Cycling + > Free For All


<< < (10/10)

I remain all ears. (Should I run that picture again? Oh why not.)

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 -

While this discussion about ties pre-dates it considerably -
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 -

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 -
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."
--- End quote ---

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.

Still here.
I appreciate that women have generally had the worse of dress codes.

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 -

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.

Thanks for giving the Quillette piece a critical eye.


[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version