Author Topic: TWAM

sam

Re: TWAM
« Reply #40 on: July 30, 2021 »
Repetition has its uses. In this case my setting it up got us past that awkward bit where it became clear david wasn't coming back (oops) without getting into a debate about your previous posts. Call me a fool for tangents, but I was fine with the I Ching.

I'm not a debater. I like listening to ideas and having them bubble out in other ways. Doesn't help move a thread such as this along, I know, which was why I was pleased to actually have two very different people posting here. The three of us are of three generations (maybe two and a half), which gave it even more potential to be interesting.

Re: TWAM
« Reply #41 on: July 31, 2021 »
I was up for talking about the difference between tranvestite and transexual next by all means, but not quite yet - a few other things were still hanging on the art of conversation, not even mostly about more previous posts. I surely won't enjoy having the I Ching thrown over a knee-jerk reaction or two.

I also considered crying 'NO - not every thing is binary!' in a philosophical vein, with references, but this seems more argumentative and complicated and less conversational than just giving counter examples.

And I haven't got back to you yet on ties as a dress code. The symbolism eluded me up to now. Hmm. I never wear anything wrapped around the neck. Not safe.






sam

Re: TWAM
« Reply #42 on: July 31, 2021 »
I remain all ears. (Should I run that picture again? Oh why not.)


Re: TWAM
« Reply #43 on: July 31, 2021 »
I hope that doesn't mean the end of conversation.

I was surprised that even recently employers felt they could insist on sex-specific dress codes. There have been a couple of discrimination cases in the UK recently. This article is from 2018 -
https://www.tuc.org.uk/blogs/government-finally-bans-sexist-dress-codes-work

While this discussion about ties pre-dates it considerably -
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/2794223.stm
Interesting because the opinions, though various, strike me as being more evolved than a lot of contemporary ones, though missing your symbolic point.

This kind of thing concerning bar staff is a more difficult and still endemic problem -
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/women-dress-codes-human-rights-1.3476964


Any gender/sex specific dress code is a primitive idea, be it for school, work, or whatever else. On some level it has to be a fetishisation I feel, but I have a hunch most people would find this hard to accept - high heels and make-up, formal neckties are seen as ordinary enough to pass without notice, but they're all bloody weird when you think about it.

Oh dear, now I've found this, contemporary stuff -
https://www.citation.co.uk/news/hr-and-employment-law/dress-code-policy-and-discrimination/
If you scroll down it says,

Quote
"Employers can request a clean and professional appearance from their staff, particularly in customer facing jobs, and this includes make-up. It doesn't matter that this would largely concern only women, as it's a gender-norm."

Well there we have it. Explains a lot. I am beyond furious.

Also I bet it could be legally challenged on a religious basis more easily than on a logical one.

sam

Re: TWAM
« Reply #44 on: August 01, 2021 »
Still here.
I appreciate that women have generally had the worse of dress codes.

Re: TWAM
« Reply #45 on: August 05, 2021 »
It is the very existence and apparent credibility of dress codes that I object to.


I take the liberty of copying this link here from the thread on the issues around transwomen in competitive cycling -

https://quillette.com/2021/08/04/the-incoherence-of-gender-ideology/?fbclid=IwAR3oLz0iaZ11-xDaNAKuz-GTfb-CdvxavRNhRFM2X8PtdNnxyqIU-vj-q9c

Dr. Robillard makes an excellent philosophical case to debunk a lot of misunderstanding about the nature of truth with regard to the 'truth of nature' as it were. (He then goes on to get a bit cavalier with the extensions of this analysis into examples of logical fallacies affecting 'real life' situations, the result being that iff the admirable opening of the article managed to make readers re-assess logical aspects of problems of definition, then it was likely to lose sympathy later on with slightly scathing references. Hmmm.)

The proposition 'gender is a social construct' is one I have raised in politically correct circles online. No-one could really disagree with it. Few could then grasp that,

a) if gender is a social construct and we are libertarians we should be able to reject it freely, which would include rejecting being called 'cis-gender'.

b) further, if a person of androgenous looks has spent life thus far resisting other people's ideas of gender appropriate behaviour/appearance (whether just by being independent or more actively) it doesn't help that person if there is a current now (claiming to be liberatory) that reinforces ideas of gender appropriate characteristics.

Nevertheless I reckon the debunking of most trans-activist theory follows logically from the proposition 'gender is a social construct'. However if someone claims that 'gender is not a social construct, then they are claiming that some characteristics that are voluntary/customary rather than biological are inherently male or female. This is what the make-up get out clause in employment law does, and why it really gets my goat.


Incidentally the inability of many people to string a logical argument together, despite the opportunities of modern education, is the main reason I object to the reduction of mathematics in primary schools to strings of 'maths facts' based on simple arithmetic without philosophical context.

sam

Re: TWAM
« Reply #46 on: August 05, 2021 »
Thanks for giving the Quillette piece a critical eye.