Necessary double standards?

[Relish in Chaos]

And as much as i oppose discriminating against transexuals, they should simply go to the room they currently have the parts for. Just like everyone else.

But if they at least look like their identified gender, then there's no harm done. No-one's going to see them doing their business. It's not as if someone's going to hold up a microscope to them and say, "Wait a minute...I see an Adam's apple here!"

 

[Relish in Chaos]

And as much as i oppose discriminating against transexuals, they should simply go to the room they currently have the parts for. Just like everyone else.

But if they at least look like their identified gender, then there's no harm done. No-one's going to see them doing their business. It's not as if someone's going to hold up a microscope to them and say, "Wait a minute...I see an Adam's apple here!"

"Wait the toilet seat's up. But that wouldn't happen unless..."

"Dude looks liks a lady, Dude looks like a lady"

A pre-op trans woman would presumably sit down to pee for "practice". Or they'd just make sure to put the toilet seat down afterwards.

And I watched a programme a while ago about transgender people, where there was this pre-op trans man who had this tube device thing that kind of acted as a penis through which he could pee through.

 

[Jordi]

Male and female sports teams. Men and women have biological differences that make inter-gender sports seem unfair. If men are a little stronger just because they have a Y chromosome, how is that fair to the female athletes? Male and female restrooms are another one too, although I'm not totally sold that its a necessity only that in my society its a necessity.

Some people are born with more aptitude to be athletic than others. If you're born to be a scrawny short dude, then that isn't really any more fair than being born without a Y chromosome is it? It's not like they're going to make a pro basketball league for people born without the tall-gene. Why is making a division based on gender more acceptable than divisions based on height, ethnicity, aptitude, whatever?

It's not that I really mind, or would even like to change it, but I just wonder why this particular double standard is so universally accepted and usually not even questioned.

I don't really think any double standards are strictly necessary. On the other hand, I'm not really convinced that ignoring or trying to remove (virtually) all differences between men and women would be desirable.

 

[King of Asgaard]

Which double standards do you think are necessary? I was just thinking about how female-on-male sexual harassment is often used as a topic of humour for sitcoms, but if it wasn't funny to so many, it wouldn't be used, would it? So I'm not sure whether or not it's bad for them to use it, even if it is a double standard, perhaps based on its rarity.

It is a double standard and it is NOT acceptable. It is barbaric and harmful to the men that are sexually harrassed, just like it used to be to the women when we made fun of them.

And if you think men being harrassed is a rarity, you are quite wrong.

I agree completely.
Whenever I see that in comedies nowadays, I instantly hate the female character that does it, and it happens so often it's as if the guys writing the script think it's comedy gold.

OT: No double-standard should be acceptable. Why should a man be reprimanded for an action, but a woman let off the hook with no repercussions, or vice versa? This sort of conduct is downright wrong, and is detrimental to both parties.

 

[DEAD34345]

Uh... None, double standards are discriminatory and unfair by their very nature, that's what makes them a double standard. To list some common ones that are seen as acceptable:

Sports: Yes, males tend to be genetically stronger and fitter than females, but if a female who happens to be just as good at a game as the top males comes along, then why shouldn't they be allowed in the top teams?

"Positive" Discrimination: People should be given jobs etc based on their aptitude for those jobs. If this happens to lead to predominantly white (for example) workers in this certain job, then that is an unfortunate sign of the continuing inequality in society, but it is not the fault of those white workers for being better than other workers, and they should not be punished.

Chivalry: I do think people should be polite to one another (holding open doors etc), but I don't see why that should only apply to men being polite to women. Is it really that hard to just be decent to one another regardless of genders?

 

[Kennetic]

Uh... None, double standards are discriminatory and unfair by their very nature, that's what makes them a double standard. To list some common ones that are seen as acceptable:

Sports: Yes, males tend to be genetically stronger and fitter than females, but if a female who happens to be just as good at a game as the top males comes along, then why shouldn't they be allowed in the top teams?

"Positive" Discrimination: People should be given jobs etc based on their aptitude for those jobs. If this happens to lead to predominantly white (for example) workers in this certain job, then that is an unfortunate sign of the continuing inequality in society, but it is not the fault of those white workers for being better than other workers, and they should not be punished.

Chivalry: I do think people should be polite to one another (holding open doors etc), but I don't see why that should only apply to men being polite to women. Is it really that hard to just be decent to one another regardless of genders?

as far as sports go, look at the olympics. Women at the peak of fitness are no match for men at peak fitness and would never get picked for the top teams because they simply aren't as good as men at that level

 

[DEAD34345]

-snip-

as far as sports go, look at the olympics. Women at the peak of fitness are no match for men at peak fitness and would never get picked for the top teams because they simply aren't as good as men at that level

Ok then, so why do they need to be specifically withheld from joining male teams anyway? If they're not good enough as you say then they won't be picked anyway. With the Olympics specifically it's more understandable (though I still disagree with it), but that argument doesn't really work at all with team based sports that rely on a mix of skills. It's entirely plausible that a female could be just as good as a top-tier male striker, or goalie, or whatever else in football for example (English football I'm talking about here by the way, I don't know anything about American football).

 

[Relish in Chaos]

Male and female restrooms are another one too, although I'm not totally sold that its a necessity only that in my society its a necessity.

See, to me this gets complicated.

It's not complicated at all. A person with a dick goes to the mens' rooms and a person with a vagina goes to the lady's room. Your sexual identity is irrelevant.

In my province you can no longer technically stop anyone from going into either washroom without violating their human rights (even though its still technically illegal...damn odd)

But ignoring that, where does the 3 year old with a vagina go if she is there with her 40 year old father who has a dick? Now what if that 3 year old is 10?

It's not so clear sometimes.

More importantly...why is it necessary that a distinction is made?

Well, when I was younger, I had to go to the women's public toilets with my mother because I couldn't go myself. So, in that situation, yes, it's fine for a very young child to go into the opposite gender's toilets if their parent is of that gender.

By 10, though, you ought to be going to the toilets by yourself. I don't know any parent who'd argue against that, unless they're ridiculously overprotective and paranoid.

 

[Kennetic]

SNIP

 

[Dogstile]

Which double standards do you think are necessary? I was just thinking about how female-on-male sexual harassment is often used as a topic of humour for sitcoms, but if it wasn't funny to so many, it wouldn't be used, would it? Admittedly, that kind of sexual harassment is pretty rare. So I'm not sure whether or not it's bad for them to use it, even if it is a double standard.

Fuck that double standard. Even in two and a half men its honestly disgusting. She gets a free pass to show up, demand money and leave, while if a male character was doing that the show would be burned to the ground.

 

[Skratt]

Bathrooms
Sports Teams
Childcare

I'm sure there are others, but these are the three that come to me off the top of my head.

Childcare is one of those things that I've read too many news articles about children being cared for by creeps. I don't care if it's right or wrong, but men just need to pick a different profession other than childcare because I will never be comfortable with it. Is it fair? Probably not, but since you can't tell which pool has been proverbially pissed in, it's best not swim in any of them.

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

Double standards are never acceptable or necessary; why would you think they are?

As far as the separation of genders, how is this a double standard? Men have a bathroom, women have a bathroom; there is no double standard. Men have a sports team, women have a sports team; again, no double standard. You're confusing a single standard (such as possessing a cock or vag for the respective bathrooms) as a double standard.

The 'double standard' requires two distinct standards which apply differently to different demographics for admittance to the same club/group/etc.

Bathrooms don't have double standards because you aren't being admitted into the same place. And while one could argue that you're both performing the same function, the mechanics are slightly different, hence the different facilities.

Now if two able bodied people were wanting to perform the same function, or exist in the same field, then there should be a singular standard yes? This is where double standards exist, when one is held to higher standards for no apparent reason, other then demographic or gender related.

Take the US Armies fitness test as a prime example. How is it that a 17-21 year old woman only needs to run as fast as a 42-46 year old man in a 2 mile run for admittance? Whereas a similar aged male needs to run roughly 3minutes quicker than she does? And when it comes to push ups, she need to do as many as a 57-61yr old male, whereas the same aged male must perform at a minimum her peak performance?

I have seen no justifiable double standard, but I do see justifiable standards.

 

[Skratt]

Uh... None, double standards are discriminatory and unfair by their very nature, that's what makes them a double standard. To list some common ones that are seen as acceptable:

Sports: Yes, males tend to be genetically stronger and fitter than females, but if a female who happens to be just as good at a game as the top males comes along, then why shouldn't they be allowed in the top teams?

Chivalry: I do think people should be polite to one another (holding open doors etc), but I don't see why that should only apply to men being polite to women. Is it really that hard to just be decent to one another regardless of genders?

Men tend to be genetically stronger, and if we only had co-ed teams, they would tend to be a majority of the players every time. In this case I see no reason not to separate them. Men and women aren't the same and should not be denied proper opportunity to play the sports professionally that they love.

 

[Kennetic]

-snip-

as far as sports go, look at the olympics. Women at the peak of fitness are no match for men at peak fitness and would never get picked for the top teams because they simply aren't as good as men at that level

Ok then, so why do they need to be specifically withheld from joining male teams anyway? If they're not good enough as you say then they won't be picked anyway. With the Olympics specifically it's more understandable (though I still disagree with it), but that argument doesn't really work at all with team based sports that rely on a mix of skills. It's entirely plausible that a female could be just as good as a top-tier male striker, or goalie, or whatever else in football for example (English football I'm talking about here by the way, I don't know anything about Americfootball).

-snip-

as far as sports go, look at the olympics. Women at the peak of fitness are no match for men at peak fitness and would never get picked for the top teams because they simply aren't as good as men at that level

Ok then, so why do they need to be specifically withheld from joining male teams anyway? If they're not good enough as you say then they won't be picked anyway. With the Olympics specifically it's more understandable (though I still disagree with it), but that argument doesn't really work at all with team based sports that rely on a mix of skills. It's entirely plausible that a female could be just as good as a top-tier male striker, or goalie, or whatever else in football for example (English football I'm talking about here by the way, I don't know anything about American football).

I can't speak for Europe but in the US, women can join the NFL or the MLB as there is no rule saying they can't. But as I've said, they don't because they won't ever make it. Do you think it's fair for women to never get to play the sport they love simply because.nobody will pick them? To I can't speak for Europe but in the US, women can join the NFL or the MLB as there is no rule saying they can't. But as I've said, they don't because they won't ever make it. Do you think it's fair for women to never get to play the sport they love simply because.nobody will pick them? To me it's more fair to give them they're own league and let them become the champions they deserve to be than to never allow it to happen at all