For the sake of argument, can you name a current law that treats people unequally by some immutable quality of the individual?
But I’ve never seen a woman become a man or a white person become a POC. So that’s pretty immutable.
I’ll take examples from either category though.
Since race is a social construct and has no provable scientific reality, lots of people "pass" as other races depending on where/when they are being observed. Mixed-race people have always done this, sometimes by accident and sometimes on purpose.
Race is not a “social construct”. If that were true, I wouldn’t be able to blindly tell your race via a dna test.
Where does all this anti-science rhetoric come from? I guess global warming and evolution is a myth too?
Everything is a social construct then.
This statement is not true. The racial information which can be determined via a DNA test does not necessarily match up with what that person, or others, would consider their race to be.
Saying "words are a social construct so you could mean anything" is not a good faith contribution to discussion.
When you say race is a social construct because we may visually ascribe a person wrongly to a race seems pointless in an era of dna tests. The possibility of being factually wrong doesn’t suddenly make something a social construct.
If I see bear cub from a distance and then find out it was actually a dog, it doesn’t mean I should shrug and say that a bear and a dog are social constructs, so I wasn’t wrong because these distinctions are fluid based on the social norms of our day.
Why you seem to deny that science can blindly determine your ancestral origins (and thus race) with astonishing accuracy is beyond me.
It's true that there is a difference between gender (and gender identity) and biological sex, but biological sex is more complicated than simple binary distinction, too, and done biological sex features correlate with gender identity better than those we have historically mostly relief on to set socially ascribed gender.
Perhaps in the future, we can do a better job at first-impression gender assignment as well as avoiding blaming the victim when we get it wrong.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Edit: it looks like you've been breaking the guidelines by using HN primarily for political arguments. That's something we ban accounts for, because it's destructive of what this site exists for (i.e. intellectual curiosity). Can you please stop doing that?
How is it not political when someone else says a man surgically inverting his penis into his body cavity magically becomes a woman?
But when I point out that the man still has the wrong chromosomes to be a woman, it’s somehow political?
Who’s arguing ideology and who’s arguing science in this scenario?
If that’s your idea of “intellectual curiosity” just ban me now. Please.
Correct. The surgery aligns genitalia with gender identity; social norms have evolved to align ascribed gender with gender identity irrespective of genitalia, so even viewing "man" and "woman" as labels of ascribed gender rather than identity the surgery is largely beside the point.
By fallout, I mean women are starting to realize that men identifying as women isn’t in their best interest. Feminist are already split on this issue.
In the US, the state of Connecticut has biological boys who identify as girls competing in female sports and blowing them away, displacing biological girls on teams and soon in athletic scholarships.
This throws well-intentioned gender based laws into chaos. Title 9 will be challenged as biological men displace biological women in sports at larger scales. The Olympics will be dominated and world records will be shattered by biological men in female gender events.
Then there’s the guy in Canada that spent $50 to change his gender to female and saved $1,400 on his auto insurance.
This era of self identification will end since sincerity is not an objective truth and can’t be measured.
Or, another possibility, all laws attempting to promote equality between sexes and races will be made useless.
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.
I can give examples of each if you don't believe me.
So you would rather see bail set at a percentage of net worth? That would make things equal?
> Police can only hold you for up to 96 hours without charging you with a crime. Once you are charged with something and awaiting trial, you have to be tried within 56 days. If you are not tried within those 56 days you have to be released on unconditional bail. Police can set up bail before the trail, but it cannot involve money - frequently it involves staying at a particular address, reporting to the police station daily, not contacting certain people etc - it depends on the severity of the crime, you cannot be released on bail for acts of violence or armed robbery for example.
Police get to optionally, at their discretion, set bail?
That seems ripe for abuse.
At this point in history, I would NEVER look to the UK as a model for anything state related. It barely qualifies as a western democracy these days.
Care to explain?
Freedom of the press: The Tommy Robinson episode which is the first time I had heard of the broad government ability to ban news stories from being reported. You don’t have to agree with Robinson’s politics, you just need to realize the precedent it sets.
Freedom of speech: Chelsea Russell - https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/woman-wh...
Mark Meechan - https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-scotlan...
I’m not defending these people, but think about the chilling effect this has on speech.
Right to self defense: U.K. took away the right to legally own hand guns in 1996. Since then knife violence has been on the rise. London is now considering “common sense knife control”. There is no longer any legal weapon you can carry that will give you a force multiplier over an attacker. This is especially dangerous for women.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/commentisfr...
What about what I said is nonsense?
Are you saying that you have freedom of speech while a 19yr old posting lyrics from a rap song on her private Instagram page is censured and fined for doing so?
Are you saying your government can’t censor media outlets from certain topics?
Are you saying you have the right to defend yourself with some sort of force multiplier?
If you’re willing to explain why I’m wrong factually or philosophical, I’m willing to listen.
The judges correctly found a real risk of prejudicing the jury and like it or not, the UK judiciary take potential infringements on the fairness of a trial very seriously.
A right to a fair trial for others is at least as important as his free speech.
With the gun point I disagree strongly. London has a rate of 1.45 homicides per 100,000 people. Potentially 180 murders this year. This is fewer than most large cities in the US. Most people in the UK don't carry weapons and the rates of murder are significantly lower than in the US. Access to guns increases the ease of homicide. New York has decreased it's rate (although it's still above London's rate) by limiting access to guns.
You argued that the restrictions on press are justified, said nothing about free speech, and that you hopefully don’t need to defend yourself.
So it sounds like we agree on the basic premise I set forth, but disagree on the importance of it.