Forbes: ACLU: Forcing Flight Attendants To Dress As Either Male Or Female Is Illegal

Clippings from news sources involving fashion freedom and other gender equality issues.
rode_kater
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 295
Joined: Thu Oct 31, 2019 10:46 pm

Re: Forbes: ACLU: Forcing Flight Attendants To Dress As Either Male Or Female Is Illegal

Post by rode_kater »

Stu wrote:
Sun Jun 27, 2021 9:22 pm
No, they are disorders as they are mostly undesired and they adversely affect the individual's ability to procreate.
Undesired by whom? (IMO anyway) We do not exist on earth solely to procreate. The word "disorder" is (IMO) overused, part of the trend of labelling everybody even slightly outside of the norm with a disorder. If we don't watch out we'll be labelled as having "Gender Presentation Disorder" which sounds rather undesirable.
Stu wrote:
Sun Jun 27, 2021 9:22 pm
Nobody would call Down Syndrome or Marfan's a "variant". Let's call things what they are.
Estimates put unclear genitalia at about the same prevalence as Down Syndrome. If there is the desire to use a word I'd stick to "syndrome" since that's at least value neutral.
pelmut
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1541
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:36 am
Location: Somerset, England

Re: Forbes: ACLU: Forcing Flight Attendants To Dress As Either Male Or Female Is Illegal

Post by pelmut »

Stu wrote:
Sun Jun 27, 2021 9:22 pm
"The variants are just variants. To call them disorders is to put a value judgement on them"
No, they are disorders as they are mostly undesired and they adversely affect the individual's ability to procreate.
Your reply confirmed what I originally said: you are putting a value judgement on them.  This is eugenics.
There is no such thing as a normal person, only someone you don't know very well yet.
pelmut
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1541
Joined: Wed Mar 12, 2014 10:36 am
Location: Somerset, England

Re: Forbes: ACLU: Forcing Flight Attendants To Dress As Either Male Or Female Is Illegal

Post by pelmut »

crfriend wrote:
Sun Jun 27, 2021 7:14 pm
Men don't wear skirts ... because we won't let them.
No, society expects, nay demands, that men who wear skirts identify as something that they are not -- which is precisely the same problem but going the other way. (And possibly similar numbers.) Whither equality?
It would hve been more accurate if I had said:
Men don't wear skirts ... because when they do we tell them they aren't men.
There is no such thing as a normal person, only someone you don't know very well yet.
User avatar
crfriend
Master Barista
Posts: 12609
Joined: Fri Nov 19, 2004 9:52 pm
Location: New England (U.S.)
Contact:

Re: Forbes: ACLU: Forcing Flight Attendants To Dress As Either Male Or Female Is Illegal

Post by crfriend »

pelmut wrote:
Mon Jun 28, 2021 11:16 am
It would hve been more accurate if I had said:
Men don't wear skirts ... because when they do we tell them they aren't men.
That works, too, but is rather wordy. The former is also very true for guys who have highly resistant partners.

Unfortunately, until those pressures relent we're stuck with the current situation.
Retrocomputing -- It's not just a job, it's an adventure!
User avatar
Stu
Member Extraordinaire
Posts: 1009
Joined: Sat Oct 25, 2003 8:25 am
Location: North Lincolnshire, UK

Re: Forbes: ACLU: Forcing Flight Attendants To Dress As Either Male Or Female Is Illegal

Post by Stu »

rivegauche wrote:
Sun Jun 27, 2021 10:33 pm
It is a bit mean to define these people on the basis of their inability to reproduce. That is true of lots of people for all sorts of reasons - are they all suffering from a disorder? Does the fact that I have no children (as far as I know I am XY) invalidate my existence? Disorder is a very strong and condemnatory expression. I refuse to use it. I maintain the view that sex is not binary. People should be valued for who they are - not just for those they beget. Atheism is no more defensible than theism - you cannot prove God does not exist. I am a non-believer.
I am not defining people on the basis of their inability to reproduce - I am saying their biological sex is to a large extent determined by their physiological reproductive potential. Is intersex a disorder? Well, it's certainly a "syndrome" and the variations are referred to as syndromes (Kleinfelter's Syndrome, De La Chappelle Syndrome etc). Look up the word "syndrome" in any medical dictionary and you will see it is defined as a set of "symptoms". Intersex conditions are syndromes and they are regarded by geneticists as abnormalities. I in no way "condemn" anyone for having a disorder. I have several disorders myself including an inherited one that affects my vision.

Sex is binary as the biological function of sexual dimorphism is the continuance of our species, and intersex people either cannot reproduce at all or experience problems (symptoms) when they do. That is the reality and claiming otherwise is simply twisting scientific reality to fit an ideological point of view or to spare people's feelings.
rivegauche wrote:
Sun Jun 27, 2021 10:33 pm
Atheism is no more defensible than theism - you cannot prove God does not exist.
I have not advocated for atheism, nor am I telling believers they are wrong and consequently I am under no obligation to defend it. I have also not asserted that God does not exist; I have stated that I am an atheist which means I personally do not believe in the existence of God. That's not quite the same thing.
Post Reply