Comment on Co-op scraps policy allowing trans staff to use toilets they ‘feel safest’
Arcane2077@sh.itjust.works 2 days agoThe 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
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
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?
SatansDaughter@quokk.au 2 days ago
I mean maybe they genuinely do mean well and will let trans people use the bathroom they want, but from what i understand from the new policy the company is the one that decides which gendered bathroom people can use and they could decide to exclude trans people from the bathroom which they prefer to use. I guess we’ll have to see what happens, I hope I’m just being overly cautious