"A recognition of differences is not equivalent to a mandate to discriminate...."

[Lul Thyme]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
The real problem that aneeshm has in these threads is the conflation of two types of differences.

The real problem that Cyclotron has in these threads is the conflation of aneeshm's MANY types of problems.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by aneeshm
If one of the assumptions which must be made while deciding policy is that differences exist, then does this not also mean that the objectives to which policy strives are also affected by said differences, and that the differences must be taken into account when deciding what objectives policy and law is supposed to have?

This is so vague as to be meaningless. In some cases, differences are germane to policy; in others, they are not. It is certainly not an assumption that needs to be made in all policies, or even in most policies.

You're trying to force the false dilemma again - "either differences exist and must affect policy, or they don't and must not!" The answer is that sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't, and there's nothing logically inconsistent about that.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Lul Thyme
The real problem that Cyclotron has in these threads is the conflation of aneeshm's MANY types of problems.

No, my real problem is that I just like the word "conflation" too much

Also, I'm terribly bored

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Cyclotron

You're trying to force the false dilemma again - "either differences exist and must affect policy, or they don't and must not!" The answer is that sometimes they do, and sometimes they don't, and there's nothing logically inconsistent about that.

Absolutely correct! Which means that one starting assumption is that differences can, in fact, exist.

This also means that not only the policy, but also the objectives of policy must take into account those differences. Agreed so far?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Absolutely correct! Which means that one starting assumption is that differences can, in fact, exist.

Sigh. Yes, this is something that nobody ever disputed, even in the last thread. Can we get over this already?

This also means that not only the policy, but also the objectives of policy must take into account those differences. Agreed so far?

No.

As stated earlier, in situations where the difference is total - e.g. wombs versus no wombs - it should be. In cases where the difference is a tendency, it should not be.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Cyclotron

No.

As stated earlier, in situations where the difference is total - e.g. wombs versus no wombs - it should be. In cases where the difference is a tendency, it should not be.

I'm not talking about how policy is made relating to specific instances, or even tendencies, I'm talking about whether or not, during the formulation of objectives of policy, differences should be taken into account or not.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by aneeshm
I'm not talking about how policy is made relating to specific instances, or even tendencies, I'm talking about whether or not, during the formulation of objectives of policy, differences should be taken into account or not.

That depends on the policy and the difference.

[Lonestar]

Re: "A recognition of differences is not equivalent to a mandate to discriminate...."

Originally posted by aneeshm



What are your views on this?

[BlackCat]

Why do I think that this is yet another islamophobic trap ?

Well, shortly said, if hindu civ wants to make laws based on gender outside the pure biological, then the hindu culture have no right to survive.

[Zkribbler]

Re: "A recognition of differences is not equivalent to a mandate to discriminate...."

Originally posted by aneeshm
Note that if we assume equivalence, then things like the man paying alimony and child support go out the window. There is also no division of assets or income mandated between the two partners in a marriage in case of divorce.

California does not have "alimony" as you describe it but rather "spousal support." For example, when a woman is the breadwinner, she is required to make payments to the man. Child support goes to whichever person is raising the child.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by BlackCat
Why do I think that this is yet another islamophobic trap ?

No, aneeshm has hit puberty and moved on to women now.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by aneeshm


I'm not talking about how policy is made relating to specific instances, or even tendencies, I'm talking about whether or not, during the formulation of objectives of policy, differences should be taken into account or not.

Easy answer: no. Slightly more complicated answer: even if you acknowledge differences, you still make policy that doesn't.

Women can get pregnant, men can't. But you still formulate the policy as a policy for any pregnant person; should a man, through some miracle, become pregnant, he may avail himself of the policy unproblematically.

Women tend to lack the upper-body strength of men. But you don't make a man/woman policy on, say, being a firefighter; you make an upper-body strength policy -- one that some women (like a positively Amazonian cop friend of mine) could pass and some men (I'm guessing most everyone who spends all day on Poly) could not.

Women live longer than men. But you still pick one sex-neutral retirment age for the society.

And so on. Get it?

[Az]

Women live longer than men. But you still pick one sex-neutral retirment age for the society.

not in all countries.


Generally, the laws of today are just fine, except the fact that women are given custody of children more often because of some voodoo "baby always loves mommy better" misconceptions...

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Az

Women live longer than men. But you still pick one sex-neutral retirment age for the society.

not in all countries.

Didn't know that; still, one age for all is better,

Generally, the laws of today are just fine,

In the West, anyway.

except the fact that women are given custody of children more often because of some voodoo "baby always loves mommy better" misconceptions...

And this, of course, is not policy; it is a failure to implement policy with neutrality. 150 years ago (in the US, anyway), custody would have almost always gone to the father because of a different set of social prejudices.