Is it okay to discriminate by sex when appointing a sex discrimination commissioner?

[dismal]

The quote you are responding to has nothing at all to do with discrimination against women. It is obvious that Toni is providing rationales for why she prefers femal gynecologists over male gynecologists. So your response is literally pointless.

Many gynaecologists are highly discriminatory, and rarely, if ever, treat male patients. It's a scandal.

Men have vaginas too you know.

Can a mod please ban Bilby for his offensive and hurtful genderism?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You're making the implicit assumption that all sex discrimination is against women. Since that's false your argument doesn't work.

WTF? Clearly your response above is NOT to the post you quoted.

No, you're just so fixed on the discrimination being one-way that you can't work the other way around.

A female gynecologist will have more experience of what her patients experience than a male one.

A female discrimination tzar won't have any experience of experiencing reverse discrimination.

- - - Updated - - -

There is no "1". The Sex Discrimination Act forbids discrimination against all genders.

But we are dealing with people who don't believe in reverse discrimination.

 

[laughing dog]

WTF? Clearly your response above is NOT to the post you quoted.

No, you're just so fixed on the discrimination being one-way that you can't work the other way around.

A female gynecologist will have more experience of what her patients experience than a male one.

A female discrimination tzar won't have any experience of experiencing reverse discrimination.

You really need to actually read posts. Toni also wrote

While I agree that it would be unnecessarily limiting to take candidates from only one gender or from only one sexual orientation--or perhaps more accurately to eliminate any candidates from a particular gender or orientation, I can also see the benefit for choosing from among applicants who have a perspective which is quite similar to the group being represented.

Choosing someone who is a member of the group to be represented as the head of the agency charged with representing their perspective is politically expedient, for one thing. More importantly, it also helps to inspire confidence from that group in the ability of the leader of the agency.

Since it is not logically possible for a person of a specific characteristic (gender, etc....) to have any experience in discrimination against people without that characteristic, what exactly is your point?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I have told this story before. I seem to need to tell it again

When I was in high school, 10th or 11th grade, the big race scandal was that there were no black cheerleaders on the squad. I didn't go to football games because, well, we sucked, so I had not really paid attention to this until I heard a group of girls discussing it one day at lunch. During study hall, I went to see the adviser for the school paper and asked if I could do an expose on the obvious injustice of freezing black girls out of cheerleading. Ms. M_______ said fine and told me that the squad would be holding additional tryouts because two of the girls were moving to another county. AHA! I thought. I would now show to the world the prejudice and hate seething at my school. (like anything was seething in the sleepy little rural county were I spent my high school years.)

So the next week, intrepid reporter AA, went to tryouts, tape recorder and note pad at the ready.

I was the only girl of color there.

There is no discrimination against a group if no one from the group shows up for or wants a given position. Can there be prejudicial attitudes and a culture that discourages certain groups from trying out? Yes. Should these things be dealt with? Most definitely. But to prove discrimination, you have to have an actual act to point to. That is why the landmark case, Brown v. Board is called Brown v. Board and not No Black Children in the School vs. Board.

Once again you assume disparate results proves discrimination.

Cheerleading isn't merely a matter of interest, but money. You don't just turn up to be a cheerleader, you have to demonstrate a fair amount of gymnastic ability--and that costs a fair amount of money to acquire.

I suppose the basketball coaches should be required to not discriminate against white players, either.

- - - Updated - - -

Many gynaecologists are highly discriminatory, and rarely, if ever, treat male patients. It's a scandal.

Men have vaginas too you know.

Can a mod please ban Bilby for his offensive and hurtful genderism?

I just had a thought here--the place where my wife gets her mammograms doesn't allow men into that part of the building. What happens if a man needs a mammogram? (It does happen, albeit rarely.)

- - - Updated - - -

No, you're just so fixed on the discrimination being one-way that you can't work the other way around.

A female gynecologist will have more experience of what her patients experience than a male one.

A female discrimination tzar won't have any experience of experiencing reverse discrimination.

You really need to actually read posts. Toni also wrote

While I agree that it would be unnecessarily limiting to take candidates from only one gender or from only one sexual orientation--or perhaps more accurately to eliminate any candidates from a particular gender or orientation, I can also see the benefit for choosing from among applicants who have a perspective which is quite similar to the group being represented.

Choosing someone who is a member of the group to be represented as the head of the agency charged with representing their perspective is politically expedient, for one thing. More importantly, it also helps to inspire confidence from that group in the ability of the leader of the agency.

Since it is not logically possible for a person of a specific characteristic (gender, etc....) to have any experience in discrimination against people without that characteristic, what exactly is your point?

She's still assuming the only issue is male on female discrimination, ignoring the issue of reverse discrimination. If anything I think the latter is a bigger deal these days.

 

[Metaphor]

I would think that you would be the first to realize that anecdotal evidence is not data nor is it proof. Nor are the comments of a public commentator. Gendered noun usage? This is evidence, according to you? I am surprised.

The fact that the appointee has always been a woman is not 'anecdotal'; it is not some personal experience that I am generalising to be the personal experience of others. It's a factual, verifiable statement about the sex of the people who have held the role.

I also said it is evidence, not proof. But this is a complete distraction. The fact that I believe there has been sex discrimination is not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about whether it is desirable or undesirable to discriminate by sex when appointing a Sex Discrimination Officer.

You have not demonstrated discrimination. You may be correct that there is a deliberate effort to not hire men to fill that position. There may be more subtle forces that have conspired for decades to discourage men from obtaining the credentials desirable to fulfill this (newly created?) position. But you have demonstrated no deliberate effort on the part of those who will appoint the commissioner.

The fact that I believe there has been sex discrimination is not what I want to talk about. I'm not seeking to persuade you that there definitely has been discrimination in the appointing of this particular role. I want to talk about whether it is desirable or undesirable to discriminate by sex when appointing a Sex Discrimination Officer.

I also don't think you are understanding the reason that I, and many women prefer a female gynecologist. Please note the specialty. I am not talking about a pediatrician, cardiologist, internist, family practitioner, or even urologist. I'm talking about a specific area of medicine for which women are uniquely predisposed to be empathetic and insightful because of the shared experience of being female.

#notallwomen. You would not expect a trans woman to have had all the same experiences as cis women. But this is a derail. I'm not talking about personal preferences of medical customers.

 

[Metaphor]

Once again you assume disparate results proves discrimination.

AA seems to be saying the opposite. She believed there may have been discrimination in the tryouts but her own experience showed her that wasn't the case. She didn't rule out previous discrimination affecting desire and ability to be a cheerleader but did not assume it had to be the case.

 

[laughing dog]

She's still assuming the only issue is male on female discrimination, ignoring the issue of reverse discrimination.

The only person making assumptions here is you. It is abundantly clear that Toni does not assume only one type of discrimination. She simply is expressing a preference based on the very principle you seem to endorse: a person with the similar relevant experience. From the context of her posts and her actual words, I conclude she thinks that women are more likely to be more sensitive to discrimination based on their lives then men.

If anything I think the latter is a bigger deal these days.

Then it would make sense for you to have a preference for a man all other factors equal even though you know there are other types of discrimination.

 

[Metaphor]

But we are dealing with people who don't believe in reverse discrimination.

There is no reverse discrimination. There's discrimination. Discriminatory judgments can happen by anyone of any gender against anyone of any gender. If there is a prejudiced judgment against a man that is not 'reverse' discrimination. It's discrimination.

The Act is not a 'discrimination against women by men' Act. It forbids discrimination against any gender or sexual orientation in employment (there are certain exceptions but the exceptions are not gender-specific either). The role of the Commissioner is to oversee and uphold the Act.

 

[Toni]

The fact that the appointee has always been a woman is not 'anecdotal'; it is not some personal experience that I am generalising to be the personal experience of others. It's a factual, verifiable statement about the sex of the people who have held the role.

I also said it is evidence, not proof. But this is a complete distraction. The fact that I believe there has been sex discrimination is not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about whether it is desirable or undesirable to discriminate by sex when appointing a Sex Discrimination Officer.

You have not demonstrated discrimination. You may be correct that there is a deliberate effort to not hire men to fill that position. There may be more subtle forces that have conspired for decades to discourage men from obtaining the credentials desirable to fulfill this (newly created?) position. But you have demonstrated no deliberate effort on the part of those who will appoint the commissioner.

The fact that I believe there has been sex discrimination is not what I want to talk about. I'm not seeking to persuade you that there definitely has been discrimination in the appointing of this particular role. I want to talk about whether it is desirable or undesirable to discriminate by sex when appointing a Sex Discrimination Officer.

I also don't think you are understanding the reason that I, and many women prefer a female gynecologist. Please note the specialty. I am not talking about a pediatrician, cardiologist, internist, family practitioner, or even urologist. I'm talking about a specific area of medicine for which women are uniquely predisposed to be empathetic and insightful because of the shared experience of being female.

#notallwomen. You would not expect a trans woman to have had all the same experiences as cis women. But this is a derail. I'm not talking about personal preferences of medical customers.

Short reply: you are not actually understanding the point I was trying to make.

When dealing with important but difficult and sensitive issues, especially personal or intimate ones, it is not at all uncommon for people to feel most comfortable or to have the most confidence in someone they feel will understand those issues and serve as a strong advocate for them.

At this point in time, the general perception is that women are more often the victims of sex discrimination than are men. This may or may not be accurate. But it would explain the likely pool of candidates.

 

[Metaphor]

The fact that the appointee has always been a woman is not 'anecdotal'; it is not some personal experience that I am generalising to be the personal experience of others. It's a factual, verifiable statement about the sex of the people who have held the role.

I also said it is evidence, not proof. But this is a complete distraction. The fact that I believe there has been sex discrimination is not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about whether it is desirable or undesirable to discriminate by sex when appointing a Sex Discrimination Officer.



The fact that I believe there has been sex discrimination is not what I want to talk about. I'm not seeking to persuade you that there definitely has been discrimination in the appointing of this particular role. I want to talk about whether it is desirable or undesirable to discriminate by sex when appointing a Sex Discrimination Officer.

I also don't think you are understanding the reason that I, and many women prefer a female gynecologist. Please note the specialty. I am not talking about a pediatrician, cardiologist, internist, family practitioner, or even urologist. I'm talking about a specific area of medicine for which women are uniquely predisposed to be empathetic and insightful because of the shared experience of being female.

#notallwomen. You would not expect a trans woman to have had all the same experiences as cis women. But this is a derail. I'm not talking about personal preferences of medical customers.

Short reply: you are not actually understanding the point I was trying to make.

When dealing with important but difficult and sensitive issues, especially personal or intimate ones, it is not at all uncommon for people to feel most comfortable or to have the most confidence in someone they feel will understand those issues and serve as a strong advocate for them.

The Sex Discrimination Commissioner is not a personal counsellor or the head of HR at a mid-size company.

If women feel that any man could not be a strong advocate for the ending of sex discrimination in employment as a woman, then those women are prejudiced, and it serves nobody any good to indulge their prejudices.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Once again you assume disparate results proves discrimination.

How Loren? This is a favored talking point of yours but you never offer any analysis to prove it. I don't think you really understand what you are saying. I think you read it somewhere and decided it sounded good, would make you sound like you know something more than black people are scary and you could shut down discussion and thereby claim some sort of victory. It doesn't, It doesn't, and you can't.

Cheerleading isn't merely a matter of interest, but money. You don't just turn up to be a cheerleader, you have to demonstrate a fair amount of gymnastic ability--and that costs a fair amount of money to acquire.

Did i say otherwise? And what does that have to do with what i did say?

I suppose the basketball coaches should be required to not discriminate against white players, either.

WTF???

You have no idea what my post says, do you?

In order to claim discrimination, you have to have an actual real act of discrimination. If no one in a group is trying to do something, then you can't claim that the group is being discriminated against.

GEEEZZZ!!!!

- - - Updated - - -

Many gynaecologists are highly discriminatory, and rarely, if ever, treat male patients. It's a scandal.

Men have vaginas too you know.

Can a mod please ban Bilby for his offensive and hurtful genderism?

I just had a thought here--the place where my wife gets her mammograms doesn't allow men into that part of the building. What happens if a man needs a mammogram? (It does happen, albeit rarely.)

- - - Updated - - -

No, you're just so fixed on the discrimination being one-way that you can't work the other way around.

A female gynecologist will have more experience of what her patients experience than a male one.

A female discrimination tzar won't have any experience of experiencing reverse discrimination.

You really need to actually read posts. Toni also wrote

While I agree that it would be unnecessarily limiting to take candidates from only one gender or from only one sexual orientation--or perhaps more accurately to eliminate any candidates from a particular gender or orientation, I can also see the benefit for choosing from among applicants who have a perspective which is quite similar to the group being represented.

Choosing someone who is a member of the group to be represented as the head of the agency charged with representing their perspective is politically expedient, for one thing. More importantly, it also helps to inspire confidence from that group in the ability of the leader of the agency.

Since it is not logically possible for a person of a specific characteristic (gender, etc....) to have any experience in discrimination against people without that characteristic, what exactly is your point?

She's still assuming the only issue is male on female discrimination, ignoring the issue of reverse discrimination. If anything I think the latter is a bigger deal these days.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Once again you assume disparate results proves discrimination.

AA seems to be saying the opposite. She believed there may have been discrimination in the tryouts but her own experience showed her that wasn't the case. She didn't rule out previous discrimination affecting desire and ability to be a cheerleader but did not assume it had to be the case.

Thank you

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But we are dealing with people who don't believe in reverse discrimination.

There is no reverse discrimination. There's discrimination. Discriminatory judgments can happen by anyone of any gender against anyone of any gender. If there is a prejudiced judgment against a man that is not 'reverse' discrimination. It's discrimination.

The Act is not a 'discrimination against women by men' Act. It forbids discrimination against any gender or sexual orientation in employment (there are certain exceptions but the exceptions are not gender-specific either). The role of the Commissioner is to oversee and uphold the Act.

I consider discrimination done in the name of correcting past discrimination to be reverse discrimination.

 

[Toni]

The fact that the appointee has always been a woman is not 'anecdotal'; it is not some personal experience that I am generalising to be the personal experience of others. It's a factual, verifiable statement about the sex of the people who have held the role.

I also said it is evidence, not proof. But this is a complete distraction. The fact that I believe there has been sex discrimination is not what I want to talk about. I want to talk about whether it is desirable or undesirable to discriminate by sex when appointing a Sex Discrimination Officer.



The fact that I believe there has been sex discrimination is not what I want to talk about. I'm not seeking to persuade you that there definitely has been discrimination in the appointing of this particular role. I want to talk about whether it is desirable or undesirable to discriminate by sex when appointing a Sex Discrimination Officer.

I also don't think you are understanding the reason that I, and many women prefer a female gynecologist. Please note the specialty. I am not talking about a pediatrician, cardiologist, internist, family practitioner, or even urologist. I'm talking about a specific area of medicine for which women are uniquely predisposed to be empathetic and insightful because of the shared experience of being female.

#notallwomen. You would not expect a trans woman to have had all the same experiences as cis women. But this is a derail. I'm not talking about personal preferences of medical customers.

Short reply: you are not actually understanding the point I was trying to make.

When dealing with important but difficult and sensitive issues, especially personal or intimate ones, it is not at all uncommon for people to feel most comfortable or to have the most confidence in someone they feel will understand those issues and serve as a strong advocate for them.

The Sex Discrimination Commissioner is not a personal counsellor or the head of HR at a mid-size company.

If women feel that any man could not be a strong advocate for the ending of sex discrimination in employment as a woman, then those women are prejudiced, and it serves nobody any good to indulge their prejudices.

Can you remind me who is choosing the person to head the commission? Are all women in Australia getting together to choose that person?

How many commissioners have there been, to date?

Do you think that a straight woman would likely the best candidate to head up a commission on gay men's health initiative?

 

[Metaphor]

Can you remind me who is choosing the person to head the commission? Are all women in Australia getting together to choose that person?

The Attorney General, as the first law officer for the Crown, will appoint the person.

I don't know who would be involved in the decision, but senior politicians in the government of the day are probably involved.

How many commissioners have there been, to date?

Six. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_Discrimination_Commissioner

Do you think that a straight woman would likely the best candidate to head up a commission on gay men's health initiative?

Why do you keep asking these questions, knowing what my answer is going to be?

A straight woman may very well be the best candidate to head up a commission on gay men's health. For such a post, I would expect a medical expert in sexual or public health to be appointed with research or clinical experience in gay men's health. Would there be any women in such a position?

Do you think every single medical expert in sexual/public health specialising in gay men's health is a gay man, and therefore excluding women from the role makes no difference?

The gender and sexual orientation of the person are irrelevant and it is morally undesirable to claim that they're relevant when they are not, and discriminate against people on these factors.

And once again, you've made a misleading analogy. A gay men's health initiative is presumably specifically set up in the interest of improving gay men's health. It's excluding all genders and sexual orientations excepted the named ones.

The role of Sex Discrimination Commissioner is set up to oversee and uphold the Sex Discrimination Act, which protects all genders and sexual orientations from discrimination in employment.

You could mount some argument that a gay men's health initiative is best headed by a person that 'resembles' the targets of the initiative (although as I've said, I do not accept such an argument); but how much the less could you possibly say that women represent all genders and sexual orientations in terms of a Sex Discrimination Commissioner? By definition, any single person could not.

By the way, I have so far not questioned your assumption that people 'on the inside' have a valuable perspective not attainable to those on the outside. Yet you discount the perspective of someone 'on the outside', as if an outside perspective could not be valuable, or in fact, more valuable. If, for example, discrimination against women in employment comes from, in part, a work culture attuned to male interests, who is going to have the insider perspective on these interests -- a man or a woman? Women do not know what goes on behind closed doors when only men are in the room; they're incapable of leveraging off information they do not have as outsiders.

 

[Toni]

The Attorney General, as the first law officer for the Crown, will appoint the person.

I don't know who would be involved in the decision, but senior politicians in the government of the day are probably involved.

How many commissioners have there been, to date?

Six. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_Discrimination_Commissioner

Do you think that a straight woman would likely the best candidate to head up a commission on gay men's health initiative?

Why do you keep asking these questions, knowing what my answer is going to be?

A straight woman may very well be the best candidate to head up a commission on gay men's health. For such a post, I would expect a medical expert in sexual or public health to be appointed with research or clinical experience in gay men's health. Would there be any women in such a position?

Do you think every single medical expert in sexual/public health specialising in gay men's health is a gay man, and therefore excluding women from the role makes no difference?

The gender and sexual orientation of the person are irrelevant and it is morally undesirable to claim that they're relevant when they are not, and discriminate against people on these factors.

And once again, you've made a misleading analogy. A gay men's health initiative is presumably specifically set up in the interest of improving gay men's health. It's excluding all genders and sexual orientations excepted the named ones.

The role of Sex Discrimination Commissioner is set up to oversee and uphold the Sex Discrimination Act, which protects all genders and sexual orientations from discrimination in employment.

You could mount some argument that a gay men's health initiative is best headed by a person that 'resembles' the targets of the initiative (although as I've said, I do not accept such an argument); but how much the less could you possibly say that women represent all genders and sexual orientations in terms of a Sex Discrimination Commissioner? By definition, any single person could not.

By the way, I have so far not questioned your assumption that people 'on the inside' have a valuable perspective not attainable to those on the outside. Yet you discount the perspective of someone 'on the outside', as if an outside perspective could not be valuable, or in fact, more valuable. If, for example, discrimination against women in employment comes from, in part, a work culture attuned to male interests, who is going to have the insider perspective on these interests -- a man or a woman? Women do not know what goes on behind closed doors when only men are in the room; they're incapable of leveraging off information they do not have as outsiders.

I don't know what your answer will be. Which is why I ask.

I can easily imagine that a straight woman would indeed be the best person--as in most qualified- to head such a commission. I can also imagine that she might not be the the most effective person to serve in that role. Those are not the same thing, exactly.

What I really believe is that there is seldom a single best person to serve as heads of commissions, certainly not on a national level. From the pool of highly qualified candidates, hopefully the one chosen is the one most likely to be effective in every sense of the word in the job. Reality is that when it is a political appointee, sometimes it's the most politically expedient person.

In a perfect world, this would not be the case. Also in a perfect world, there would be no need of most such commissions.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

There isn't a good analogy to race here and physicians. At best, it's an imperfect analogy.

Sex discrimination officer and gynecologist have functional roles where the primary role is gender/sex based. So hoping for a White physician is like hoping for a female dentist. Gender is not part of criteria to consider in any serious way as a requirement in a non-gender-based role.

For a sex discrimination political official in particular, people could be looking for the following requirements:
1. same gender as the "voter";
2. same ideology as the voter;
3. documented qualifications;
4. very competent.

These 4 requirements acting in concert provide good confidence such official will be acting in the best interest of the person "voting."

Candidate has 1, 2, 3, but not 4. Then they will not be able to competently execute their job.
Candidate has 1, 3, 4, but not 2. Candidate will not be implementing things in the way that the voter thinks they should be. Not a good candidate. Possible example: Ann Coulter if you believe she is competent and a woman.
Candidate has 2, 3, and 4 but not 1. Candidate may have heart in the right place and may be sympathetic, but just might not be on the same page with understanding the issues or their values. They may end up selecting the wrong priorities on issues and making compromises because they do not understand how important issue A is versus issue B.

There is no "1". The Sex Discrimination Act forbids discrimination against all genders.

Where it is irrelevant is for the appointing officer. It's relevant because you were referencing a journalist (who is not someone who would appoint the official). I specifically wrote "voting" in that context because of your reference. Like all voters the journalist has free speech rights and can vote for whom she pleases.

The 'ideology' of the public or the appointer is irrelevant. The Commissioner is there to uphold and oversee the Act.

The ideology is actually important. Some people would not actually uphold the Act because it is not part of their ideology, like say Ann Coulter. Such persons do get appointed and/or nominated for positions who then talk about how various institutions need to be drowned in a bathtub. Look at say George W Bush who was sworn to uphold the Constitution but behind closed doors says it is just a piece of paper. There are also people in this forum who would refer to women being discriminated against as "lying bitches." Those people also not suitable because they have an anti-woman ideology.

Finally, I would sincerely hope that nobody is selecting issue 'A' over issue 'B' because they personally find it important, presuming their priorities are aligned with all people of their own gender. I would hope any public policy is evidence based.

Sorry, but it is difficult for a man to imagine how much value to assign to a vagina. For a woman, she has one.

 

[dismal]

Sorry, but it is difficult for a man to imagine how much value to assign to a vagina. For a woman, she has one.

Egad, more bigotry and hatred.

Men can have vaginas too.

 

[ronburgundy]

You're jumping to the conclusion that men are actually being excluded. Your only evidence is that the position has only ever been held by women;

BTW, that's still more evidence than is presented to support most claims of gender discrimination against women. Typically, the only evidence is that while women are hired, the the raw number is not statistically identical to men. Zero hires for a position that doesn't directly involve the genitials or any physical qualities is far stronger evidence of discrimination than merely "not an equal number".

 

[Metaphor]

Where it is irrelevant is for the appointing officer. It's relevant because you were referencing a journalist (who is not someone who would appoint the official). I specifically wrote "voting" in that context because of your reference. Like all voters the journalist has free speech rights and can vote for whom she pleases.

Of course, though she's demonstrated that she would violate the very Act itself if she were able to choose the Commissioner.

The ideology is actually important. Some people would not actually uphold the Act because it is not part of their ideology, like say Ann Coulter. Such persons do get appointed and/or nominated for positions who then talk about how various institutions need to be drowned in a bathtub. Look at say George W Bush who was sworn to uphold the Constitution but behind closed doors says it is just a piece of paper. There are also people in this forum who would refer to women being discriminated against as "lying bitches." Those people also not suitable because they have an anti-woman ideology.

Even if you disagreed with the Act, it would be very dangerous to appoint anyone (openly) hostile towards it, since the Act is a result of Australia's international human rights agreements.

Sorry, but it is difficult for a man to imagine how much value to assign to a vagina. For a woman, she has one.

Under the same reasoning, it's difficult for a woman to imagine how much value to assign to a penis, is it not? But the Act isn't about valuing vaginas; the Act is about protecting all genders and sexual orientations from discrimination in employment.