No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
Because there are many laws that grant some benefits to one gender but no the other. For example:
You can remove all those laws but that will make feminists unhappy. Most of those benefits are backed by women and passed by leftists governments. As long as those laws exists you need legal genders.
Reading the comments I'm surprised how many people don't know about them.
I do think men getting conscripted because they’re men in kinda bullshit.
Conscription is bullshit. If your war is so unpopular to your people that they aren’t volunteering, then you shouldn’t be at war.
Tell that to Ukraine.
I would say that if people don't care about their country and don't want to fight for it it's OK for this country to lose a war.
Back when I lived in Poland, if it was invaded I would be the first one to flee the country. Let the people that want to live there die for it... Now that I live in Spain, if anyone tried to invade, I would definitely join the fight. Well, maybe not if they invaded Catalonia but once they reached Murcia I would be on the front lines.
Yep
Also, if there was a very great threat, people would enlist willingly, making conscription unnecessary.
You would have to believe that people are willing to sacrifice to protect their communities but people aren't even willing to look at windmills to protect their communities from climate change. Which does not mean they don't want to keep their community as it is, they might just be to afraid and/or selfish to join themselves.
If people were guided by some intristic "goodness" we wouldn't have such a shit society in the first place.
Meh people aren't really known to do the "right" thing if they would we wouldn't have had war in the first place. Also people might be fully supportive of a war but don't want to get their hands dirty themselves.
The natural conclusion would be that any country forcing its people to fight will probably have an advantage over any country that doesn't and if that country overtakes you you get conscripted anyway.
Women can have kids so in times of war men are seen as disposables. You can't rebuild a nation without women but you basically can without men
There's a funny story here in the US about that. We were trying to pass the Equal Rights Act (ERA) - equal pay for equal work, and some Republican tried to tank it by putting in the bill that women would also be subject to the draft - apparently he figured that was so horrifying it would sink it. Supporters just said "yeah, that seems fair, good idea" and he had to scramble to take that wording out because he had so misjudged the situation. Still managed to sink the bill though:(
That one isn't a feminist law, that's a fascist one, under the fasc ideal "women are too weak to fight!"
It's less "women are too weak" and more "the point if war is to kill off excess young men so there's more young women available for powerful older men"
Like it or not that women will guaranteed face harsh realities.
Iraq.
A line of "Iraqi military" taking turns at a boy. Nothing you can do about it.
what
It's just one example of how fucked up things can get. You're patrol and you see that, you can't do anything because "we're allies to the iraqi army now."
It can be both
I've always thought that it's more 'we need more women than men to repopulate our country after the war' as us men are nearly useless when making new life to this planet. But obviously that idea is 'a bit' dated too today.
It can be all 3 things.
But no matter what, it's outdated
I think gender mixed prisons might be considered problematic as well.
Is that the problem or is the problem that prisons are largely badly designed in the first place?
No, gender mixing would obviously be a problem leading to an insane increase in sexual assaults. Couldn't imagine being a woman in a mixed prison no matter the design. Quite unethical.
It's almost like prisons are a terrible idea and shouldn't exist
This is a very interesting topic but it's too complex to discuss on lemmy. Most people would not be able to understand the legal nuances and would just start lashing out. I will just leave this here for those interested.
For anybody wondering, it's about a male criminal that is allegedly not transsexual but claims so to be held in a female one prison.
Interestingly there is a similar case here in Sweden.
I too abstain from posting any judgement in a complex issue that goes beyond quick opinions based on headlines.
Yes, it turns out if you want to use the mechanisms of the legal system to try to counter the marginalization of any group by the whole system, it has to recognize them in law and provide a method for distinguishing them in practice.
But, once you have some method of distinguishing them, the people that want to strengthen hierarchical structures will use that to identify them and (further) marginalize them.
This is true whether you are talking about chromosomal properties, internal anatomy, external anatomy (not limited to genital shape, but also melanin quantity and distribution), gender-assigned-at-birth, current gendered behavior, religious practices or associations, etc.
Still legal recognition might be the best way to reduce harm until we can achieve a future where the category or distinguishing characteristics no longer make one a target of (extra-judicial) marginalization.
It might be less about not knowing about gender disparity, and more about wanting to get rid of that too.
The only need to keep distinguishing gender for legal stuff is because we keep the "women are lesser than men" mentality, coupled with "women needs protection".
Guess what: there isn't a gender that is "less" than the other, and everyone needs protection. Sounds like an equality thing to me, where genders only get in the way.
Have you seen what's going on in the US lately? Abolishing DEI programs that recognize race or gender helps whoever has the most institutional power. White men have run the world for their own benefit for centuries. You think taking them off the leash now will result in a gender-neutral equitable utopia?
It's one of those funny cases were far left and far right go full circle and collide on the other side. Like with opening stores on Sunday which the left and right both oppose or support depending on the country. Here we see people attack gender violence laws from the left but in Spain it's the far right Vox party that is against them.
What's happening in the US is not the removal of DEI laws and programs. Well, that, too. But it's the explicit removal of people that were covered by these program, regardless of skills.
And, it only highlights why the legal gender distinction is a problem. If there were no state-level "what gender are you" line attached to people, you could not mandate the removal of women, legally or not.
You act like there's no option to create GENDER EQUALITY, and instead the only option is to remove those laws.
Do I? I said that as long as those laws exist legal gender also has to exist. I didn't say that those laws should or shouldn't be removed.
Most of those laws are passed by leftists governments and many were passed very recently. Those laws are how the left is trying to create gender equality right now. If you have other ideas you're free to propose them.
It's a case of those laws need to exist, because of gender inequality, but when things become more equitable then it should be changed to not the removal but the widening of them
All genders getting the same amount of (increased) parenthood leave, for example
All genders being allowed to fight in wars if they want to. Nobody being forced to fight in wars.
But the way you were wording it felt like you're saying "THOSE DAMN FEMINISTS GET AN UNFAIR ADVANTAGE"
I'm curious how you create GENDER EQUALITY without forcing people to acknowledge and correct for systemic biases. It's not like there was GENDER EQUALITY before such laws existed.
The idea of affirmative action laws is that, systemically, white men in western countries were born on third base thinking they hit a triple, and everyone else needs some amount of help to catch up to their institutional and generational wealth and power. A law can't correct for that difference if the difference is no longer recognized, and that means white men get to retain their position.
It's why the Trump administration focused so hard on dismantling DEI efforts. Their position is that we've achieved equality and these programs are an unjust bias. Obviously bullshit, but it's what you immediately end up with if race and gender are not legally recognized characteristics.
https://lem.lemmy.blahaj.zone/post/49249120/22609429
Maternal and paternal leave also applies in adoptions and surrogate births so it is gender based.
I wasn't sure about that as each country has different rules. Thanks for clarifying, I restored that point.
Fr