I actually don’t mind the idea of women only carriages. I know a lot of women, especially late at night, who feel unsafe on trains.
Political parties should have quotas, that work has a unique need to be representative of the population. Workplaces should have strong incentives to balance the numbers, i don’t mind if an underrepresented gender is given an advantage in employment, but not strict quotas.
A lot of industry gender imbalances can be traced back to university imbalances, which can be traced back to high school. Too many women never consider engineering because they dropped physics in year 10. That’s where the efforts need to be taken, remove the stigma of boys’ and girls’ subjects among 13-15 year olds.
1 Like
Yes this. I’m all for equality and agree wholeheartedly that there isn’t enough diversity in most workplaces, but I don’t agree with quotas and ‘token’ appointments. If a man is better than all others for a position, then give it to him. If it’s a women, give it to her. It shouldn’t be about who you are, just what you can bring to the table from a skills and experience POV.
No, just call them both AFL (with it being alternatively being referred to as “The men’s/women’s AFL champions…”)
wat? Where would this come from? Back to segregation I see…
Sure, but in context. Don’t change just because.
No. It is dangerous. Unless the sport already allows males v females (think MLB or NFL) then it’s ok. Someone born with a dick competing against people born without one is of course going to be stronger and it is then dangerous for their competitors.
I think if you look at this more deeply and critically it’s not about segregation rather than safety. I’m not sure if you have seen ads directed at men staring at women on trains. We have also seen a number of rapes and murders because men have stalked women home and prayed on their vulnerability.
It’s an interesting debate - do you let her compete with women who were born female because it could be discriminatory to exclude her, or should she not be allowed to compete with other women because of potential physical advantages she may have?
Forget about the advantages for a second and think about the greater good it achieves allowing someone to participate as the gender they identify as.
I’m quite divided on it. The personal empowerment someone would receive from getting to participate as the gender they identify as would be huge, but at the same time, would the other women who miss out on first place feel robbed?
Banning transgender women from athletics undermine inclusivity and compromises benefits that youth get from sports.
And you say they have benefits from being transgender? What about the prejudice and abuse many have received?
Many medical professions have stated being trans shouldn’t disqualify you. A persons genetic make up shouldn’t be a determining factor in qualifying someone to participate.
If you are on the fence maybe put yourself in someone’s shoes or do some research. This shouldn’t even be a question.
Wouldn’t someone feel more robbed for not participating against the best women in the world?
Just to clarify, what I meant by them having a physical advantage is the testosterone they would have and obviously the bigger physique, which the women who were born female wouldn’t have. I think a lot of women who were born female would feel upset if they missed out on a medal, competing against a transgender athlete who is bigger in size and had an advantage.
You do make some great points about inclusivity and keeping the youth involved in sport no matter who they are, both of which I agree with. It would be a great feeling for a transgender athlete to feel they’ve succeeded after the hardship they might have gone through.
Going only on that article it’s sounds like the NCAA may have more relaxed rules than FINA. That said no issues with her competing against women, it’s not like she would be competitive against men.
Aren’t all people different sizes anyway? There are taller women who will be better in high jump etc. this paints a completely different argument.
I’m quite divided on this.
I am supportive of LGBTQI+ rights. But I don’t know that transitioned females should be allowed to compete at the highest level of sport.
Elite sport isn’t about inclusion. It’s about success and it needs to be a fair playing ground at the same time, hence we don’t allow people to adjust their make-up with steroids or PEDs.
If anyone wants to listen/hear more, I recommend this podcast from a couple of sports scientists.
This really isn’t the same as saying Michael Phelps has big feet etc so people of all sizes and shapes should be accommodated.
1 Like
The Andrews Government will introduce a new policy that will see state construction jobs have mandated numbers of female workers.
It will spell out that women work in at least 3 per cent of jobs in each trade role on a project, 7 per cent for each non-trade position and 35 per cent of management, supervisor and specialist labour roles.
Worksites that don’t meet the quotas will be penalised from January 2024.
I’m all for equality but I hate quotas. If a company has to hire 100 people, and the 100 best qualified are men, then they have to hire x amount of less qualified women.
1 Like
Wat
1 Like
I think we should continue to encourage women to work in typically male-dominated industries, but I don’t think quotas and mandates help anyone.
3 Likes
That isn’t true.
2 Likes
Quotas help against unconscious bias as they force recruitment teams to do things differently.
It’s not just Google. Here’s an interesting take on how the word has lost its gendered connotation.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/07/07/guys-defense-gendered-etymology/
1 Like