• Bgugi@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    2 days ago

    So long as society feels it necessary to provide protections for women, the distinction has real consequences. Drawing a line anywhere is a tradeoff between inclusivity and effectiveness.

    Taking the party line “high ground” stance of either conclusive self-determination or dodging the question entirely is why this question is so effective.

    • Walk_blesseD@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      2 days ago

      Assuming good faith on the part of those involved, I don’t see how inclusivity comes at the cost of effectiveness. Would you care to elaborate?

      • ℍ𝕂-𝟞𝟝@sopuli.xyz
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Not the person who you were talking with, but I think it’s nuanced. Short term tradeoffs should be made for effectiveness, while long-term strategies should be relentlessly pursued for inclusivity.

        E.g. as a man, I think that the women-only carriages in a lot of SEA countries are a necessary thing, but it has to be a short term solution with a healthier society should be always consistently pursued, for example with educational measures.

      • Bgugi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Honestly? I think that equal treatment should be afforded regardless of gender. I also know that opinion is wildly unpopular, and so long as society expects unequal treatment there has to be hard conversations and hard decisions made to support those structures. You can’t have it both ways, and no amount of party-line fingers in your ears "wouldn’t you like to know"ing makes that go away.