Are equal rights like pie?

[MadameMassiveSalad]

Thoughts?

Define equal rights.

Equality of outcome, equality of opportunity, or just being exactly the same as everyone else, no discrimination of any kind?

Anyone who carries this sign does not want equal rights. They want more rights. They want (usually) to trample on women's rights. This sign is designed to gaslight people.

In fact yes, they are a pie. It should be utterly obvious that rights can conflict sometimes, and people only deny it because it’s inconvenient to the TWAW mantra

That typo always does my head in.

It's "fewer" not "less".

I feel better now.

If a transwoman in prison for rape wants the right to be transferred to a women's prison does that or does it not impinge on the right of female prisoners to be safe from the threat of physical violence?

Does the right to describe a woman as an 'adult human female' impinge on the right of transpeople to exist?

There have been legal cases about the right to practice your religious beliefs vs the right to be gay or the right to bodily autonomy. Perceived rights can and do impinge on others rights.

There would be a lot fewer cases going to the ECHR if rights never clashed.

The sign is disingenuous, as there is no definition of what "rights" are being asked for. In fact, as others have already said, what is being demanded are additional benefits not afforded to other groups, rather than basic human rights.

What do you think, OP?

I'm sure you've got some deep insight to share. Double Geography boring this afternoon?

Bloody hell. If we have to...

Yes, it's bloody pie.

If a space is single sex, that's it, it's the single sex pie. If you allow men, it's not the single sex pie. It's the mixed sex pie. Another pie entirely.

It's a binary choice.

Some 'rights' aren't compatible.

You can't have an equal right to 'gender preference' provision of services, sports etc and also an equal right to single sex provision.
A males assumed 'right' to participate in women's sport, to be accommodated in women's services destroys women's rights.

If this is about trans rights, which it obviously is, I'm still struggling what rights trans people don't have, do tell. Apart from the one to control my thinking. And that will never happen.

And even if rights were like pie, this is how the TRAs would cut it...

Bloody hell, is this old meaningless chestnut still doing the rounds? It's almost nostalgic for the quaint old days of 2017.

Is there also a sign saying 'your toilet at home isn't single-sex which proves beyond any doubt that all single-sex spaces are unnecessary'?

If men want to use women's spaces, then women cannot have single sex man-free spaces.

Yes, it does remove women's rights. That 'slice of pie' cannot belong to both groups at once: to 'include' men in a women's space means ending it being a women's space and excluding a fair number of women.

Its another piece of zero thought propaganda.

Toilet rights are like pie. Should it be a right to privacy or a right to safety?

Mixed sex toilets mean men, women and children with health conditions, some who are classified as disabled, are more likely to suffer long term injury or death.

This is because mixed sex toilets are almost always fully enclosed. In fact the new government designs for public toilets have removed all the gaps for ‘privacy and dignity’ from the universal design. The single sex toilets ‘can’ have gaps but they are not specified (in fact the single sex ambulant one has a full height door drawing) and the government says the universal designs can be used instead.

So if you are one of the unlucky ones who feels ill at work or shopping and heads one of the new enclosed designs and collapse, no one will know. They even have acoustic properties so sounds carry less. There’s 400,000 people with undiagnosed cardiac problems, 1% of the country with epilepsy (80 new diagnoses a day), one person has a stroke every 5 minutes, same with heart attacks. Then there’s diabetes, asthma, drug spiking etc.

So in the case of toilets you go for privacy or safety. If toilets are mixed sex, privacy apparently overrides safety. And if they are single sex it seems privacy will be overriding safety too.

That’s before you get into the fact that privacy in public places is dangerous for assaults, particularly for girls and women. The design solution to the toilet being enclosed and the occupant not being able to be seen or so easily heard, is for a emergency release mechanism so the door is able to be opened outwards from the outside easily. But the occupant won’t having warning because she can’t see who’s in front of the cubicle door.

Because the public toilet design focus was on mixed sex design and therefore privacy, all people are now in more danger at the most vulnerable time in their lives, but particularly girls and women.

If this is trans rights - given that a TW has not given up their rights as a man. All the male privilege so far. How is it fair to give them part of women's rights IN ADDITION.?

Sometimes rights are not like pie - gay marriage didn't use up the available number of marriages.

Sometimes rights are exactly like pie: allowing a male into a women's single sex space instantly makes it mixed sex. So the women who can't use mixed sex spaces instantly lose 100% of their provision and rights, to give men the privilege of selecting their preference from all the spaces.

As a PP noted:

Rights are an intellectual construct. Not a dessert, or even a quiche.

The idea of some left idealists is that we all have certain natural inherent rights, and if only we describe these accurately, they could never conflict, because it is a system that balances out. Like energy and matter.

The fact is that if we believe in the equality of dignity of all human beings, that underpins the concept of rights inherent in our humanity. But these are at best approximations; the interests of people can truly conflict; and often we want to consider things as inherent rights that probably really aren't. So there are lots of possibilities for contradictions.

My first thought is that it should say "fewer", not "less", as CocoapuffPuff pointed out, although this error is a helpful indicator that a person displaying this sign is probably more interested in overall sentiment rather than actual details and logic.

And my second thought is that while some rights are not like pie, in that there is an infinite number of possibilities that can coexist concurrently with absolutely no overlap (e.g. I can exercise my right to sing on a mountaintop while you exercise your right to travel to a foreign country without either of our rights affecting the other's), there are obviously other rights where they are exactly like pie, in that there are a finite number of possible scenarios where we can't all have our own way (e.g. if my next door neighbour exercises his right to play his trumpet loudly with the window open for hours on end, that may well conflict with my right to the quiet enjoyment of my home).

The notion that all rights are of the same type is the main issue here - it is absolutely normal that people's rights are curbed by the presence of others and their rights - you can spit in a field without expecting to get into trouble for it, but if you do the exact same thing when a person is standing in front of you, you would be denying them the right not to be spat on, and so on.

Equity rather than equality. People may need more to experience the same opportunity.

My thoughts are that you've plopped this here with no input or explanation hoping for lots of transphobic sex realism replies to give you material for a hate wank later. You're not putting these in your PhD are you Eden?

Thoughts?

1. I'm feeling magnanimous and will give you a pass on 'less rights' rather than 'fewer rights' because I think common usage is moving away from what is a fairly technical distinction anyway. (Sorry CocoapuffPuff, please don't hate me!)
2. Bravo for getting the apostrophe in the right place ( friends again, CocoapuffPuff?😉)
3. Your sign is wrong because some greedy so-and-sos want to have my part of the pie as well as their own.

Yes it's like pies. Note the plural. Female pie is usually smaller than male pie but some males want their fair share of the female pie in addition to that pie they already have but pretend they don't have.

And I'd go further and say there is variations within the two categories of pie depending on other factors such as race, economic status, disability, etc

So I'm not the only one. It's everywhere and it drives me bonkers.

If the entire lioness's team is made up of transwomen and females lose out on that opportunity then that is indeed like pie.

If all three women's 100m medals are won by transwomen then that is indeed like pie.

Equal rights are meaningless where conditions are not equal.
For example, theoretically, the homeless person on the corner has the same rights as you, but he/she is not in a situation to exercise those rights.

There is also a hierarchy of rights. If there is a conflict, as in the case of same sex spaces, the more important rights should prevail. Rights are more important where more people are affected or where the purpose they serve is a more urgent need.
It's not arguable that the safety of a tiny % of the population should supercede the safety of 51% of the population, which is why the usual (bogus) argument is that women's safety is not affected by allowing biological males in women's spaces.