Discussion in 'Latest US & World News' started by chris155au, Feb 26, 2021.
Following our discussion on gender neutrality in laws.
No. Obviously NOT.
The "source" is the Cal Legislature.
Don't they have a rep for being kind of "kooky"?
Yes, which is why it will very likely become Codified State Law.
Even in RADICAL California?
Yes, but fact, logic and reason means nothing to the radical authoritarian left.
Well if no shop has separate areas for boys toys and girls toys, why does this bill exist?
Or to the radical authoritarian right either.
Perception doesn't always represent reality. PETA thinks they're saving animals, but their kill record shows reality. Granted, even with sorting toy types in specific groups, Sailor Moon dolls/figures, could as easily be placed next to G.I. Joe. But they don't necessarily place well next to baby dolls.
you mean gender equality?
I have made my views clear on this, the laws will need to change to address things like sports, BUT, I doubt either side is ready to find compromise
this is a hard issue, equality is important to Americans, maybe not to Australians - so it's a complex issue to address
yep, crazy ideas are proposed in dem and repub states, most never get passed into law
Alright. Well I'll meet you back in this thread if it passes!
No, neutrality. In the 'Pelosi' thread, you were arguing that laws should be gender neutral so that they apply to all genders.
Equality is important here too. The difference is that we don't do crap as ridiculous as remove a many mentions of male/female as possible.
PETA kills animals?
"Specific groups" as in male/female?
What's an example of the radical authoritarian right?
Gender neutrality in law achieves gender among the people.
Indeed, they have a higher kill rate than most shelter, and they have been known to steal pets off of people's properties even when they have been leashed or otherwise not wandering loose.
No, specific groups, such as dolls, actions figures, board games, building toys, playsets, etc.
You mean, the idiot who drafted this bill, is likely under the false impression that boy/girl sections exist in toy stores?
So PETA deliberately KILLS animals and shelters do too, just not as much?
More like they didn't realize that it wouldn't result in much of a layout change. Sure you might find some mixing, such as the kitchen playset next to the workshop playset. But overall, regardless of who a toy is stereotypes to, they are pretty well divided.
Clothing is the same, because cut as well as size needs to be taken into account. But we would see more mixing because now all jeans would be nearer to each other.
PETA has quite the infamous reputation. I leave you to do your own research.
California, the land of the weird.
When I read through this thread the thought crossed my mind about other products (like hair care or grooming) that are clearly separated. Will men’s cologne have to be called merely cologne or perfume?
It’s becoming very silly and I can imagine how far the effort to muddy the gender classifications will look like in another generation.
The word that perfume is originally derived from covered both men and women's scented liquid. As is, I can remember having seen both words used interchangeably. Not lately, but I don't use such products, so it's not like I've been paying attention.
I can imagine how far the effort to retain the genders to only two and strict separation of them will look silly to future generations.
There may be boys that want to play with barbie dolls and girls doing G.I. Joes
I don't think anyone was claiming that kids can't play with toys aimed at the other gender. The issue is government intervention is the running of private sector businesses where it doesn't belong.
Operating big equipment pays good money, just sayin'....
Yes, the very best conservative lawyers need to pro bono the first business that gets a fine. I believe that the Constitutional violation here is abridging freedom of speech.
I don't think so. It isn't a free speech issue at all. It is government telling the private sector how they want businesses managed. I don't think there is a constitutional issue involved at all. It is just bad and dangerous government and a removal of freedom for no purpose or benefit to the public. That may be perfectly legal. I doubt anybody could have imagined that government would do something so stupid. We shall see.
Do you actually believe that statement?
Separate names with a comma.