non-binary rights

[IHPUN]

-If people of a certain group tend to lack comparable skills, that will reduce (but not eliminate) the economic cost of discriminating against members of that group.  However, it would also mean that fewer of them would be hired even if their group status were not considered.  The solution is for those people to get more skills; their supporters should aid them in this.
-Minorities frequently have less economic clout, so those two points go together.  Usually lower political clout goes with these, so they would also have trouble getting laws passed to prohibit discrimination against them.  Hard work on their part and/or the support of others is the solution either way.
-All else being equal, a new competitor is at a disadvantage.  But if the established firm does what the supplier in your example does, it will be creating many disadvantages for itself in terms of investors, employees, and customers.  New companies do emerge and take business from more established companies that are inefficient.
-I completely agree that there is a danger of regulation harming new competitors.  This is one reason why I dislike centralized power and am skeptical of proposed new regulations.
-"through fear of also being descriminated against" - If you stop supporting a business that discriminates, it can't really harm you any further, can it?  This is a much bigger threat when the government does it, because the government is a monopoly and has lots of guns to keep it that way.
-If your solution to discrimination is passing laws, you are already relying on having more political weight.  Overcoming discrimination by a group with a lot of economic weight would also require either economic or political clout either way.  I prefer boycotts, etc. because it seems to be a more peaceful route, and partial victory is possible along the way (you don't just have to wait until you have a legislative majority, an executive who will sign the law and enforce it, etc.).

[tekla]

What keeps governments behaving properly?

Given recent history, as well as current revelations, apparently the answer is, 'very little.'

Nicky is right, the playing field is never level, and never will be.  Barriers may be worked on, but human nature, genetics and nurture will all work to keep the field from ever being level.

[IHPUN]

Given recent history, as well as current revelations, apparently the answer is, 'very little.'

Well, you're right, unfortunately.  I should have said "What, if anything?" 

Nicky is right, the playing field is never level, and never will be.  Barriers may be worked on, but human nature, genetics and nurture will all work to keep the field from ever being level.

I guess you're right here as well.  The level playing field is an ideal, and there's a lot of debate on what exactly constitutes a level playing field, anyway.  But where do you stand on the question of using the (chronically misbehaving) government to try to fight discrimination, as opposed to action that is mostly outside of the government?  What is the best way to change people's minds and make life better for people who are now discriminated against?

[Simone Louise]

What is the best way to change people's minds and make life better for people who are now discriminated against?

Here's another case of economic discrimination. Quoting from Wikipedia: "General Order No. 11 was the title of an order issued by Major-General Ulysses S. Grant on December 17, 1862, during the American Civil War. It became notorious for its instruction for the expulsion of all Jews in his military district comprising areas of Tennessee, Mississippi, and Kentucky. The order was issued as part of a campaign against a black market in Southern cotton, which Grant was convinced was being run 'mostly by Jews and other unprincipled traders'.

"Following protests from Jewish community leaders and an outcry by members of Congress and the press, it was revoked a few weeks later by order of President Abraham Lincoln. Grant later claimed it had been drafted by a subordinate and that he had signed it without reading." Remember Jews were and are a tiny, vocal minority.

M.K Ghandi and Martin Luther King, Jr. both wrestled with problem of an underdog minority fighting injustice. My understanding is that their approaches involved visibly, vocally, non-violently pricking the consciences of the majority and of the members of government.

Off to cook supper (lamb chops, pilaf, and green beans tonight),
S

[IHPUN]

Interesting.  I'd never heard about General Order No. 11.  I'll need to add that to my list of cases of government discrimination and persecution.  Certainly the government, which forces people to pay taxes to it and uses the threat of force to accomplish its goals, should never discriminate in this manner.

It's interesting that you bring up Gandhi and Dr. King.  Just yesterday, I read Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience," an essay which inspired both of them.  It really starts off with a bang as political essays go, essentially suggesting in the first paragraph that anarchy will and should develop, and I must say I'm leaning more and more in that direction.  I agree with non-payment of taxes and non-compliance with unjust laws as strategies for dealing with government, and boycotts, social ostracism, and other such strategies for dealing with individuals and private corporations.  Non-violence is what ties all of these strategies together.

[Lynne]

Hello folks,

The discussion reminds me of an MLK quote:

"It may be true that the law cannot make a man love me, but it can keep him from lynching me, and I think that's pretty important." [Martin Luther King Jr.]

That about sums it up for me. Someone wants to be a bigot in their own life? Go ahead -- but keep it in your own life / home. As soon as we enter a common area (financially, politically, religiously, etc), though, then respect must be enforced if it doesn't show itself voluntarily. What's that old saying..? "Your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins"?

[IHPUN]

Lynne, I agree with both of your quotes, but your view of a person's own life is extremely narrow.  For example, if a person starts a company, and this person chooses not to hire or do business with certain people, even if it's for a really stupid reason, how is that in any way equivalent to lynching a person or swinging a fist into their nose?  What's closer to that is if the government sends men with guns to this hypothetical business to close it down and arrest the owner.  That's the crucial thing for me: who is the first to use force or fraud on another person?  In discrimination cases, it seems like it's frequently the government.  I feel like maybe the government's resources would be better used pursuing people who actually kill others or swing their fists into people's noses.

[Kinkly]

I'm a person I have the same needs as everyone else so I should have the same rights as all other people.  I haven't been actively discriminated against for gender identity reasons but i have felt "special treatment" because of my disability some positive some not so.  While I was still in denile of gender issues I hated being let out of things that some girls were doing.  Some sis people love excluding others from there womens/mens groups

[IHPUN]

...I should have the same rights as all other people. 

That's true, but that still leaves the question of what a right is.  The biggest divide is negative rights vs. positive rights.  Under a negative conception of rights, you have the right not to have things taken from you by force (life, liberty, property).  Under positive rights, you are entitled to things even if other people must provide them for you, so men with guns can be sent to take things from others and give them to you.  I personally believe that people cannot harm others, but we cannot be forced to help others either, since the act of forcing one person to do something for another violates their rights (I believe in giving people the broadest possible freedom to do what they want, as long as they don't harm others, and I believe harming others is very different from not helping them).

[ericc]

I do strongly believe that us Non-Binaries should have rights. I'm tired of living in a Heteronormality based world where everything is based on the politically incorrect Gender Binary System.

I was watching this video on YouTube not long ago and it's about a world where all genders are respected.

6-15 Gender Neutral World


I've had numberious of discussions on a few Transgender Forums about how there really should be a Non-Binary Community just for us. Because I noticed even in Transgender meetings, most of the people there are Trans Binary and barely if any Non-Binary. Even though the Transgender Communites are starting to become more and more aware, I think that someone should stand up and start to make the Non-Binary Communites more and more reconizable and more aware.

[Simone Louise]

"In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way--everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want--which, translated into universal terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants--everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear--which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor--anywhere in the world.

That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb."
   
— Franklin D. Roosevelt, excerpted from the State of the Union Address to the Congress, January 6, 1941 (copied from Wikipedia)

"the person must be clearly informed that he or she has the right to consult with an attorney and to have that attorney present during questioning, and that, if he or she is indigent, an attorney will be provided at no cost to represent him or her."

— quoted from U.S. Supreme Court decision (also copied from Wikipedia)

I believe all, regardless of gender, are entitled to lead a healthy life, free from such fears as those of bodily injury and harassment. Economic assistance, at home and abroad, is as much an God-given obligation as our rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are God-given. I believe the People are required to provide legal counsel for those who cannot afford it. The authority and money required by the state to ensure such rights must come from its citizens.

Allowing a human being to starve or die from treatable disease violates their most fundamental rights,
S