men
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 5:31:25 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/15/2013 7:38:17 PM, THEVIRUS wrote:
Actually, add clause:

x) Religious buildings, call centers, etc. are NOT required to allow anyone from any religion into their company or service

Clause 1: The citizens of the United States of Debate.Org deserve to live among each other as equals.

Clause 2: Living amongst each other as equals does not necessitate that everyone be given or afforded the same resources, money, or property.

Clause 3: Living among each other as equals means that opportunities will not be denied a person based on their:

-Race
-Religion
-Sex
-Age
-Sexual orientation
-Gender identity
-Disability (but see Clause 7)

Opportunities are to include, but are not limited to:

-Jobs
-Wages
-Medical treatment
-Education
-Housing

Clause 4: A person has the right t ovoice "discriminatory" opinions upon these things due to Clause 1 of the U.S. of DDDO Bill of Rights, but acting upon these opinions in a violent, or prejudicial manner is prohibited.

To clarify, to deny someone something in the public sphere, or to act violently towards another, based of any of the aforementioned things, is prohibited. The public sphere is defined as places that are considered open to the public: businesses, government buildings, public parks, certain non-profit attractions (ex. zoos, aquariums, museums), etc. Places that are not considered open to the public (ex. private functions, meeting places for certain organizations) are not covered by this law.

Clause 5: Congress and states shall levy no discriminatory taxes.

Clause 6: Just because a "trait" is not listed in the list of traits that discrimination is prohibited against, does not necessarily mean that it is permissible to discriminate against these things.

Clause 7: Not all forms of discrimination are prohibited as certain nones are necessary, such as qualifications for jobs in terms of experience, aptitude, and other various requirements as necessary to fulfill duties.

Clause 8: Religious groups are not mandated to comply with these requirements.

Clause 9: Religious buildings, call centers, etc. are NOT required to allow anyone from any religion into their company or service.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/16/2013 9:41:35 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm against barring employers and property owners from being allowed to say no to people who don't represent their property in the way they would like. If they want to refuse to hire a 50 year old man who dresses like a girl, or a girl who wants to pretend she's a man, then that is their right. That is an unprofessional appearance and it reflects poorly on a business, or an apartment owner, for instance.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 2:40:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/16/2013 9:41:35 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I'm against barring employers and property owners from being allowed to say no to people who don't represent their property in the way they would like. If they want to refuse to hire a 50 year old man who dresses like a girl, or a girl who wants to pretend she's a man, then that is their right. That is an unprofessional appearance and it reflects poorly on a business, or an apartment owner, for instance.

*facepalm*

Medic, please read this article (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Transgender does not equal transvestite. Indeed, since 'masculine' and 'feminine' gender roles are socially constructed, one can be born male and feminine, or born female and masculine. That's why some societies that aren't Western sometimes claim to have a many as five genders (http://web.archive.org...)--they don't necessarily align with born sex.

As a result, it's not 'a woman pretending to be a man'.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 4:29:37 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2013 2:40:57 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/16/2013 9:41:35 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I'm against barring employers and property owners from being allowed to say no to people who don't represent their property in the way they would like. If they want to refuse to hire a 50 year old man who dresses like a girl, or a girl who wants to pretend she's a man, then that is their right. That is an unprofessional appearance and it reflects poorly on a business, or an apartment owner, for instance.

*facepalm*

Medic, please read this article (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Transgender does not equal transvestite. Indeed, since 'masculine' and 'feminine' gender roles are socially constructed, one can be born male and feminine, or born female and masculine. That's why some societies that aren't Western sometimes claim to have a many as five genders (http://web.archive.org...)--they don't necessarily align with born sex.

As a result, it's not 'a woman pretending to be a man'.

You are born male or female, there are not 5 genders. If people can't deal with the body they were born with then that means they have issues that they need to work out.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 7:07:32 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2013 4:29:37 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/17/2013 2:40:57 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/16/2013 9:41:35 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I'm against barring employers and property owners from being allowed to say no to people who don't represent their property in the way they would like. If they want to refuse to hire a 50 year old man who dresses like a girl, or a girl who wants to pretend she's a man, then that is their right. That is an unprofessional appearance and it reflects poorly on a business, or an apartment owner, for instance.

*facepalm*

Medic, please read this article (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Transgender does not equal transvestite. Indeed, since 'masculine' and 'feminine' gender roles are socially constructed, one can be born male and feminine, or born female and masculine. That's why some societies that aren't Western sometimes claim to have a many as five genders (http://web.archive.org...)--they don't necessarily align with born sex.

As a result, it's not 'a woman pretending to be a man'.

You are born male or female, there are not 5 genders. If people can't deal with the body they were born with then that means they have issues that they need to work out.

That's sex, not gender. They are quite different.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/17/2013 8:52:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2013 7:07:32 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/17/2013 4:29:37 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/17/2013 2:40:57 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/16/2013 9:41:35 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I'm against barring employers and property owners from being allowed to say no to people who don't represent their property in the way they would like. If they want to refuse to hire a 50 year old man who dresses like a girl, or a girl who wants to pretend she's a man, then that is their right. That is an unprofessional appearance and it reflects poorly on a business, or an apartment owner, for instance.

*facepalm*

Medic, please read this article (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Transgender does not equal transvestite. Indeed, since 'masculine' and 'feminine' gender roles are socially constructed, one can be born male and feminine, or born female and masculine. That's why some societies that aren't Western sometimes claim to have a many as five genders (http://web.archive.org...)--they don't necessarily align with born sex.

As a result, it's not 'a woman pretending to be a man'.

You are born male or female, there are not 5 genders. If people can't deal with the body they were born with then that means they have issues that they need to work out.

That's sex, not gender. They are quite different.

Oh hooey...you can buy into that crap if you want.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/18/2013 8:51:21 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/17/2013 8:52:16 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/17/2013 7:07:32 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/17/2013 4:29:37 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/17/2013 2:40:57 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/16/2013 9:41:35 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I'm against barring employers and property owners from being allowed to say no to people who don't represent their property in the way they would like. If they want to refuse to hire a 50 year old man who dresses like a girl, or a girl who wants to pretend she's a man, then that is their right. That is an unprofessional appearance and it reflects poorly on a business, or an apartment owner, for instance.

*facepalm*

Medic, please read this article (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Transgender does not equal transvestite. Indeed, since 'masculine' and 'feminine' gender roles are socially constructed, one can be born male and feminine, or born female and masculine. That's why some societies that aren't Western sometimes claim to have a many as five genders (http://web.archive.org...)--they don't necessarily align with born sex.

As a result, it's not 'a woman pretending to be a man'.

You are born male or female, there are not 5 genders. If people can't deal with the body they were born with then that means they have issues that they need to work out.

That's sex, not gender. They are quite different.

Oh hooey...you can buy into that crap if you want.

In otherwords, you have no real argument against me, have little to no understanding of gender studies, and are of questionable knowledge. Nothing new. Your argument rests on the idea that the gender roles identified with the male sex are universal and innate, with the same for the female sex. That simply isn't true.

Seriously, medic, look into gender studies.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 10:28:20 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/18/2013 8:51:21 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/17/2013 8:52:16 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/17/2013 7:07:32 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/17/2013 4:29:37 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/17/2013 2:40:57 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/16/2013 9:41:35 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I'm against barring employers and property owners from being allowed to say no to people who don't represent their property in the way they would like. If they want to refuse to hire a 50 year old man who dresses like a girl, or a girl who wants to pretend she's a man, then that is their right. That is an unprofessional appearance and it reflects poorly on a business, or an apartment owner, for instance.

*facepalm*

Medic, please read this article (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Transgender does not equal transvestite. Indeed, since 'masculine' and 'feminine' gender roles are socially constructed, one can be born male and feminine, or born female and masculine. That's why some societies that aren't Western sometimes claim to have a many as five genders (http://web.archive.org...)--they don't necessarily align with born sex.

As a result, it's not 'a woman pretending to be a man'.

You are born male or female, there are not 5 genders. If people can't deal with the body they were born with then that means they have issues that they need to work out.

That's sex, not gender. They are quite different.

Oh hooey...you can buy into that crap if you want.

In otherwords, you have no real argument against me, have little to no understanding of gender studies, and are of questionable knowledge. Nothing new. Your argument rests on the idea that the gender roles identified with the male sex are universal and innate, with the same for the female sex. That simply isn't true.

Seriously, medic, look into gender studies.

What exactly do you feel that I don't already know, and you would like me to learn??
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 11:29:03 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 10:28:20 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/18/2013 8:51:21 AM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/17/2013 8:52:16 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/17/2013 7:07:32 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/17/2013 4:29:37 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/17/2013 2:40:57 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/16/2013 9:41:35 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I'm against barring employers and property owners from being allowed to say no to people who don't represent their property in the way they would like. If they want to refuse to hire a 50 year old man who dresses like a girl, or a girl who wants to pretend she's a man, then that is their right. That is an unprofessional appearance and it reflects poorly on a business, or an apartment owner, for instance.

*facepalm*

Medic, please read this article (http://en.wikipedia.org...). Transgender does not equal transvestite. Indeed, since 'masculine' and 'feminine' gender roles are socially constructed, one can be born male and feminine, or born female and masculine. That's why some societies that aren't Western sometimes claim to have a many as five genders (http://web.archive.org...)--they don't necessarily align with born sex.

As a result, it's not 'a woman pretending to be a man'.

You are born male or female, there are not 5 genders. If people can't deal with the body they were born with then that means they have issues that they need to work out.

That's sex, not gender. They are quite different.

Oh hooey...you can buy into that crap if you want.

In otherwords, you have no real argument against me, have little to no understanding of gender studies, and are of questionable knowledge. Nothing new. Your argument rests on the idea that the gender roles identified with the male sex are universal and innate, with the same for the female sex. That simply isn't true.

Seriously, medic, look into gender studies.

What exactly do you feel that I don't already know, and you would like me to learn??

I don't think you really understand the extent to which gender (not sex) is socially constructed--we think of certain traits as masculine or feminine not because they innately are tied to a sex, but because they are traditionally associated with one of the sexes. That isn't universal across cultures, though, and some cultures have two gender roles tied to a sex--for example, in the Indonesian example I cited.

Gender is frequently used to refer to gender roles (http://en.wikipedia.org...), as opposed to born sex--someone who identifies as the other sex is usually considered transsexual, and there is scientific evidence that their brains are fundamentally different from nontranssexual people of the same born sex.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 7:09:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 11:29:03 AM, Citrakayah wrote:

I don't think you really understand the extent to which gender (not sex) is socially constructed--we think of certain traits as masculine or feminine not because they innately are tied to a sex, but because they are traditionally associated with one of the sexes. That isn't universal across cultures, though, and some cultures have two gender roles tied to a sex--for example, in the Indonesian example I cited.

Gender is frequently used to refer to gender roles (http://en.wikipedia.org...), as opposed to born sex--someone who identifies as the other sex is usually considered transsexual, and there is scientific evidence that their brains are fundamentally different from nontranssexual people of the same born sex.

I'm not interested in a discussion of gender identity issues, so I'll rephrase the question. What does any of this have to do with a business or property owner's right to use his investment in the way that he sees fit??
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/19/2013 8:13:20 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 7:09:14 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I'm not interested in a discussion of gender identity issues, so I'll rephrase the question. What does any of this have to do with a business or property owner's right to use his investment in the way that he sees fit??

Simple.

He or she is causing/contributing to a pattern of discrimination that has harmful effects (see my source)--not just mentally, but physically due to increases in stress. Given the wording of the bill, they aren't prohibited from using their investment to the maximum potential by not hiring someone unsuited, but they are prohibited from not hiring people, or firing them, or kicking them out, because of their own prejudice.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 7:03:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/19/2013 8:13:20 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 3/19/2013 7:09:14 PM, medic0506 wrote:
I'm not interested in a discussion of gender identity issues, so I'll rephrase the question. What does any of this have to do with a business or property owner's right to use his investment in the way that he sees fit??

Simple.

He or she is causing/contributing to a pattern of discrimination that has harmful effects (see my source)--not just mentally, but physically due to increases in stress. Given the wording of the bill, they aren't prohibited from using their investment to the maximum potential by not hiring someone unsuited, but they are prohibited from not hiring people, or firing them, or kicking them out, because of their own prejudice.

It's the owner's money, and time, going into their property, not yours. It's their decision who they want as representatives of their company.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/20/2013 3:21:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
From a perspective presupposing the existence of rights:

Why should the property owners have an unrestricted right that comes at the expense of so much? We recognize a right to speech, but limit it when it causes harm to others. We recognize a right to bear arms, but limit it. Why should the right to control one"s property, after one has opened it to the public for the purpose of making profit, go unrestricted, when not restricting can cause so much damage?
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 5:10:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/20/2013 3:21:29 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
From a perspective presupposing the existence of rights:

Why should the property owners have an unrestricted right that comes at the expense of so much? We recognize a right to speech, but limit it when it causes harm to others. We recognize a right to bear arms, but limit it. Why should the right to control one"s property, after one has opened it to the public for the purpose of making profit, go unrestricted, when not restricting can cause so much damage?

If they can't act and present themselves in a respectable manner, in public, then any damage being done is their own doing.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/21/2013 6:41:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/21/2013 5:10:34 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 3/20/2013 3:21:29 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
From a perspective presupposing the existence of rights:

Why should the property owners have an unrestricted right that comes at the expense of so much? We recognize a right to speech, but limit it when it causes harm to others. We recognize a right to bear arms, but limit it. Why should the right to control one"s property, after one has opened it to the public for the purpose of making profit, go unrestricted, when not restricting can cause so much damage?

If they can't act and present themselves in a respectable manner, in public, then any damage being done is their own doing.

And if their actions and presentations would cause damage the property owner's investment or business, then they aren't covered by the bill. If what (according to your view) isn't respectable is done not in the property, or not while working or acting as a representative of the business, why should it matter, so long as it doesn't hinder their abilities to do their job or pay rent and keep the place maintained?