Davis

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 1,079 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #32844

    Davis
    Participant

    It seems the democrats are moving slightly more towards conservative ideology to court potential (only potential) Republican converts. The Republicans aren’t doing the same. If anything they are heading more towards far-right ideologies and not making any slight compromise ideologically. This means everything in American politics is heading towards the more conservative. Selecting a vanilla very moderate Republican friendly VP candidate may court a few republican votes but at what cost? The cost is to give Ameircans two options: conservative or less conservative with no real liberal option. I know that this is what will always happen in a two party system, that both parties will, on the average neither party will usually be super conservative or super liberal but moderate themselves, but it seems that for the last two decades, the democrats have been doing ALL of the moderating and the Republicans have been shamelessly leaning as conservative as they can. The democrats seem to think that their strategy is to always compromise and give up on liberal programs that every other democratic country in the world have already implemented to placate people, but as you can see…the Republicans have shown that you don’t need to sacrafice policy these days to get elected. In other words, a moderate VP may get some votes but the cost is giving up on your liberal principles which is a huge cost in the long run. Just look around America and see how many victims of COVID have been left to fend for themselves with paltry assitance and insufficient medical insurance to see the consequences.

    #32819

    Davis
    Participant

    I see unseen. So you’re fine with letting trans people be a woman or man in just about every other way but discriminating against trans-people when it comes to sports. What about LGTBQ+ people? Should they be stuck in their own category? A majority of people around the world don’t consider them “natural” men and women. I also fail to see how “natural” comes into the equation with the production of super atheletes whose diets are based on artificial drugs and nutrients and their training on computer simulations. Seems like they are given a notable “artificial” advantage that has nothing to do with the bodies they were born with in the original “natural” human environment we evolved from. It seems every decade the West is producing what have been called “super freaks of nature” atheletes who have been blessed with diet and training conditions that far exceed anything that came before them with advantages those before could never have dreamed of. So those articifical alterations (yes it is true that there is a limit to accepted articifical chemicals like steriods but that is a very subjectively drawn line) are acceptable but chopping off or adding genitals is not. When you start peddling around “natural” and “artificial” like they are obvious clear cut categories you certainly run into a lot of problems don’t you?

    In any case, numerous countries and sports boards already settled this issue quite some time ago. They are allowed to compete in numerous sports under conditions that measure their hormones and require certification from numerous doctors/psychologists.

    • This reply was modified 1 day, 17 hours ago by  Davis.
    #32807

    Davis
    Participant

    They’ve undergone hormone therapy (which highly reduces testosterone and raises estrogen). Their numbers are also tiny. It’s not like there has been an avalanche of trans-women (please get that right) standing on all the podiums. As you’ve said before, what’s fair about someone born with a better genetic profile competing against someone with someone with a lesser genetic profile? How is that any different than being born a woman in a man’s body who has undergone hormone therapy and genital surgery? Should every athelete be compared by genetic advantage and given extra hormones (or opposite hormones) to compensate? Should trans-men competing in men’s events (which nobody at all complains about) be allowed a generous dose of steroids to compensate?

    If we treat them as women in every other aspect, not doing so in Sports would simply be selective discrimination.

     

    • This reply was modified 1 day, 21 hours ago by  Davis.
    • This reply was modified 1 day, 21 hours ago by  Davis.
    #32802

    Davis
    Participant

    And please be a little more careful with using terms like “artificial woman”.  They aren’t robots created in a laboratory. The term trans-woman communicates the same information without the (admittedly possibly unintended) derogatory connotation.

    • This reply was modified 2 days, 2 hours ago by  Davis.
    #32801

    Davis
    Participant

    No Unseen. I said there should be the normal league where people play for the gender they identify with (meaning a transwoman plays on the woman’s team). And another league for people who kick up a fuss and cannot handle living in the 21st century.

    #32799

    Davis
    Participant

    I believe that the following solution is the best one:

    People use the bathroom of the gender they identify with.

    But if a people kick up such a stupid god damn trans-phobic fuss then I think the South Park solution is the second best:

    There are three bathrooms. A male and female bathroom and people can use the bathroom of the gender they identify with and the third bathroom (with a single toilet that can only be used one person at a time) is for anyone who cannot handle those rules.

    I think the same should go for sports. Considering sport organizations already have measures in place that control levels of testosterone/estrogen and require multiple doctors/psychologists to validate the gender change, I don’t really see where the problem is. So for Sports: Normal leagues where you play for the gender that you identify with. And a secondary league for anybody who cannot handle that rule. We’ll call it the “making a huge fuss out of a rare and normally inconsequential non-problem” league.

    #32726

    Davis
    Participant

    #32725

    Davis
    Participant

    #32724

    Davis
    Participant

    #32707

    Davis
    Participant

    Some of it is genuinely narcissistic, patriarchal. Men getting away with control and domination. But sadly some of it comes from genuine (though misplaced) kindness. The belief that women and children are incapable of making smart life decisions, need to be steered in the right direction by capable men and see their job as leading a family of lesser people. They honestly believe this and do their duty out of caring. I saw this all the time when I lived in the Muslim world. But yeah…whether its the selfish asshole guy who does and gets whatever he wants because he can get away with it with no resistance or the kindly guy who does so cause he thinks women are like fragile dullard over-emotional children needing guidance…it cannot lead to a healthy outcome for the overwhelming majority of households. The fact that millions of families in the US (admittedly concentrated in the religious South but not limited to there) take this kind of advice seriously in the 21st century tells you how neccesary feminism still is in the 21st century. And that feminism is not just there to help liberate women…it liberates men as well from unhealthy paternalistic roles.

    #32678

    Davis
    Participant

    Great to see more about Pluto. Perhaps before Earth sets on fire a few people will be able to escape and settle somewhere…and eventually get around to visiting Pluto. One day. Who knows.

    #32667

    Davis
    Participant

    Yeah unseen and American law, depending on the state, mandates that maternity leave is paid to a certain extent. So yeah…already there you have the law forcing companies to help women shoulder the responsibility.

    If America had any sense of justice they would follow some European countries and mandate both mothers and fathers have equal m/p aternity leave and force companies to at least make salaries less ridiculously lopsided. I cannot see such laws being passed in the US in the near future because the running narrative at the time is “there is no problem, the salary discrepancy is fair, women want to shoulder most of the responsibility anyways and hey…that’s just how the business world works”. Sucks to be a woman in America (and many other countries) hoping to be paid what they’re worth.

    #32658

    Davis
    Participant

    What gives a business a duty to help an employee raise children?

    The law…actually. A good one. Or should women forever be burdened with both the expectation to take care of the child AND put their career on hold as well as a fair salary?

    #32652

    Davis
    Participant

    Unseen you look at things through the eyes of someone trying to justify something unfair instead of seeing obvious valid solutions. Perhaps do as they do in Scandanavia and give equal paterinity and maternity leave? Or should it be both expected for the mother to take care of the child AND to penalise her with her salary AND her slowing career?

    You also seem to think that because some women are compelled to stop their career and take time off for the labour and early caring for their children that it is reasonable that an ENTIRE GENDER should pay for that. This is called discrimination. It wouldn’t make sense to have a policy to not hire people who grew up in a city in which hired employees are more likely to leave early and change jobs or be imprisoned with higher frequency and therefore penalize ALL people who grew up in that city because of this. And yet it seems entirely reasonable to penalize all women, including those who are passed child bearing age.

    No it doesn’t make sense to penalize an entire group because of the potential short term problems that can come from some members of that group nor to incentivise men to take their fare share of the burden for raising children. Jcust let things stay the way they are, make all women pay, carry the burden and justify substantially lower salaries.

    And even IF it were a valid excuse that companies worried about a short term loss over potential materinity leave was acceptable to justify lower women’s pay, it doesn’t cover the enormous gap in salary. I mean come on. One or two years off in maternity leave doesn’t justify a 25% to 30% salary difference over the course of an entire career. Even the math doesn’t add up.

    It’s just discrimination, arbitrarily lower salaries and subconscious bias. Women are worth less and should be paid less, even when they are worth more.

    #32647

    Davis
    Participant

    Unseen…those aren’t good reasons those are excuses, stereotypes and falsehoods. People who benefit from unfair double standards are always making excuses to justify why others get fewer opportunities than they do. They do it when black people have a hard time getting work and they do it per women all the time. There are documented cases of workers past birth giving age doing equal or better work and making less. It’s time to stop justifying the unjustifiable.

    • This reply was modified 1 week, 5 days ago by  Davis.
Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 1,079 total)