Comment on Co-op scraps policy allowing trans staff to use toilets they ‘feel safest’

• SatansDaughter@quokk.au ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  Mugging generally doesn’t cause systemic injustices, complying with a mugging only hurts you whereas complying with fascism hurts everyone, especially minorities. The Nuremberg trials found that “just following orders” wasn’t a valid defense for war crimes, I don’t see why that couldn’t be extended to other forms of orders/laws that systemically hurt people

  source

  • Arcane2077@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    The trials, just like any thinking human being, found that “just following orders” wasn’t an excuse for war crimes. And there was enough evidence to prove that they were not under duress and actively participating. Do you even know what a war crime is? It isn’t just “something that’s bad”.

    It’s not equivalent to signing a document to prevent yourself from no longer existing. Seriously, you should look up what a war crime is if you don’t want to get caught saying the stupidest shit again.

    And, if you’re seriously going to continue digging your heels just because I called you stupid, at least consider that boycotting co-op for (by your insinuation) “just following orders” won’t affect the government or the court demanding them

    source

    • SatansDaughter@quokk.au ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

      I know it was specifically for war crimes, if you read my comment again you’ll see that I mention that I believe that line of thinking should also extended to laws that perpetrate systemic inequalities. Then you mention that that defense only holds if you weren’t under duress, do you seriously believe that this company is under more duress than the Nazis were ?

      Also I’m not arguing with you because you called me stupid, I’m doing because this is a subject that is important to me as I am myself trans

      Finally, I agree that boycotting the company won’t change change the law, but first if the boycott is successful (which I do agree it has little chance of being) then companies that do this and see it impacts their bottom lines might reverse course, and second if I see a company is complicit in taking away my rights I won’t want to give them money

      source

      • Arcane2077@sh.itjust.works ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

        Alright great. Trans rights (like all human rights) are important to me too. Let’s start over because the analogies are getting out of hand.

        The change in policy, according to the article, went from:

        “Where workplace toilets were gender-specific, they should use the facilities they felt safest in. It also said staff would not be expected to use disabled toilets as an alternative, but were welcome to if they chose.”

        To:

        “wherever possible, the retailer will provide individual, lockable gender-neutral facilities, with decisions about access to gendered spaces made sensitively and on a case-by-case basis”

        To me, personally, that doesn’t sound exclusionary at all, or that it would even lead to any changes to daily operations. It looks like they’re just changing the wording to avoid legal trouble. Could you explain what I’m missing here?

        source

        • -> View More Comments