The funny thing is it opens the door (no pun intended) to where their case is the strongest, but they don't use it. It usually stops at: A: This would let men use the women's restroom for perverted reasons! B: Nope, a transgender woman is not a man. Instead of going onto: A: But they are biologically the same sex. So if a biological XY person walks into the women's restroom, how does the law determine if this is a "man" or "transgender woman"? B: It all depends on how they identify. A: But that is not legal or scientific, it's personal. All we have is their word. Any man could just claim to identify as female. B: But you can tell the difference because [list of societal gender-based stereotypes]. A: So gender stereotypes are suddenly key in how we determine someone's gender, instead of something our society needs to get rid of?
Good points. If pushed into this line, B will usually approach it in two ways. First, he or she will say that none of this really matters, because it's already illegal for anyone (of any gender) to attack someone in a bathroom. A will usually respond by saying a woman in the bathroom/locker room/hotel room shouldn't have to be made so uncomfortable by being around people who are anatomically male even if the law would protect her from physical assault. B will dismiss those discomforts as creations of a bigoted culture and say women in the bathrooms, locker rooms, and hotel rooms need to get over it and stop being so bigoted and close-minded. (Women are below transgenders in the "hierarchy," so their feelings can be dismissed if they conflict with transgenders' feelings.)
The film "DETROIT" opened this weekend I might have gone to see it. The movie might even be good. I definitely find the historical era interesting. And I even like the filmmaker. But I hated the way it was marketed. White people are evil White guilt And so on And I was not alone It opened nationwide on over 3000 screens And it flamed out. A box of just $7M & change, on a $34M budget Not even lefties are interested in this finger-wagging lecture masquerading as entertainment
This story is massively screwed up on too many levels to go into, but this just compounds the depravity. So you pull something out of a public toilet (in a bar no less) and use it as a sex toy? Can we get less sanitary? Did the woman know this? (Of course, there's a good chance the dude is lying about where he got the gun to get out of or diminish possible weapons charges, but let's assume he's telling the truth.)
Yeah, who needs to spend good money to be made to feel guilty about being white? You can get all of that you need for free on msnbc.
When corporate virtue signaling goes wrong. Did KLM really think about this? It illustrates the complete opposite of what they're trying to prove. Instead of trying to signal their political opinions through their Twitter account, perhaps they should focus on flying planes and serving customers.
Publicly embracing diversity and environmentalism has more benefits than negatives for corporations. Either companies have deduced that there are many more social liberals than conservatives or the latter doesn't care enough to vote with their wallets.
While there may be 'benefits' to 'embracing diversity,' it rarely does a company well to use symbols of which only ONE has the potential to save a life in the event of an accident. The use of seatbelts to show how 'embracing' they were was stupidity at a high level...
I think it's silly, but you're absolutely right. Social conservatives are probably less likely to be impacted by this sort of thing, because the outrage seems to be on the social left right now. (12 years ago, I think the reverse was true.) However, I think most people on both sides are indifferent. Plenty of liberals will shop at Walmart and eat at Chik-Fil-A if that's what's convenient. Plenty of conservatives will shop at Walmart and fly KLM if they can get a better deal. However, KLM didn't signal very well here. Seatbelts aren't like sexual preferences. If you're a "homoclicker," you're seatbelt won't fasten, and you could be injured or killed if you hit some bad turbulence. If you're trying to be gay-friendly, it's a terrible analogy.
It's amazing how the LGBT thing has gained an unstoppable momentum in just a few years. Wasn't Obama for the traditional marriage definition, until he wasn't for it anymore? Now Corporations, the Media, the NFL, the NCAA are all jumping on the bandwagon and trying to out-LGBT the competition. It worked for Subaru. They specifically marketed to lesbians and it boosted sales for them. Of course, I personally wouldn't be caught dead driving a Lesbaru, but I'm sure it wouldn't bother more progressive types.
It's no different than the gay thing. Big Media and Hollywood have created this illusion that "everyone" is on the side of LGBT rights, and if you are not, then you are on the wrong side of history and will be shamed/run out of business. These people are bullies and need to be stood up to.
perhaps we should spin this the other way..."See, even KLM realizes that 2 out of 3 of these arrangements don't work. Not only is it contrary to biology, it's contrary to airline safety as well."
I remain firmly convinced that all the polls that were heralded in the lead up to the gay marriage decision were contrived and were administered in highly selective groups/locales that were predisposed to favor gay marriage. They used these polls to convince many people that the tide had shifted and they should be ashamed of their convictions. I don't think that is the case at all. I think most just didn't want to have to stand up to cries of bigot, racist, sexist and homophobe. I've been and advocate for a system that allows a single issue to be part of a national referendum during each presidential election (gay marriage, abortion, guns, etc). I'd love to see an actual national vote on these issues instead of having the democrats leveraging the black and Hispanic vote even though 90% of them are very conservative on gay marriage. I really believe that we could put these issues to bed for 20 years or so if we just allow the power to let people vote directly instead of through "representatives".
I did a 25 page paper on Affirmative Action in a grad school HR class circa 1991. In summation, while there were laws in place governing such things, were companies acting in their own self interest, they'd hire a diverse workforce as it was more creative and more productive. Those laws might still be necessary on the fringes, but, in the mainstream workforce there was no real need for them going forward.
I'm highly suspicious of this. I can see where a marketing department might get better at marketing because they might have some on-staff folks that are tuned in better to various cultures (eg. not selling a "NOVA"...No Va =no go in Spanish) in Mexico but I'm highly suspicious that my engineering department is more productive/creative because I have minorities and women.
Are you designing/creating products only for men or a certain ethnicity? If not, the minorities/women inclusion are essential to a better product.
No they are not. You want to be sure to include focus group input that is inclusive of those people, but their presence on the design team is perhaps nice, but absolutely non-essential.
As usual, SH and Bubba make far reaching proclamations that have no factual basis. However, if you have any facts backing these diversity claims, please post them since no one else has been able to find such facts. You would advance the knowledge base for everyone.
Please let all the medical researchers know that unless they have sickle cell, AIDS, certain cancers, or any other gender or ethnic specific disease that they need to resign unless they actually have the disease.
Why be a d!ck? I said it was a paper in grad school 26 years ago. The point was that successful and large companies hire a diverse workforce because they want to not because they have to.
Fat, anti-semitic liberals now have a new reason to hate Wonder Woman. It's been released that the Koch brothers were involved in the funding of this film http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/ne...e=twitter&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral
