Just been thinking a bit about non-binary rights in society including things like the right to have official documentation with your gender identity, the right to marriage, the right to using male or female spaces, the right to protection from descrimination, the right of recognition.
Now I was thinking that if we view oursleves as defects of the standard human model, does this affect what our rights are compared to if we view ourselves of just a normal variation of the human condition?
On one hand you could treat us as having the rights of any other 'disabled' person i.e. things like access, dignity, opportunity... on the other you can argue for similar rights as males and females. (all this is moot of course if you can get universal human rights regardless of age, sex, ethnicity, gender etc... and any breach is considered equally as bad).
I don't really know much about law and such, just wondering if anyone else had any interesting thoughts on the topic of non-binary rights?
Holy schmoly, this makes me think so much of an article that I just read about disabled rights, about whether disabilites are the defect or whether the way society doesn't accept these people and make the world more accesible is the problem. You and someone at Feministe have some psychic wavelength going.
Unrelated, but I've always thought the fact that you have to have a legal gender is kind of dumb, though not as bad as seperate bathrooms (there are stalls; no one else can see you unless you use a urinal, and that's your choice).
natural rights...
It's like on surveys and such, I always make my own box and put "Other" next to it, even if I don't always check it. :P
There should be a third box anyway on everything. Sooner of later, people will get the point and we'll be equal everywhere.
The problem is with society and not us.
cultural norms in the western world were created in a way that pigeonholes people and actions.
Quote from: Rebis on July 08, 2009, 10:38:37 AM
The problem is with society and not us.
cultural norms in the western world were created in a way that pigeonholes people and actions.
I think it depends on your perspective. From the perspective of 'society' we are the ones with the problem, the broken ones. Who has the greater right? This is why I think human rights in general is something worth fighting for rather than specific rights for us.
My rights are more important than anyone else's.
Apparently, I'm not feeling very charitable today, eh?
Goes without saying Rebecca, you always come first :)
Thank you for recognizing that. :laugh:
I even named my first daughter after you :)
Excellent! Soon the world will be ruled by us Rebeccas
Sigourney weavers character in the alien movies was called rebecca.
I don't really like to talk about rights of specific, narrow groups. I think that all people have the right to basically do as they please as long as they're not hurting anybody else. This includes the right to engage in discrimination based on any criteria, assuming no coercion or fraud is involved. This freedom does not extend to agents of the state acting in official capacity, as government should treat all people acting as specified above as equal under the law.
Regarding "defects" or "normal variations," I would say that transgender persons are neither; that is, while we appear to be rare, our accomplishments judged as a group seem to indicate that we are decidedly not "defective" (many good artists, musicians, scientists, etc.).
Regarding official (governmental) documentation, the best approaches would probably be an "other" option or making the question itself optional.
The government should have essentially nothing to do with marriage, and should not generally acknowledge it as distinct from any other contract between 2 or more consenting adults. Religious groups, employers, insurance companies, and other private actors (receiving no money from government/taxpayers) would decide what kinds of marriage they wish to recognize; I imagine that a small (but larger than now) number of distinct types would emerge with fairly broad acceptance.
Regarding protection from discrimination, everybody discriminates. It can be useful. To forbid people from discriminating based on selected factors does not change their beliefs; it just violates their rights, forces them to hide their discrimination, and stifles debate on the issue. If an individual or business discriminates based on invalid criteria (i.e. criteria that do not indicate criminality, unsuitability for a certain job, or anything else that might be considered negative), he/she/it/whatever will be harmed economically. In general, more open-minded people will be more successful, as they can hire the best employees regardless of race, religion, gender identity, etc. and do business with all willing customers.
You might not agree with me on all of this, which is to be expected. But I hope you will consider the importance of having an idea of rights that is as universal and durable as possible. Rights should not be applied only to certain people, nor should new rights usually have to be specified whenever a new race/religion/gender identity is created/discovered/officially recognized. I feel that giving the maximum possible liberty to all people is the best way to do this.
I don't think the state should or could stay out of marriage, there is too much riding on it - the rights of a spouse to their partners wealth if they die, the rights of a spouse to be recognised legally as next of kin, or to be the legel guardian of their kids to name some. Marriage is a legel thing. Sure, I guess people could write their own contracts, but who writes the law around what you can and can not do with these contracts? Government does.
The problem with not protecting people from discimination is that you can end up creating power groups around people holding similar views. Those with all the money and power having much more licence to descriminate than anyone else. You get WW2, you get iraq, you get zimbabwe, you get apartied, you get transexuals being murdered a nobody caring. You get situations where it harms you economicly not to descriminate. To descriminate is a violation of human rights, that is more important than a right to descriminate.
Quote from: IHPUN on July 15, 2009, 01:02:14 AM
I don't really like to talk about rights of specific, narrow groups. I think that all people have the right to basically do as they please as long as they're not hurting anybody else. This includes the right to engage in discrimination based on any criteria, assuming no coercion or fraud is involved. This freedom does not extend to agents of the state acting in official capacity, as government should treat all people acting as specified above as equal under the law.
I have seen too much of the effects of discrimination to be silent when company or organization claims a right to discriminate against people because they belong to a particular minority. I remember puzzling over the meaning of the sign posted on the outskirts of Kenilworth, Illinois: "Kenilworth is a restricted community". I remember when real estate agents would only show Jews houses in some neighborhoods, and blacks only houses in other neighborhoods. I was surprised that, when traveling through Texas in the 1950s, my mother would not let me wander to the rear of the one-car train. I was told not to apply to Ohio State University, because the engineering school had a quota for Jews. My first wife abandoned her dream of becoming an archeologist because the professor told her women were not allowed on digs. I know of highly skilled Jews who were condemned to Nazi gas chambers because American employers would not hire Jews, no matter how highly qualified. When I was very young, some schools would not play the university I eventually attended because there were black players on the team. I remember heated discussions over whether my school's band and cheerleading team should allow women participants.
One of my close friends at school was a paraplegic, having had polio as a child. I remember the obstacles he faced in gaining a university education. The disability legislation of the intervening years makes a lot of sense to me.
When my wife, before we met, wanted to marry an Israeli, where the Orthodox religious authorities control marriage, she was told she must first prove her great-grandmother, born in Ireland, was Jewish or convert, promising to live as an Orthodox Jew. Her fiance was killed in war, making that a moot point. Several members of both our families have been married by civil authorities in the US, and could not have married except for that option.
The idea that hotels, restaurants, theaters, and the like would again be free to discriminate against people on account of their ethnic background or gender preference is totally repugnant to me. It is not about the rights of specific, narrow groups; it is about the rights of individuals to be treated as individuals without regard to the groups to which the individual belongs. I agree that people should be allowed to do and think as they please "as long as they're not hurting anybody else". Discrimination hurts. Sometimes it hurts physically. Sometimes it hurts materially. Sometimes it simply dehumanizes.
Oh yes, and since this is a current subject of debate here in Massachusetts, I think transgendered people should be allowed to use the public facilities of their choice, and do not think that will lead to an increase in sexual predatory acts.
Returning to the role of Nero's meekest subject, I am humbly
S
Regarding the state getting out of marriage, I realize there are some difficulties. Perhaps marriage could be regarded by the state as a somewhat special class of contracts. Basically I think there should be sufficient separation of legal marriage from religious marriage that the law would look at marriages in roughly the same way regardless of gender or number of participants, while not forcing individuals or private organizations to recognize the full variety of marriages that would then be possible.
Your examples of discrimination are certainly things I'd like to avoid; it's an important part of my personal philosophy. Note that all of your examples primarily involve government oppressing people directly, while one of them ("transexuals being murdered a nobody caring") involves government neglecting an essential duty due to the fact that a crime victim is transsexual. Government should treat people as equal under the law, and its ability to discriminate should be severely restricted by every available means. I don't think laws against discrimination by private actors would restrict the government from doing any of the things you mentioned.
Regarding economic harm resulting from not discriminating, could you give an example? To me, if economic harm results from not discriminating, that would indicate that the discrimination proposed may have some validity; I'd like to know what case you're thinking about where this wouldn't be true. Also, keep in mind that I'm not talking about government discrimination; I agree with you that it should not exist.
Quote from: IHPUN on July 15, 2009, 05:18:06 PM
Regarding economic harm resulting from not discriminating, could you give an example?
Sure. I programmed computers for 30 years. Eight years ago, when I decided to stop working for myself, and resume programming for others, I couldn't even get an interview. One human resources person told me explicitly by phone that I was too old to learn new things. That seemed to be the general unspoken attitude. So, I load and unload trucks in a UPS warehouse. I love the job, and the healthcare benefits are good. But I earn a fifth of what I earned twenty years ago programming computers. Nor am I the only programmer over a certain age laid off and unable to find comparable employment. Even before the current economic downturn.
Still physically and mentally fit,
S
The example I was thinking of, if discrimination was considered ok -
A major supplier might descriminate against asians and decide that they will not give discounts to their customers that employ asian workers. So the buisnesses that employ asian workers might have the better staff as they have a greater variety of people to choose from, but they are not as economically viable as the business down the road that does not employ asian workers as they can create more profit or market their wares at lower cost.
I think it is important to remember that governments can be created or taken over or influenced by people in power and the people in power have more ability to descriminate than anyone else. The best way to avoid this I think is to stop discriminating groups getting too much power by not allowing them to descriminate in the first place. Allowing people the right to descriminate is just a slippery slope.
Simone Louise, your example is interesting and unfortunate, but I'm not sure if it fits my criteria. It sounds like employers are being harmed economically by their decision not to hire older workers, because you would seem to be at least as good a hire as a younger worker overall. If your performance is just as good as that of a younger worker, as you imply, then a business willing to hire you and others like you could convince you and other programmers like you to work for them, but wouldn't have to pay you quite as much because nobody else would hire you. Therefore, they would gain at least a slight economic advantage over competitors by getting quality work done by programmers they don't have to pay as much.
Nicky, your example is interesting, so lets consider what might happen.
-If the price without the discount were high enough, companies employing Asians (and thereby having the advantage of a better staff) would switch to a competing supplier, if there is one. New competitors may spring up. These competitors will also have an advantage if they are willing to hire Asians.
-What does the supplier supply and where does it come from? If it's manufactured goods, it probably comes from somewhere in Asia. The supplier's suppliers may seek to shift their business away from this company.
-Who buys from the supplier's clients? The Asian community will attempt to find out and boycott, and they will probably be joined by members of other races.
-Does the supplier have investors? Even if the companies not employing Asians have the advantage among the supplier's customers, investors will probably not be happy that this company is putting bigotry before profit. If they can get away with denying the discount, maybe they shouldn't be giving any discounts. If companies employing Asians are taking their business elsewhere, that's hurting profit as well.
-Who works for the supplier? If they're not all anti-Asian bigots, some will leave the company, or make plans to do so. The supplier will likely lose many of its best employees, possibly to its competitors.
What keeps governments behaving properly? The people. To prevent discrimination by government (which you seem to agree is the more dangerous kind, and I think your historical examples back that up), the opinion must prevail among the people that government must not discriminate. Your historical examples and the statement that "people in power have more ability to discriminate" also seem to support another idea: that power should not become too centralized. In any case, changing people's beliefs is the way to solve the problem of discrimination, both in government and in other areas of life. To me, "changing people's beliefs" sounds like persuasion, not force; anti-discrimination laws, though I agree with their ostensible purpose, seem more likely to cover up the problem by threatening force against those who wish to discriminate.
I think your points probably hold true on a level playing field. But the world is not like that. Lets say the descriminated group are people of low socio economic status, as they usually are. They don't tend to have comparable skills, they don't have much economic weight, they could be also be a minority which further reduces any economic power they might hold. Any competetors instantly start off on the back foot. You might also get some regulartory descrimination creeping in as those with money or political power use their authority to further descriminate and make it even harder for 'competetors'. You get institutionalised descrimination in the economic system. There is no balancing system at work here. Some people would speak out, but most would not through fear of also being descriminated against, or they just go along with what appears to be condoned in society. All it would take is for a group with some economic or political weight to decide to descriminate.
Your model relies on people standing up for the little guy, most people don't do that. They are even less likely to do it if society is saying that it is ok to descriminate. When you were bullied at school who looked out for your interests? Nobody looked out for mine. This is just the same thing on a larger scale.
-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.).
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.
Quote from: tekla on July 15, 2009, 10:52:56 PM
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?" :P
Quote from: tekla on July 15, 2009, 10:52:56 PM
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?
Quote from: IHPUN on July 16, 2009, 12:48:24 AM
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
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.
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"?
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.
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
Quote from: Kinkly on July 24, 2009, 07:18:40 AM
...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).
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 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaqpZCJD0NY#noexternalembed-lq-lq2-hq-vhq)
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.
"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