this post was submitted on 11 Nov 2024
1402 points (98.1% liked)

Microblog Memes

5765 readers
2492 users here now

A place to share screenshots of Microblog posts, whether from Mastodon, tumblr, ~~Twitter~~ X, KBin, Threads or elsewhere.

Created as an evolution of White People Twitter and other tweet-capture subreddits.

Rules:

  1. Please put at least one word relevant to the post in the post title.
  2. Be nice.
  3. No advertising, brand promotion or guerilla marketing.
  4. Posters are encouraged to link to the toot or tweet etc in the description of posts.

Related communities:

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (3 children)

So long as society feels it necessary to provide protections for women, the distinction has real consequences. Drawing a line anywhere is a tradeoff between inclusivity and effectiveness.

Taking the party line "high ground" stance of either conclusive self-determination or dodging the question entirely is why this question is so effective.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 2 days ago

I'm sorry, is "conclusive self-determination" the wrong answer? Why?

[–] [email protected] 5 points 2 days ago (3 children)

Assuming good faith on the part of those involved, I don't see how inclusivity comes at the cost of effectiveness. Would you care to elaborate?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Assuming I'm a bicycle, I'd have wheels.

Protections presuppose bad faith.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 days ago

What protections? Give me some concrete examples of what you're talking about here.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Gendered bathrooms? It certainly does not require a lot of good faith to come up with this example.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

That's a terrible example. Gendered bathrooms would still fulfil their function if anybody could use them regardless of gender, causing no measurable harm to anyone.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Assuming good faith, that's a hell of an assumption

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)
[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago

Not the person who you were talking with, but I think it's nuanced. Short term tradeoffs should be made for effectiveness, while long-term strategies should be relentlessly pursued for inclusivity.

E.g. as a man, I think that the women-only carriages in a lot of SEA countries are a necessary thing, but it has to be a short term solution with a healthier society should be always consistently pursued, for example with educational measures.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Honestly? I think that equal treatment should be afforded regardless of gender. I also know that opinion is wildly unpopular, and so long as society expects unequal treatment there has to be hard conversations and hard decisions made to support those structures. You can't have it both ways, and no amount of party-line fingers in your ears "wouldn't you like to know"ing makes that go away.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

This would be nice if we lived in a vacuum an didn't have thousands of years of patriarchy built up...

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 days ago

That was essentially what I was saying.