Borrowing from a poster to the Volokh post.
A transsexual male that maintains a female identity wants to attend the female sessions, what to do?
Not really a serious question on my part, but it’s a funny conundrum to consider.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Borrowing from a poster to the Volokh post.
A transsexual male that maintains a female identity wants to attend the female sessions, what to do?
Not really a serious question on my part, but it’s a funny conundrum to consider.[/quote]
That’s simple.
We just need to make more separate hours for transsexuals.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
I would bet five whole American dollars (which is worth about…well, damn near nothing worldwide now) that if they were making a specific time for Conservative Christian women to train because they feel tempted by sweaty guys that there would be much less outrage about principle.[/quote]
I think this is a good point. Is this really about some concern about double standards or is it just Islam-bashing?
Like I said before, I have problems when fundamentalist Muslims (or fundamentalist Christians, for that matter) try to force some of their reactionary customs on Western liberal societies. I am not sure that this is the case here.
For example, here at work there is a Jewish guy who leaves on Friday afternoon because it’s his Sabbath. Should I protest to my company about that?
The Native American Church is allowed to use peyote in its religious ceremonies, even if it’s illegal for the rest of us?
Facilities have to be accessible by the handicapped. Like I said before, would you feel the same about this if the building had been closed to other students, if handicapped students had asked for this type of arrangement?
Think about it…the majority has the run of these types of places all the other hours of the day, every day of the week. Is it discriminatory to the majority that a minority be allowed exclusive access for a couple of hours a couple of days a week?
[quote]entheogens wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I would bet five whole American dollars (which is worth about…well, damn near nothing worldwide now) that if they were making a specific time for Conservative Christian women to train because they feel tempted by sweaty guys that there would be much less outrage about principle.
I think this is a good point. Is this really about some concern about double standards or is it just Islam-bashing?
Like I said before, I have problems when fundamentalist Muslims (or fundamentalist Christians, for that matter) try to force some of their reactionary customs on Western liberal societies. I am not sure that this is the case here.
For example, here at work there is a Jewish guy who leaves on Friday afternoon because it’s his Sabbath. Should I protest to my company about that?
The Native American Church is allowed to use peyote in its religious ceremonies, even if it’s illegal for the rest of us?
Facilities have to be accessible by the handicapped. Like I said before, would you feel the same about this if the building had been closed to other students, if handicapped students had asked for this type of arrangement?
Think about it…the majority has the run of these types of places all the other hours of the day, every day of the week. Is it discriminatory to the majority that a minority be allowed exclusive access for a couple of hours a couple of days a week?[/quote]
A few things, in turn:
-
If this had been an accommodation for Conservative Christian women, the ink would not have even been dry on the complaint filed by the ACLU. Anyone who thinks otherwise must be hitting the peyote.
-
It is about double standards, both legally and culturally. Culturally, it is about creating an exception that compromises our values - values that apparently were important enough to wage a social movement over, but are easily frittered away in the name of multiculturalism.
-
As to practicality in fairness, what group therefore isn’t entitled to special accommodations? If Muslim women get a set-aside, do Sikh women? What about Seventh Day Adventists who object to revealing swimsuits, but would like an hour to swim without distraction?
Most importantly, what if men wanted a Old Boys’ Hour, where women weren’t allowed because they want to feel unencumbered to tell sexist jokes?
What if some whites wanted a pool for an hour free of minorities? Or vice versa?
There is your problem - if you make an exception, you have to explain to everyone else who would like an exception why they don’t get one. And the answer will never be sufficient.
-
So odd that the American Left - almost automatic in their “you can’t exclude ideas you don’t like, deal with having to be around others in a free society” (think about a Leftist’s typical reaction to a complaint that someone was uncomfortable with a gay couple’s public display of affection) - suddenly love the idea of privileging people to be free of things they don’t like in the name of political correctness. I’d love to level a charge of hypocrisy, but I think it is just more a case that Lefties haven’t put any thought into the matter.
-
The peyote exception is not universal - and, in fact, states may punish users of peyote, even if they use it as part of Indian religion.
Nobody is preventing the minority from using the gym during regular hours.
And what of women who will use the gym during regular and female-only hours? By having more hours available for them to attend, isn’t that discrimination in itself?
I’m waiting for religious males to ask for a “no homosexual men” hour each day.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
4. So odd that the American Left - almost automatic in their “you can’t exclude ideas you don’t like, deal with having to be around others in a free society” (think about a Leftist’s typical reaction to a complaint that someone was uncomfortable with a gay couple’s public display of affection) - suddenly love the idea of privileging people to be free of things they don’t like in the name of political correctness. I’d love to level a charge of hypocrisy, but I think it is just more a case that Lefties haven’t put any thought into the matter. [/quote]
I see you’re still immune to any shade of gray.
[quote]entheogens wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I would bet five whole American dollars (which is worth about…well, damn near nothing worldwide now) that if they were making a specific time for Conservative Christian women to train because they feel tempted by sweaty guys that there would be much less outrage about principle.
I think this is a good point. Is this really about some concern about double standards or is it just Islam-bashing?
Like I said before, I have problems when fundamentalist Muslims (or fundamentalist Christians, for that matter) try to force some of their reactionary customs on Western liberal societies. I am not sure that this is the case here.
For example, here at work there is a Jewish guy who leaves on Friday afternoon because it’s his Sabbath. Should I protest to my company about that?
The Native American Church is allowed to use peyote in its religious ceremonies, even if it’s illegal for the rest of us?
Facilities have to be accessible by the handicapped. Like I said before, would you feel the same about this if the building had been closed to other students, if handicapped students had asked for this type of arrangement?
Think about it…the majority has the run of these types of places all the other hours of the day, every day of the week. Is it discriminatory to the majority that a minority be allowed exclusive access for a couple of hours a couple of days a week?
[/quote]
How does majority or minority determine moral high ground?
The difference between Islam, native American religions, and Christianity is that Islam has an entire legal system known as shari’ah built around second class citizenship for Jews, Christians and women. That’s what they’re pushing here - shari’ah. If they (Muslims) would prefer to live under shari’ah, there are several Arab countries that can accomodate them. They can start in Saudi Arabia.
Here, learn about your rights under shari’ah:
http://www.google.com/search?q=dhimma+&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&start=0&sa=N
[quote]lixy wrote:
I see you’re still immune to any shade of gray.[/quote]
I see you’re still immune to reason.
Do I as a white man get to walk into a majority Mexican gym in California and demand a white only hour because of minority status? Just a thought experiment, but that’s the line of reasoning I’m hearing here.
This is all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Harvard gets alot of students paying full tuition from Saudi pockets.
Oxford, provides Halal foods at their cafeterias.
And in Washington University, almost everything is Kosher in the cafeteria, I’d say almost 90% of food.
Like it or not, these universities do this to cater to the paying populous.
If whites weren’t such pussies they might still have a hold on shyt. But since the 1950s their voice has been murmuring down.
I mean I see alot of angry white men on here, angry about all sorts of shit, bitching and bitching and bitching.
YOU ALL USED TO RUN THE WHOLE WESTERN HEMISPHERE IN THE 40S AND 50S.
Organize, and bring on change or something.
Instead of being little bitches.
Everyone seems so threatened by minorities but why, they are minorities, if you weren’t all such pussies, you could have a voice to, I mean you do OUTNUMBER THEM and this is a DEMOCRACY.
Get moving.
Man it is ridiculous this is happening. Remember VMI and how they wouldn’t let women in because o you know, age old western tradition of an all boys military school which is of course TOTALLY FUCKING OUTRAGEOUS OMG YOU ARE SEXISTS!?!??!
Even tho they had a parallel school for women they established…
But now the new moral battle is, eliminating men’s right to use a harvard gym.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Do I as a white man get to walk into a majority Mexican gym in California and demand a white only hour because of minority status? Just a thought experiment, but that’s the line of reasoning I’m hearing here. [/quote]
Are you being serious? In America, where whites make up the majority, you think your analogy holds water because you picked one area of the country where whites usually don’t live in majority?
BB made the only decent point as far as how this plays out legally. The rest of you sound like little bigots.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Do I as a white man get to walk into a majority Mexican gym in California and demand a white only hour because of minority status? Just a thought experiment, but that’s the line of reasoning I’m hearing here.
Are you being serious? In America, where whites make up the majority, you think your analogy holds water because you picked one area of the country where whites usually don’t live in majority?
BB made the only decent point as far as how this plays out legally. The rest of you sound like little bigots.[/quote]
Because they’re arguing against discrimination? Who da thunk it?!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Do I as a white man get to walk into a majority Mexican gym in California and demand a white only hour because of minority status? Just a thought experiment, but that’s the line of reasoning I’m hearing here.
Are you being serious? In America, where whites make up the majority, you think your analogy holds water because you picked one area of the country where whites usually don’t live in majority?
BB made the only decent point as far as how this plays out legally. The rest of you sound like little bigots.[/quote]
So what? Whites aren’t the majority in California. They’re not the majority in the world. What does majority have to do with morality, especially the morality of trying to impose a 7th century Arab legal system on everyone else?
[quote]Sikkario wrote:
This is all about $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$.
Harvard gets alot of students paying full tuition from Saudi pockets.
Oxford, provides Halal foods at their cafeterias.
And in Washington University, almost everything is Kosher in the cafeteria, I’d say almost 90% of food.
Like it or not, these universities do this to cater to the paying populous.
If whites weren’t such pussies they might still have a hold on shyt. But since the 1950s their voice has been murmuring down.
I mean I see alot of angry white men on here, angry about all sorts of shit, bitching and bitching and bitching.
YOU ALL USED TO RUN THE WHOLE WESTERN HEMISPHERE IN THE 40S AND 50S.
Organize, and bring on change or something.
Instead of being little bitches.
Everyone seems so threatened by minorities but why, they are minorities, if you weren’t all such pussies, you could have a voice to, I mean you do OUTNUMBER THEM and this is a DEMOCRACY.
Get moving.[/quote]
Organized white men are racists.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Do I as a white man get to walk into a majority Mexican gym in California and demand a white only hour because of minority status? Just a thought experiment, but that’s the line of reasoning I’m hearing here.
Are you being serious? In America, where whites make up the majority, you think your analogy holds water because you picked one area of the country where whites usually don’t live in majority?
BB made the only decent point as far as how this plays out legally. The rest of you sound like little bigots.
Because they’re arguing against discrimination? Who da thunk it?![/quote]
Please. Because they are arguing with such ferocity because of who is involved.
You can’t be that basic.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Do I as a white man get to walk into a majority Mexican gym in California and demand a white only hour because of minority status? Just a thought experiment, but that’s the line of reasoning I’m hearing here.
Are you being serious? In America, where whites make up the majority, you think your analogy holds water because you picked one area of the country where whites usually don’t live in majority?
BB made the only decent point as far as how this plays out legally. The rest of you sound like little bigots.
So what? Whites aren’t the majority in California. They’re not the majority in the world. What does majority have to do with morality, especially the morality of trying to impose a 7th century Arab legal system on everyone else? [/quote]
If you are going to argue that white males need representation because they are under-represented in this country, please do better than trying to find a certain neighborhood where whites CHOOSE not to live.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Do I as a white man get to walk into a majority Mexican gym in California and demand a white only hour because of minority status? Just a thought experiment, but that’s the line of reasoning I’m hearing here.
Are you being serious? In America, where whites make up the majority, you think your analogy holds water because you picked one area of the country where whites usually don’t live in majority?
BB made the only decent point as far as how this plays out legally. The rest of you sound like little bigots.[/quote]
You’re a black man, aren’t you? Here’s a little more food for thought on Islam’s stance towards slavery:
http://www.answering-islam.org/Silas/slavery.htm
Muslims are a minority in the US, let 'em own slaves!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Professor X wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Do I as a white man get to walk into a majority Mexican gym in California and demand a white only hour because of minority status? Just a thought experiment, but that’s the line of reasoning I’m hearing here.
Are you being serious? In America, where whites make up the majority, you think your analogy holds water because you picked one area of the country where whites usually don’t live in majority?
BB made the only decent point as far as how this plays out legally. The rest of you sound like little bigots.
Because they’re arguing against discrimination? Who da thunk it?!
Please. Because they are arguing with such ferocity because of who is involved.
You can’t be that basic.
[/quote]
We weren’t complaining that Islamic women could use the gym at the same time us evil white christian men were. That would be bigotry.