I think gender mixed prisons might be considered problematic as well.
Comment on Why do we need legal genders at all?
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 day ago
Because there are many laws that grant some benefits to one gender but no the other. For example:
- In Poland women get to retire earlier
- In many countries there’s mandatory conscription only for men
- In many countries maternal and paternal leaves are different
- Physical requirements for some jobs (police, firemen) are lower for women
- There are legally mandated proportions of genders in companies or in political parties (in parliamentary clubs to be exact)
- In Spain there are laws that specifically protect women from violence committed by men and special courts that handle them
- Many other laws/rules that require some % of public grants to go to women
You can remove all those laws but that will make feminists unhappy because most of them are pushed by them and leftists governments. As long as those laws exists you need legal genders.
whaleross@lemmy.world 1 day ago
HerbGrower@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
Is that the problem or is the problem that prisons are largely badly designed in the first place?
holy_scroller@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
No, gender mixing would obviously be a problem leading to an insane increase in sexual assaults. Couldn’t imagine being a woman in a mixed prison no matter the design. Quite unethical.
gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
It’s almost like prisons are a terrible idea and shouldn’t exist
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 day ago
This is very interesting topic but it’s too complex to discuss on lemmy. Most people would not be able to understand the legal nuances and would just start lashing out. I will just leave this here for those interested.
whaleross@lemmy.world 1 day ago
For anybody wondering, it’s about a male criminal that is allegedly not transsexual but claims so to be held in a female one prison.
Interestingly there is a similar case here in Sweden.
I too abstain from posting any judgement in a complex issue that goes beyond quick opinions based on headlines.
cley_faye@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Reading the comments I’m surprised how many people don’t know about them.
It might be less about not knowing about gender disparity, and more about wanting to get rid of that too.
- global retirement age is bullshit anyway; tell me that someone that worked 50 years in a coal mine (and survived somehow) should retire at the same age that someone that worked in an office. Gender is not needed there
- mandatory conscription is already a dicy subject; if one assume it makes sense, making it men-only doesn’t. No need for gender disparity here either; plenty of military roles that can be done without being a beefcake
- many countries are actually looking into extending paternal leaves because they finally got that both parents are important to raise a child
- physical requirements should be physical requirements. If they exist, they should match the job requirements. Having different bar of entry because of gender makes no sense. If the job is lifting iron all day, and you can lift iron all day, that’s all that matters.
- parity requirements related to gender exists to curb all the disparity that’s ingrained in society because we decided to make men and women a different thing. remove the difference, remove the need to "make amend with a mandatory quota"
- same as previous point
- and same as previous previous point
The only need to keep distinguishing gender for legal stuff is because we keep the “women are lesser than men” mentality, coupled with “women needs protection”.
Guess what: there isn’t a gender that is “less” than the other, and everyone needs protection. Sounds like an equality thing to me, where genders only get in the way.
tmyakal@infosec.pub 1 day ago
remove the difference, remove the need to “make amend with a mandatory quota”
Have you seen what’s going on in the US lately? Abolishing DEI programs that recognize race or gender helps whoever has the most institutional power. White men have run the world for their own benefit for centuries. You think taking them off the leash now will result in a gender-neutral equitable utopia?
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 day ago
It’s one of those funny cases were far left and far right go full circle and collide on the other side. Like with opening stores on Sunday which the left and right both oppose or support depending on the country. Here we see people attack gender violence laws from the left but in Spain it’s the far right Vox party that is against them.
cley_faye@lemmy.world 22 hours ago
What’s happening in the US is not the removal of DEI laws and programs. Well, that, too. But it’s the explicit removal of people that were covered by these program, regardless of skills.
And, it only highlights why the legal gender distinction is a problem. If there were no state-level “what gender are you” line attached to people, you could not mandate the removal of women, legally or not.
bss03@infosec.pub 1 day ago
Yes, it turns out if you want to use the mechanisms of the legal system to try to counter the marginalization of any group by the whole system, it has to recognize them in law and provide a method for distinguishing them in practice.
But, once you have some method of distinguishing them, the people that want to strengthen hierarchical structures will use that to identify them and (further) marginalize them.
This is true whether you are talking about chromosomal properties, internal anatomy, external anatomy (not limited to genital shape, but also melanin quantity and distribution), gender-assigned-at-birth, current gendered behavior, religious practices or associations, etc.
Still legal recognition might be the best way to reduce harm until we can achieve a future where the category or distinguishing characteristics no longer make one a target of (extra-judicial) marginalization.
gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
You act like there’s no option to create GENDER EQUALITY, and instead the only option is to remove those laws.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 day ago
Am I? I said that as long as those laws exist legal gender also has to exist. I didn’t say that those laws should or shouldn’t be removed.
Most of those laws are passed by leftists governments and many were passed very recently. Those laws are how the left is trying to create gender equality right now. If you have other ideas you’re free to propose them.
gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
It’s a case of those laws need to exist, because of gender inequality, but when things become more equitable then it should be changed to not the removal but the widening of them
All genders getting the same amount of (increased) parenthood leave, for example
tmyakal@infosec.pub 1 day ago
I’m curious how you create GENDER EQUALITY without forcing people to acknowledge and correct for systemic biases. It’s not like there was GENDER EQUALITY before such laws existed.
The idea of affirmative action laws is that, systemically, white men in western countries were born on third base thinking they hit a triple, and everyone else needs some amount of help to catch up to their institutional and generational wealth and power. A law can’t correct for that difference if the difference is no longer recognized, and that means white men get to retain their position.
It’s why the Trump administration focused so hard on dismantling DEI efforts. Their position is that we’ve achieved equality and these programs are an unjust bias. Obviously bullshit, but it’s what you immediately end up with if race and gender are not legally recognized characteristics.
ohulancutash@feddit.uk 1 day ago
Maternal and paternal leave also applies in adoptions and surrogate births so it is gender based.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 day ago
I wasn’t sure about that as each country has different rules. Thanks for clarifying, I restored that point.
Aedaz_@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
I do think men getting conscripted because they’re men in kinda bullshit.
rabber@lemmy.ca 14 minutes ago
Women can have kids so in times of war men are seen as disposables. You can’t rebuild a nation without women but you basically can without men
invertedspear@lemmy.zip 1 day ago
Conscription is bullshit. If your war is so unpopular to your people that they aren’t volunteering, then you shouldn’t be at war.
bookmeat@fedinsfw.app 1 day ago
Tell that to Ukraine.
ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 13 hours ago
I would say that if people don’t care about their country and don’t want to fight for it it’s OK for this country to lose a war.
Back when I lived in Poland, if it was invaded I would be the first one to flee the country. Let the people that want to live there die for it… Now that I live in Spain, if anyone tried to invade, I would definitely join the fight. Well, maybe not if they invaded Catalonia but once they reached Murcia I would be on the front lines.
waterwasamistake@lemmy.zip 15 hours ago
Meh people aren’t really known to do the “right” thing if they would we wouldn’t have had war in the first place. Also people might be fully supportive of a war but don’t want to get their hands dirty themselves.
The natural conclusion would be that any country forcing its people to fight will probably have an advantage over any country that doesn’t and if that country overtakes you you get conscripted anyway.
stepan@lemmy.ca 15 hours ago
Yep
vsg@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Also, if there was a very great threat, people would enlist willingly, making conscription unnecessary.
waterwasamistake@lemmy.zip 14 hours ago
You would have to believe that people are willing to sacrifice to protect their communities but people aren’t even willing to look at windmills to protect their communities from climate change. Which does not mean they don’t want to keep their community as it is, they might just be to afraid and/or selfish to join themselves.
If people were guided by some intristic “goodness” we wouldn’t have such a shit society in the first place.
RBWells@lemmy.world 1 day ago
There’s a funny story here in the US about that. We were trying to pass the Equal Rights Act (ERA) - equal pay for equal work, and some Republican tried to tank it by putting in the bill that women would also be subject to the draft - apparently he figured that was so horrifying it would sink it. Supporters just said “yeah, that seems fair, good idea” and he had to scramble to take that wording out because he had so misjudged the situation. Still managed to sink the bill though:(
gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
That one isn’t a feminist law, that’s a fascist one, under the fasc ideal “women are too weak to fight!”
Nemo@slrpnk.net 1 day ago
It’s less “women are too weak” and more “the point if war is to kill off excess young men so there’s more young women available for powerful older men”
myyass@lemmy.world 16 hours ago
Like it or not that women will guaranteed face harsh realities.
Iraq.
A line of “Iraqi military” taking turns at a boy. Nothing you can do about it.
gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
It can be both
IsoKiero@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
I’ve always thought that it’s more ‘we need more women than men to repopulate our country after the war’ as us men are nearly useless when making new life to this planet. But obviously that idea is ‘a bit’ dated too today.
gwl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 day ago
It can be all 3 things.
But no matter what, it’s outdated