Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:38:06 -0400 Mime-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: The 14th Amendment is Dead... Alll Hail the 14.5 Amendment! Content-Language: en-US Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv References: <0flvuihgfvqd7287qoat863cho187vaph7@4ax.com> <17bc0f476d4c436f$13$2906873$52d51861@news.newsdemon.com> <17bc32f3608a45d7$38600$1351842$40d50a60@news.newsdemon.com> <3m77vihm9vtpqv4a2e87v006dliuj98md9@4ax.com> From: moviePig In-Reply-To: <3m77vihm9vtpqv4a2e87v006dliuj98md9@4ax.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 45 Path: ...!news-out.netnews.com!news.alt.net!us1.netnews.com!weretis.net!feeder6.news.weretis.net!usenet.blueworldhosting.com!diablo1.usenet.blueworldhosting.com!feeder.usenetexpress.com!tr2.iad1.usenetexpress.com!news.newsdemon.com!not-for-mail Nntp-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2024 17:38:07 +0000 X-Received-Bytes: 3043 Organization: NewsDemon - www.newsdemon.com X-Complaints-To: abuse@newsdemon.com Message-Id: <17bd00c6f4652161$50579$1585792$4ad50060@news.newsdemon.com> Bytes: 3474 On 3/14/2024 9:13 PM, The Horny Goat wrote: > On Tue, 12 Mar 2024 22:46:19 -0400, moviePig > wrote: > >>> Because treating people of two different races differently in the same >>> situation is the definition of racism. >> >> No it isn't, not even practically, no more than gendering bathrooms is >> sexism. Behaving negatively towards a particular race is racism. >> > Yes it is - "separate but equal" was defined as racism decades ago. At > least in your country if not mine. (Though Canada does follow US usage > on this point) Nor is it true that ONLY white people can be racist - > racism exists in all ethnic groups and colors and nobody gets a 'free > pass'. > > And allowing one man into a "womens' space" like a restroom removes > its status as a safe place for women which is why the whole 'gender > identity' debate is so important. > > I went into womens' dressing rooms all the time in high school - but > it was NEVER at a time when women were expected to be using the > dressing room. (No big deal - in high school sports both dressing > rooms were used - the home team got the mens' change room, the > visitors got the womens') Nor would any varsity basketball player > dream of entering a womens' change room under any other circumstances > - for instance we never would have gone in during regular school hours > as it was a 'safe place' then. > > With respect to 'safe places' (usually restrooms or change rooms) > there is clearly a clash between womens' rights and gender identity > and in cases where a choice has to be made I'll stand by the women > every time. Because believe it or not most men DO care about the > safety of their wives and daughters. 'Separate but equal' was a lie, in that 'separate' meant 'not entitled to associate with whites' -- a clearly negative treatment. It resembled laws against 'miscegenation'. Moreover, of course, no one in his right mind ever believed the 'equal' promise. As for gendered bathrooms, I suspect they're no more than a statistical blip regarding women's physical safety. The real issue there is mere social propriety ...even if it's of trauma-level concern to many/most.