Post by silverdragon on Jun 13, 2016 8:50:48 GMT
This thread was born of this discussion on the choice of sexuality and if "Non Binary" is a valid choice...
citadelofmyths.freeforums.net/thread/744/today-world-weird-news?page=289
I bring it here because that thread is starting off at a tangent, and its maybe a valid tangent.
I am not at all sure if we can now add a third sexuality to an existing 60odd thousand year Human origin onwards accepted division between Male and Female...
I therefore request a discussion to take this tangent as far as possible within the constraints of the usual rules to work out what the consensus of the board is?..
In my own estimation, from the standpoint of the man on the Clapham omnibus, so look that up its a real time legal term in UK commonwealth and other British law based laws, maybe even U$A laws, its reasonable to assume doubt, and confusion.
I dont like confusion.... although most of my life seems to be working out the road from the thick fog?..
But have not we been happy for a few thousand years with the usual division in a non sexist way of there is a clear division between the sexes, so why the hell do we need to "Fix" what is not broken?...
In that case, as long as provision has been made, you have no "right" to assume the right to request "special" anything other than what is provided.
If the road forks, left or right, why do you need to force a road straight ahead.
I request a "trail" on here by my peers as to the validity of this scenario below... a complete fictional case, just for the hell of it, that may or may not have similarities with the real world, but, lets try and keep the answers as close as we can to existing law and common sense?...
I will place myself as the "defendant" who owns and runs a public bar where alcohol licensed to be sold on or off the premises (Pub in UK) who has had a run in with a customer who requested clarification on why they had MUST choose between toilet facilities who they did not "Identify" with, as in has asked where the toilets were, I asked "Men or women" and had been replied to "Neither" and had asked for clarification as to if they needed the toilet or not...
This had led to an argument that it was impractical to demand that I supply "Non gender specific rest rooms", when almost 100% previous majority of customers have been perfectly agreeable with the choice provided, and unless they made the choice of those on offer, there was no alternative.
As this was now escalating into a "scene" that was disturbing the other customers, I requested that this customer leave the premises on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour, in that if someone asks for a bag of crisps [chips] and I offer them salt-and-vinegar or cheese-and-onion, they have no right to "Demand forcibly" that I also provide beef crisps and create an argument with the owner on this.
This has now come to a civil court to argue who was in the right.
I ask that you my Peers try this case, and see where it goes.....
In my own case, as "The man on the Clapham omnibus is a reasonably educated and intelligent but nondescript person, against whom the defendant's conduct can be measured.", if I provide a basic binary two choice set of toilets in my own establishment of Public House, I can ask that people definitively stick to the rules, and use the one assigned by their division of sex, and no arguments.
If I have not provided any option for "Other", I can therefore reasonably argue and in truth, enforce that anyone who does not wish to comply with that "choice" be denied use of either, as this is a private building.
I have provided rest rooms for the convenience of customers in a binary system accepted by the majority, and as majority rules, I have complied with all "reasonable" requests.
As "Special cases" have not been assigned extra space, nor has the requirement of them been assigned in law, I can reasonably deny requests for "special" care.
I may, if it so suite me, and have had the refurbishments done, allow use of the disabled toilet kept for wheelchair users.
If the complainant decides to refuse that because of the "stigma" of disabled, then sod them, there is no law, nor should there be, to assign rest rooms for the "one in a billion" customer who requires special not standard treatment.
Does anyone have a possible "Devils advocate" position to answer this from the point of view of a "Non binary" person?. and will they please state that they are devils advocate to avoid confusion?.. or does anyone have any points they may wish to raise.....
And please try and keep it all in good humour. We dont need to insult those who do not wish to choose...
[...I may believe they insult themselves, but that is not the argument here]
The argument is more of, do we absolutely MUST take notice of and change the way we do things for a tiny majority just because of "special snowflake" status, should they be allowed to force change, just as much as they claim we force them to comply to existing rules.
citadelofmyths.freeforums.net/thread/744/today-world-weird-news?page=289
I bring it here because that thread is starting off at a tangent, and its maybe a valid tangent.
I am not at all sure if we can now add a third sexuality to an existing 60odd thousand year Human origin onwards accepted division between Male and Female...
I therefore request a discussion to take this tangent as far as possible within the constraints of the usual rules to work out what the consensus of the board is?..
In my own estimation, from the standpoint of the man on the Clapham omnibus, so look that up its a real time legal term in UK commonwealth and other British law based laws, maybe even U$A laws, its reasonable to assume doubt, and confusion.
I dont like confusion.... although most of my life seems to be working out the road from the thick fog?..
But have not we been happy for a few thousand years with the usual division in a non sexist way of there is a clear division between the sexes, so why the hell do we need to "Fix" what is not broken?...
In that case, as long as provision has been made, you have no "right" to assume the right to request "special" anything other than what is provided.
If the road forks, left or right, why do you need to force a road straight ahead.
I request a "trail" on here by my peers as to the validity of this scenario below... a complete fictional case, just for the hell of it, that may or may not have similarities with the real world, but, lets try and keep the answers as close as we can to existing law and common sense?...
I will place myself as the "defendant" who owns and runs a public bar where alcohol licensed to be sold on or off the premises (Pub in UK) who has had a run in with a customer who requested clarification on why they had MUST choose between toilet facilities who they did not "Identify" with, as in has asked where the toilets were, I asked "Men or women" and had been replied to "Neither" and had asked for clarification as to if they needed the toilet or not...
This had led to an argument that it was impractical to demand that I supply "Non gender specific rest rooms", when almost 100% previous majority of customers have been perfectly agreeable with the choice provided, and unless they made the choice of those on offer, there was no alternative.
As this was now escalating into a "scene" that was disturbing the other customers, I requested that this customer leave the premises on the grounds of unreasonable behaviour, in that if someone asks for a bag of crisps [chips] and I offer them salt-and-vinegar or cheese-and-onion, they have no right to "Demand forcibly" that I also provide beef crisps and create an argument with the owner on this.
This has now come to a civil court to argue who was in the right.
I ask that you my Peers try this case, and see where it goes.....
In my own case, as "The man on the Clapham omnibus is a reasonably educated and intelligent but nondescript person, against whom the defendant's conduct can be measured.", if I provide a basic binary two choice set of toilets in my own establishment of Public House, I can ask that people definitively stick to the rules, and use the one assigned by their division of sex, and no arguments.
If I have not provided any option for "Other", I can therefore reasonably argue and in truth, enforce that anyone who does not wish to comply with that "choice" be denied use of either, as this is a private building.
I have provided rest rooms for the convenience of customers in a binary system accepted by the majority, and as majority rules, I have complied with all "reasonable" requests.
As "Special cases" have not been assigned extra space, nor has the requirement of them been assigned in law, I can reasonably deny requests for "special" care.
I may, if it so suite me, and have had the refurbishments done, allow use of the disabled toilet kept for wheelchair users.
If the complainant decides to refuse that because of the "stigma" of disabled, then sod them, there is no law, nor should there be, to assign rest rooms for the "one in a billion" customer who requires special not standard treatment.
Does anyone have a possible "Devils advocate" position to answer this from the point of view of a "Non binary" person?. and will they please state that they are devils advocate to avoid confusion?.. or does anyone have any points they may wish to raise.....
And please try and keep it all in good humour. We dont need to insult those who do not wish to choose...
[...I may believe they insult themselves, but that is not the argument here]
The argument is more of, do we absolutely MUST take notice of and change the way we do things for a tiny majority just because of "special snowflake" status, should they be allowed to force change, just as much as they claim we force them to comply to existing rules.