• Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    7 days ago

    Why do you think such legislation is necessary? In fact, what legislation are you talking about that requires gender to be taken into account?

    • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      I didn’t say I thought it was necessary. It exists, that’s just it.

      Necessary or not, is, again. A very complex question.

      I’m Spanish, from Spain/Europe. We have some laws made in favour of women. For instance, a special court of law that is only invoke in a case of a man hurting a woman he had a romantic relationship with. It’s called “Juzgados de la mujer”. We have also gender quota por power positions they have historically not being allowed to occupy.

      This may seem logical, as there are thousands of women killed by their male partners

      We also have, recently, a law that allows anyone to change their gender at any time, no questions, no prove requires to being trans to do so. You can just go to the civil office and change your gender.

      This also may seem logical. As trans are usually prosecuted and can get denied a gender change if the civil official didn’t like them.

      But with these two things in place we happened to had a big number of cis males, that are 100% cis, going to change their gender just to get “inmunity” to “Womens court”. Also several cases of cis males changing their gender to get into womens quota required for some positions (for instance here there’s benefits and sometimes is required that half of the directive positions are filled by women).

      So we have a conflict here. At least I see a conflict. I don’t even have the answer on what to do, as two of both things seem right to me (supporting a positive discrimination for a historically discriminated group and helping trans to be what they truly are). But cis males being able to break positive discrimination and mocking trans at the same time feels wrong to me.

      And the ultimate question to this topic is “What it is to be a woman”. For what I do not have the answer, but I would love to know.

      And of course, in my book we all would be genderless, and there would be no discrimination. But my personal utopia is, sadly, not the world we live on.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        7 days ago

        This may seem logical, as there are thousands of women killed by their male partners

        No, it doesn’t seem logical. Men can be killed by their women partners, men can be killed by their men partners, women can be killed by their women partners.

        It’s only “logical” in a heteronormative patriarchal society.

        This also may seem logical. As trans are usually prosecuted and can get denied a gender change if the civil official didn’t like them.

        Again, this does not seem logical. Why do you need a law to allow you to change gender?

        “Womens court”.

        Something else that is not necessary.

        (for instance here there’s benefits and sometimes is required that half of the directive positions are filled by women).

        Benefits should not be gendered, but the quota thing is the closest you have gotten to something being necessary in terms of legal definitions. But even there, all you have to say is that gender discrimination in hiring practices is illegal and it doesn’t have to apply to any specific gender.

        Also, you are acting like ‘man’ and ‘woman’ are it and there is no such thing as a nonbinary gender. You are incorrect.

        • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          7 days ago

          I literally never said anything against non binary, but ok.

          I’m just explaining the legislation you asked me to explain.

          Legislation on my country does not take non-binary as an option. So I didn’t talk about it. We could have talked about it if you asked about that, as I have lots to say as an non-binary person that really does not fit within my country own legislation on gender.

          I feel like you are not really reading me. And I’m feeling more hostility towards my person that I want to feel. So I’m out.

          Have a good day.

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.worldOP
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            7 days ago

            Legislation on my country does not take non-binary as an option.

            Which is also not logical.

            No one is denying that gendered laws exist. We are talking about what is necessary. I am reading you. You just are not understanding that those laws are not necessary laws the way they are written and can be easily be rewritten to apply to all genders.

            • daniskarma@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 days ago

              For instance, the “women’s court” I talked. Which is part of a law called “law against violence on women”.

              I will give you the official explanation and the one with more consensus on the feminist movement. Even tho I don’t really understand it for reasons I will explain later.

              The law defines violence against women as “violence that it is applied to women just for the matter of being women”. This assumes that this kind of violence only applies to women being hurt by man. This is the consensus, this is the slongan.

              I do not understand it as I do not understand what it is to be a woman, to begin with, so I cannot understand that explanation.

              But I understand that there’s a lot of people, that call themselves women, that are hurt by people that call themselves men. And some legislation that tried to specifically protect the group that is being targeted seems ok. Like really if this are the figures, if men are hurting women more than women are hurting men. And if we had had s “neutral” legislation that did not solve this issue before… It seems logical, at least to me, that maybe it is a problem that should be tacked on a gendered perspective. Maybe it is something gendered on that kind of violence. And thus maybe gender needs to come into place.

              I don’t know if giving an example is the best way to go about this. And in whatever example I come up with I certainly won’t be comparing “women” with that example. I’m just trying to exemplify other cases when “neutral” legislation may not be the best approach.

              For instance, different legislation on children and adults, or when adults hurt children, being different that when a kid hurts and adults. Again, and this is important, women are not children. It is just an example where differentiation may be needed to solve a problem.

              You will notice that I didn’t brought the “women sports” example here. It is the classic issue on this matter. But for me sports are not important so really, I could just get rid of all professional sports and get done with it. Though if I liked sports the question would be similar, as I get why some people want to have gendered segregated sports. I also get with a trans woman should be able to compete in women league. And I also get why if we just adhere to the “being a woman is just saying so” approach then there a place for fraud in cis males breaking the women league. I’m glad I just don’t like sports because it is a complex matter too

              I don’t know. I’m not 100% on board with one opinion or other on the matter. I would really just want to do whatever leads to better society, with less violence. But I don’t know the better approach here.