General US Politics

[-Cynthia-]

Women in Syria in towns that ISIS has been kicked out of would disagree.

The beauty of a face veil is that it hides signs of physical abuse. And women cannot ask for divorce in Islam. There is no religious law that protects them from it.

Muslim women in America can have a divorce. My focus is on American politics in this thread (the topic title has White House in it). I think Islam in general might be its own topic.

[Life]

I don't think giving people the constitutional right to be a dumb-ass, making life even harder for many people even if just for a short while, all for the sake of simply having the right is a good thing.

So you are forcing me at the end of a gun to perform a service that I do not wish to perform.

That is authoritarian and tyrannical.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[eclipse]

I don't think giving people the constitutional right to be a dumb-ass, making life even harder for many people even if just for a short while, all for the sake of simply having the right is a good thing.

. . .that's not what freedom is about. There's a reason why free speech in America is a Good Thing - the government can't tell you to keep your foot out of your mouth, but private entities can. SF is one such example - there's no laws that say that you can't insult someone directly. However, direct insults here generate a warning.

Muslim women in America can have a divorce. My focus is on American politics in this thread (the topic title has White House in it). I think Islam in general might be its own topic.

Sort of. For example, a family from Syria flees the war, and strictly adheres to the Koran. How does the US handle them, in terms of the law?

[Ansem]

p sure religion in general is dickish to women. at least the three monotheistic ones

Edited August 20, 2016 by Mimikyu

[eclipse]

p sure religion in general is dickish to women in general. at least the three monotheistic ones

If the issue is religion itself, that's another thread. If the issue is the conflict between government and religious freedom (and the reason why this is relevant is the Republican party's fault), I'll let it fly, for now. This is subject to change, depending on how this thread goes.

Edited August 20, 2016 by eclipse

[Life]

p sure religion in general is dickish to women. at least the three monotheistic ones

Judaism contradicts that claim, even in the orthodox community.

Marriage contracts are skewed against men. It's called a 'ketubah' (a document that the man MUST sign which says that upon divorce, he must still provide for his ex-wife to a point).

That's one example.

. . .that's not what freedom is about. There's a reason why free speech in America is a Good Thing - the government can't tell you to keep your foot out of your mouth, but private entities can. SF is one such example - there's no laws that say that you can't insult someone directly. However, direct insults here generate a warning.

Or use the word I used. Tyrannical.

If you infringe on my freedom because "I'm not being a nice person", you are arguing for authoritarianism. End of story.

If the issue is religion itself, that's another thread. If the issue is the conflict between government and religious freedom (and the reason why this is relevant is the Republican party's fault), I'll let it fly, for now. This is subject to change, depending on how this thread goes.

If I'm understanding you correctly, I disagree.

Are you saying that Republicans are for or against religious freedom? Just to make sure.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[-Cynthia-]

Sort of. For example, a family from Syria flees the war, and strictly adheres to the Koran. How does the US handle them, in terms of the law?

The laws of the nation supercede the laws of the Koran when they come into conflict- just as the laws of the US supercede the Old Testament and Bible which have some illegal parts to them.

[tuvarkz]

Oh, I missed this.

Basically, implementing that idea would shut down the vast majority of restaurants that sell meat that is not kosher or halal. Which is like... 90% in the USA?

Not only that but if I am a private business, I should be allowed to sell my product to anyone I choose. If I own a bakery and I don't want to bake a cake for a transexual, they can go somewhere else. If I lose enough business because of that and have to close down, I have failed as a business. But the government shouldn't be forcing me to sell to person X because it infringes on my own freedoms.

If a flower shop refused to sell me flowers because I was a Jew, I'd simply find a new store. If that shop goes out of business because of a "no Jews" policy, that's their fault. It's the beauty of the free market.

Remember people: I am a minority also. And I probably have more greivences than all the rest of you put together (being a Jew, we are universally hated). I know what discrimination is.

I believe you misinterpreted. I never mentioned that stores would need to specially stock kosher or halal, but that if a muslim or a jew or a christian came in to buy, let's say, a piece of cake or some sweets or a hamburger, they shouldn't be refused. The fault would lay in the Jew or the Muslim if they eat meat that is no-good according to their religious beliefs. They can always ask beforehand if the food is kosher or halal. In the same way, no store should be forced to have a lactose free/peanut free/etc etc version of any of their products.

This sounds pretty reasonable to me actually, unless there's some case where something 'specially ordered' is essential to the person's livelihood.

Indeed, I believe that it wouldn't be particularly hard to make exemptions for medical products.

EDIT: Cynthia, regarding the post that you made just above this one-indeed the local laws should supercede any religious laws or customs, yet there is issues happening with immigrants in Europe where it seems to be happening the other way around.

Edited August 20, 2016 by tuvarkz

[-Cynthia-]

EDIT: Cynthia, regarding the post that you made just above this one-indeed the local laws should supercede any religious laws or customs, yet there is issues happening with immigrants in Europe where it seems to be happening the other way around.

Hmm interesting. I would definitely not be in favor of allowing marriage to people under the age of consent regardless of their marital status in their previous country.

[Life]

I believe you misinterpreted. I never mentioned that stores would need to specially stock kosher or halal, but that if a muslim or a jew or a christian came in to buy, let's say, a piece of cake or some sweets or a hamburger, they shouldn't be refused. The fault would lay in the Jew or the Muslim if they eat meat that is no-good according to their religious beliefs. They can always ask beforehand if the food is kosher or halal. In the same way, no store should be forced to have a lactose free/peanut free/etc etc version of any of their products.

So I misread your interpretation but only slightly.

The way that culture in the USA is going will eventually fault the store owner for not supplying halal or kosher whatsoever.

Look at Target. They now have to drop $20 million dollars on the washroom issue in order to build new "family washrooms" because the backlash from a few transexuals who wanted to make others uncomfortable so that they could feel morally superior.

[ping]

Or use the word I used. Tyrannical.

If you infringe on my freedom because "I'm not being a nice person", you are arguing for authoritarianism. End of story.

Yeah, no. If my guest starts insulting my parents / using racist slurs / being a dick to everyone else, I'll kick them out and that does not make my a tyrant. SF is not public space and its owners (and, by extention, its mods) have every right to suspend or ban unwanted users.

You can argue that too strict moderation can stifle discussion and is therefore a Bad Thing, but 'tyrannical' is more than just a bit over the top.

I mean, it doesn't even fit your own arguments. You can't force anyone on the internet to give you a platform for your views or even just for your opinion on a video game. ;) The site just suffers by losing a contributor (or more, if others don't like how the moderators act).

[Time the Crestfallen]

So I misread your interpretation but only slightly.

The way that culture in the USA is going will eventually fault the store owner for not supplying halal or kosher whatsoever

I don't think that will happen. There's a pretty major difference between not selling a product that a certain group would want (i.e. not selling face veils) and refusing service to an entire group of people.

Look at Target. They now have to drop $20 million dollars on the washroom issue in order to build new "family washrooms" because the backlash from a few transexuals who wanted to make others uncomfortable so that they could feel morally superior.

Or because they wanted to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity. Seriously, regardless of your opinion on transgenderism, the idea that they're doing this solely to make other people uncomfortable is completely ridiculous.

[Life]

Yeah, no. If my guest starts insulting my parents / using racist slurs / being a dick to everyone else, I'll kick them out and that does not make my a tyrant. SF is not public space and its owners (and, by extention, its mods) have every right to suspend or ban unwanted users.

You can argue that too strict moderation can stifle discussion and is therefore a Bad Thing, but 'tyrannical' is more than just a bit over the top.

I mean, it doesn't even fit your own arguments. You can't force anyone on the internet to give you a platform for your views or even just for your opinion on a video game. ;) The site just suffers by losing a contributor (or more, if others don't like how the moderators act).

Not referring to this forum. This forum does not have freedom of speech and eclipse flat out said it. I choose to be here and therefore must defer to its rules, even knowing that it does not allow for free speech.

I'm referring to the public sector. Standing on a street corner and proclaiming your opinion. Choosing whether or not to offer your services to someone else.

If the government forces me to do so at the point of a gun, then it is tyranical.

Or because they wanted to use the bathroom that matches their gender identity. Seriously, regardless of your opinion on transgenderism, the idea that they're doing this solely to make other people uncomfortable is completely ridiculous.

I personally believe that they are doing this simply to cause a scene. I could be wrong and they might seriously feel slighted. In that case, they're still making me feel uncomfortable.

I look at Caitlyn Jenner or Zoey Tur and my first thought is "that's a man". In fact, I don't believe that less than 75% of people in the world think that either of them is a woman.

But if you're going to slander my business because I don't automatically cater to you, then you are in the wrong. Not me.

Personally (and I have already said this), I would serve them because capitalism overrules prejudice. That is why is great about capitalism: it does not discriminate. But if I feel that it is more cost effective to have different bathrooms for men and women, do not go out and force me to spend $20 million dollars to cater to 0.3% of the population.

Edited August 20, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[Lord Raven]

Eclipse, we know that women in Islam are routinely forced to do what their husbands want. Again, I bring up Aynaz Anni Cyrus who will quote Sura after Sura to prove this.

My dad lets my mom do whatever she wants.

Please stop saying that Muslims force this.

I mean, I'm going to put things into perspective because I've interacted with a lot of westernized Muslims in my life. I have an aunt that was forced by her husband to wear a burka. Of course, he let her not wear it in front of certain friends (an uncle of mine), and she eventually just went "fuck it" and took it off and lived with said aunt/uncle anyway. In the end, the couple reconciled and they both listen to each other and are basically on equal footing in their household.

Having that said, if you're going to link anecdotal evidence, then I'll give you my anecdotal evidence from my own family. And my mom doesn't listen to a word of what my dad tells her if she thinks he's bullshitting. They also were born and raised in Pakistan and didn't move here until around 85 or 86 (my dad is 66 and my mom is 55 right now if you want to calculate ages). Again, whether or not it's in the holy book, the people who advocate for Sharia Law in the middle east ultimately advocate for Sharia Law in property disputes and not necessarily personal disputes (according to the study tuvarkz linked). It would be a better thing to ask them "what do you think Sharia Law is and what parts of it should be enforced in said countries?" Because Sharia Law by itself is misinterpreted by Muslims, because not every Muslim speaks Arabic and even those that speak Arabic don't understand what's in the Quran. Ultimately, they're at the mercy of the Imam at the mosque they go to when it comes to religious interpretation.

I would like to note that Judaism does have sexist/violent verses as well.

If a priests daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire. Leviticus 21:9

3 set the value of a male between the ages of twenty and sixty at fifty shekels of silver, according to the sanctuary shekel; 4 for a female, set her value at thirty shekels; 5 for a person between the ages of five and twenty, set the value of a male at twenty shekels and of a female at ten shekels; 6 for a person between one month and five years, set the value of a male at five shekels of silver and that of a female at three shekels of silver; 7 for a person sixty years old or more, set the value of a male at fifteen shekels and of a female at ten shekels. Leviticus 27:3-7

8 You shall speak to the children of Israel, saying, If a man dies, and has no son, then you shall cause his inheritance to pass to his daughter. 9 If he has no daughter, then you shall give his inheritance to his brothers. Numbers 27: 8

And also stoning is in the Old Testament:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22%3A13-22&version=KJV

I'm not saying its followers are sexist, since I cannot generalize a giant group of people. But again, a lot of this crap that the middle east is going through is more of a symptom of the state of the region itself rather than the state of the religion. There is not even a unified leader among all of the sects (see: Sunni/Shi'ite conflict) nor are said leaders among the sects "westernized." Ergo, Catholic people have the Pope who has spoken out in favor of gay marriage, and he's from Italy which is in the west, which is analogous to the point I am making. The whole thing can be traced back to the west in some way, shape, or form. Would also like to point this line in said post out:

Now, how it's become 'fucked up', as you put it, is more complex. One of the major reasons is the very messy British diplomacy of the first world war. By the time WW1 was under way, the Arab world was actually in a time of renaissance, called Al-Nahda (if this world sounds familiar to you, it's the name of the Islamist party at the centre of Tunisian politics). That began in the mid-19th century, after the Muhammad Ali, khedive of Egypt (technically an Ottoman vassal, but in practice Egypt was its own country at this point), sent a team of scholars to France. The post-Revolutionary French ideals came with them and there came the earliest sprouts of modernisation at this time, including texts by men advocating women's rights (though the rights advocated would seem backwards in today's age, they were revolutionary at the time). Newspapers were introduced to the Arab world, Egypt became home to one of the earliest film industries, the Arabic text was modernised, etc.

Wahhabism is a branch of Salafist Islam, which essentially holds that the first generation of Islam - that of the Prophet's - was the single perfect time in all history. Everything before it was corrupt; every after it is a corruption. So Salafis strive to live as though the were in the 7th century, to the greatest extent possible. There are stories of hardcore Salafis who would stop mid-meal to ask "Did the prophet eat chicken?" and not continue the meal until they'd poured over the Quran and hadith to check; if he hadn't, they would be obliged to throw it out. The 1979 Siege of Mecca, when a group of fundamentalist Salafis (fundie fundies) occupied the Ka'ba and its mosque, took things in a bad direction. These men took over at the turn of the 15th Islamic century and claimed to be fulfilling religious prophecy. They would take over the land and implement their Salafi beliefs in a way which the Saudis had currently failed to. These terrorists - led by a bedouin called Juhayman, literally 'Angry Face' - were swiftly put down. But, fearing another uprising such as their's, the Saudis became more fundamentalist in their policies at home, instituting many of the things the terrorists had wanted - such as more religious studies in schools at the expense of the sciences.

Egypt had long been the cultural capital of the modern Arab world, but Saudi would rival it through sheer wealth. It was they that brought the hijab and abaya back, after the Egyptian feminists of the early 20th century first liberated themselves from these darker sides of Arab-Islamic culture.

Another great problem that arises from the Sauds and their like is that, as they have the oil money, they aren't very inclined to give invest their money in wise ways that could produce a country of great culture and economy - instead you have a police state that showers money on its citizens to keep the quiet. That will work until the oil wells dry up in 40-50 years, and then we might see some more, great changes as we see today in other parts of the Arab world.

(it is sourced btw). tl;dr it's all completely influenced by politics and money, it's not really a symptom of Islam so much as a symptom of the complicated politics in the Middle East.

I know there was some trash talking about reddit earlier, but let's not pretend that /r/politics is a subreddit worth going to, considering /r/AskHistorians has an extremely active quality control that only allows for arguments that are sourced by what amounts to scholarly literature.

I still don't understand why you keep proclaiming a lot of your anti-transgender arguments as fact. Please respond to arguments in the previous pages if you're going to continue to make those claims, otherwise stop saying stuff like

Look at Target. They now have to drop $20 million dollars on the washroom issue in order to build new "family washrooms" because the backlash from a few transexuals who wanted to make others uncomfortable so that they could feel morally superior.

EDIT:

I personally believe that they are doing this simply to cause a scene. I could be wrong and they might seriously feel slighted. In that case, they're still making me feel uncomfortable.

It's making you feel uncomfortable so they should stop making a scene?

I look at Caitlyn Jenner or Zoey Tur and my first thought is "that's a man". In fact, I don't believe that less than 75% of people in the world think that either of them is a woman.

Okay, but let's not pretend that the opinion of "75% of the world" really matters, even if that were hypothetically true.

Personally (and I have already said this), I would serve them because capitalism overrules prejudice. That is why is great about capitalism: it does not discriminate. But if I feel that it is more cost effective to have different bathrooms for men and women, do not go out and force me to spend $20 million dollars to cater to 0.3% of the population.

Capitalism actually gives its businesses every right to discriminate. Of course an economic system does not discriminate, but its people are fully capable of doing so. Having that said, what Target is doing with the "family washrooms" thing doesn't seem like a huge deal to me considering we've had those gender neutral bathrooms in a bunch of stores for a long ass time. I don't believe this would even be an issue if they allowed transgender people to pick which damn bathroom they can go to, however. Edited August 21, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Tryhard]

Because the federal government cannot possibly be responsible for all the issues that affect states. It doesn't have the man power.

A state deals with more local issues than the federal government does. It is a provicial government that can actually focus on communities than the nation as a whole.

I understand that, but it's rather puzzling to me how people would argue that states have ultimate authority, especially when they have been shown to sometimes want to regress on social progress.

What about anti-discrimination laws? If a business is hiring, and the management is racist and does not want to hire a black person, would you say that it is their right to discriminate?

I mean, there have already been many laws in many different countries to prevent against such a thing happening, but you disagree with them I assume?

Here's an Israeli one for example, and it's not even about employment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_of_Discrimination_in_Products,_Services_and_Entry_into_Places_of_Entertainment_and_Public_Places_Law,_2000

and the employment one:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_(Equal_Opportunities)_Law,_1988

Edited August 20, 2016 by Tryhard

[solrocknroll]

if a person living as their true self is going to make you uncomfortable, maybe you should just never leave your house

and Caitlyn and Zoey are both women. That isn't something that you get the authority to decide. No one but someone's own self has the authority to decide who they are

[Life]

My dad lets my mom do whatever she wants.Please stop saying that Muslims force this.I mean, I'm going to put things into perspective because I've interacted with a lot of westernized Muslims in my life. I have an aunt that was forced by her husband to wear a burka. Of course, he let her not wear it, and she eventually just went "fuck it" and took it off and lived with another aunt/uncle. In the end, the couple reconciled and they both listen to each other and are basically on equal footing in their household.Having that said, if you're going to link anecdotal evidence, then I'll give you my anecdotal evidence from my own family. And my mom doesn't listen to a word of what my dad tells her if she thinks he's bullshitting. They also were born and raised in Pakistan and didn't move here until around 85 or 86 (my dad is 66 and my mom is 55 right now if you want to calculate ages). Again, whether or not it's in the holy book, the people who advocate for Sharia Law in the middle east ultimately advocate for Sharia Law in property disputes and not necessarily personal disputes (according to the study tuvarkz linked). It would be a better thing to ask them "what do you think Sharia Law is and what parts of it should be enforced in said countries?" Because Sharia Law by itself is misinterpreted by Muslims, because not every Muslim speaks Arabic and even those that speak Arabic don't understand what's in the Quran. Ultimately, they're at the mercy of the Imam at the mosque they go to when it comes to religious interpretation.I would like to note that Judaism does have sexist/violent verses as well. And also stoning is in the Old Testament:https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy+22%3A13-22&version=KJVI'm not saying its followers are sexist, since I cannot generalize a giant group of people. But again, a lot of this crap that the middle east is going through is more of a symptom of the state of the region itself rather than the state of the religion. There is not even a unified leader among all of the sects (see: Sunni/Shi'ite conflict) nor are said leaders among the sects "westernized." Ergo, Catholic people have the Pope who has spoken out in favor of gay marriage, and he's from Italy which is in the west, which is analogous to the point I am making. The whole thing can be traced back to the west in some way, shape, or form. Would also like to point this line in said post out: (it is sourced btw). tl;dr it's all completely influenced by politics and money, it's not really a symptom of Islam so much as a symptom of the complicated politics in the Middle East.I know there was some trash talking about reddit earlier, but let's not pretend that /r/politics is a subreddit worth going to, considering /r/AskHistorians has an extremely active quality control that only allows for arguments that are sourced by what amounts to scholarly literature.I still don't understand why you keep proclaiming a lot of your anti-transgender arguments as fact. Please respond to arguments in the previous pages if you're going to continue to make those claims, otherwise stop saying stuff like EDIT:It's making you feel uncomfortable so they should stop making a scene?Okay, but let's not pretend that the opinion of "75% of the world" really matters, even if that were hypothetically true.Capitalism actually gives its businesses every right to discriminate. Of course an economic system does not discriminate, but its people are fully capable of doing so. Having that said, what Target is doing with the "family washrooms" thing doesn't seem like a huge deal to me considering we've had those gender neutral bathrooms in a bunch of stores for a long ass time. I don't believe this would even be an issue if they allowed transgender people to pick which damn bathroom they can go to, however.

I made a mistake with my language. My bad.

I meant to say "hardcore fundamentalist" and that is no small part of the religion.

But you are right about it being up to the imam's interpretation. And that's a terrifying thought if the imam believes in it.

As for the lines you brought up, it becomes so much clearly when viewed contextually. Not saying I back it, but I'm also looking at the Hebrew versions.

The first one is refers to the priests of the temple (Kohanim). First of all, none of these laws can actually be put into practice until a Temple is built. Techically, my best friend's sisters should both be burned according to this line (his family are descendents of the priests).

But the reason why the penalty is so harsh is because Judaism values a woman's purity much more than a man's. So that makes it a greater sin when she goes and sleeps around. Especially the daughter of a priest.

Second verse refers to a person's monetary worth when they swear a vow. "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them: When a man shall clearly utter a vow of persons unto the LORD, according to thy valuation," - Vayikra 27:2

Back then, a man's monetary worth was more than a woman's because he could do physical tasks that women couldn't. That idea is still put in practice today and it's not sexist. Look at cases that assess for physical damages. Men are worth more based on the simple fact that they can perform more physical inclined work.

Third quote is one that I won't disagree with. But there are laws that apply to women that men are not allowed to do. It goes both ways.

The Haradim are the ones who pervert the shit and make it sexist but fuck them.

I'll conceed the fact that the fall of Osman really helped accelerate the perversion of Islam as opposed to the rest of the world but I find it unreasonable to call Islamists blameless. It is the only religion that is openly waging war one other cultures (note the term "openly", I know they're not the only one). There needs to be a reformation in the religion and if it doesn't happen soon, I don't believe that it'll ever happen.

[Lord Raven]

But you are right about it being up to the imam's interpretation. And that's a terrifying thought if the imam believes in it.

There are many different imams. The Bible as it is preached in church is based off of a pastor's interpretation, etc. I imagine western Rabbis aren't so different in this regard. Ultimately, the interpretation of a religion depends on that of their local religious leader to the majority, and often times they have to cater for or against certain politics to please the political leaders in less liberal countries (see: the middle east).

As for the lines you brought up, it becomes so much clearly when viewed contextually. Not saying I back it, but I'm also looking at the Hebrew versions.

The interesting part is that a majority of the violent verses in Islam are also viewed in context of a holy war, and not in a vacuum. The whole issue then lies with local leaders that try to make things into a holy war and apply this context to it. A charismatic leader convincing people into a holy war is a bad part of any ideology or religious belief. Any leader will find a reason to take up arms in favor of their doctrine, and this is independent of religion, but many will often use religion to get people to their side. This is not a symptom of Islam, it's a symptom of charismatic assholes.

I'll conceed the fact that the fall of Osman really helped accelerate the perversion of Islam as opposed to the rest of the world but I find it unreasonable to call Islamists blameless. It is the only religion that is openly waging war one other cultures (note the term "openly", I know they're not the only one). There needs to be a reformation in the religion and if it doesn't happen soon, I don't believe that it'll ever happen.

Really? Because there are quite a few Christian based groups in the US who are waging war against homosexuality and, also, Islam. This is discrimination against other cultures as well, and they're pretty fucking open about it (look at Mike Pence).

[Life]

I understand that, but it's rather puzzling to me how people would argue that states have ultimate authority, especially when they have been shown to sometimes want to regress on social progress. What about anti-discrimination laws? If a business is hiring, and the management is racist and does not want to hire a black person, would you say that it is their right to discriminate?I mean, there have already been many laws in many different countries to prevent against such a thing happening, but you disagree with them I assume? Here's an Israeli one for example, and it's not even about employment.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prohibition_of_Discrimination_in_Products,_Services_and_Entry_into_Places_of_Entertainment_and_Public_Places_Law,_2000and the employment one:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Employment_(Equal_Opportunities)_Law,_1988

I don't believe in those laws but I am forced to follow them.

If I choose not to hire person X for whatever reason (even a bigoted reason) and my business suffers as a direct result, that is my fault. Forcing me to hire someone against my will simply removes my choice of freedom.

Here's a question. I need to hire a new manager of whatever store and I have two resumes. Bob has experience as a manager and he also happens to be a white male. Jim does not and he happens to be black.

Should I be forced to hire Jim simply because he is a minority? I don't believe so. And if Jim had more experience than Bob, then Bob's continuing his job search.

if a person living as their true self is going to make you uncomfortable, maybe you should just never leave your house

and Caitlyn and Zoey are both women. That isn't something that you get the authority to decide. No one but someone's own self has the authority to decide who they are

Gender isn't a social construct. You're either male or female. You are either born with XX chromosones or XY. That's biology saying "hey, here's an absolute".

Can't get more clear than that.

[Lord Raven]

Gender isn't a social construct. You're either male or female. You are either born with XX chromosones or XY. That's biology saying "hey, here's an absolute".

Can't get more clear than that.

You are referring to sex. Sex and gender are two different things.

http://www.med.monash.edu.au/gendermed/sexandgender.html

Sex refers to biological differences; chromosomes, hormonal profiles, internal and external sex organs.

Gender describes the characteristics that a society or culture delineates as masculine or feminine.

Gender is indeed a social construct. Sex is not.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Lord Raven

[solrocknroll]

Gender is exactly a social concept.

Society created expectations for people just because they're born with a man or a woman. These concepts were created by society. In a world where gender roles never existed at any time, transgenderism would likely not be a thing. People wouldn't have to feel uncomfortable in their own bodies if society hadn't told them that their bodies were meant for specific purposes.

In a perfect world, androgyny would be the primary beginning for everyone and whether one felt the way they should feel or not wouldn't matter.

[Soapbar]

I don't believe in those laws but I am forced to follow them.

If I choose not to hire person X for whatever reason (even a bigoted reason) and my business suffers as a direct result, that is my fault. Forcing me to hire someone against my will simply removes my choice of freedom.

Here's a question. I need to hire a new manager of whatever store and I have two resumes. Bob has experience as a manager and he also happens to be a white male. Jim does not and he happens to be black.

Should I be forced to hire Jim simply because he is a minority? I don't believe so. And if Jim had more experience than Bob, then Bob's continuing his job search.

Gender isn't a social construct. You're either male or female. You are either born with XX chromosones or XY. That's biology saying "hey, here's an absolute".

Can't get more clear than that.

Agreed about Gender and Minority quota's, you should not be forced to hire someone based on their race/gender.

However, as Lord Raven said above me, there is a difference between Gender and Sex, and it would benefit your arguments heavily to learn the difference. People DO have the ability to choose who they are, even their Gender.

[Time the Crestfallen]

I personally believe that they are doing this simply to cause a scene. I could be wrong and they might seriously feel slighted. In that case, they're still making me feel uncomfortable.

The fact that the main argument against it seems to be 'because women and children will get raped' has me leaning towards them feeling very slighted, especially since this both sides have been making a mountain out of a foothill of the whole issue.

I look at Caitlyn Jenner or Zoey Tur and my first thought is "that's a man". In fact, I don't believe that less than 75% of people in the world think that either of them is a woman.

I doubt that 75% of the world would have any idea of who either of those people are. Your technically right about Caitlyn, since she hasn't gone through the sex reassignment surgery (Zoey has though). However, it isn't for us to decide. If they identify as women, then that's their business, not ours.

But if you're going to slander my business because I don't automatically cater to you, then you are in the wrong. Not me.

I don't know if this is a hypothetical statement of if you actually are a business owner, or what your business is if you do have one. However, as I stated above, there's a big difference between not stocking a product and refusing service. Say you run a clothing business for instance, if a Muslim enters your store and asks for a face veil, but you don't sell them, that is not particularly awful; it would be nice if you stocked head veils, but it is not discrimination to not sell something you don't stock and they can go to another place that does have them. It is a completely different story however, if a Muslim enters your store looking to buy a t-shirt or a dress or what-have-you and you refuse to do business with them specifically because they are Muslim.

Personally (and I have already said this), I would serve them because capitalism overrules prejudice. That is why is great about capitalism: it does not discriminate. But if I feel that it is more cost effective to have different bathrooms for men and women, do not go out and force me to spend $20 million dollars to cater to 0.3% of the population.

I wouldn't force you to spend $20 million because that's a lot of money for anything other than an international corporation to throw around. However, Target made $21.6 billion in only the fourth quater of 2015 (assuming I read this thing right. I'm no good at reading finance stuff).

https://corporate.target.com/press/releases/2016/02/target-reports-fourth-quarter-and-full-year-2015-e

(20,000,000/21,600,000,000) x 100 = 0.09. Target spent 0.09% of their fourth quarter earnings on this issue, something that is arguably worth it from a PR standpoint.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Phillius

[Tryhard]

Agreed in regards to meeting quotas as well. People often refer to it as a 'meritocracy', but unfortunately a lot of the time that isn't how things work out everywhere.

Though I wouldn't really say that in the case of you not hiring someone for a bigoted reason would be you being 'forced' to hire them, just that if that person who was likely rejected was made privy that they were a victim of discrimination then you could be fined. You would probably argue that would incentivise an employer not to do so, and you might be right (though I think if they were truly bigoted they would have no regard for these laws), but it is a difference.

However, as I stated above, there's a big difference between not stocking a product and refusing service. Say you run a clothing business for instance, if a Muslim enters your store and asks for a face veil, but you don't sell them, that is not particularly awful; it would be nice if you stocked head veils, but it is not discrimination to not sell something you don't stock and they can go to another place that does have them. It is a completely different story however, if a Muslim enters your store looking to buy a t-shirt or a dress or what-have-you and you refuse to do business with them specifically because they are Muslim.

Well, I'm pretty sure he's stated that he sees no problem with the latter scenario. Edited August 21, 2016 by Tryhard

[Life]

Well, I'm pretty sure he's stated that he sees no problem with the latter scenario.

Exactly.

Like I've stated, money trumps all in my opinion and I'll even hire a transexual if I feel that they are the most efficient at the job. And I won't deny them benefits because they are transexual. But I don't have to like it.