• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Are There Any Differences Between Men and Women that Justify Inequality?

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
Equal treatment under the law needn't be as you present it. If leave due to a child (eg, birth, adoption, death, illness) is necessary, it could be awarded on that basis of such a need.

Hey, me too! Usually.

Many rights typically associated with one gender can be worded such they'd apply more generally. This has advantages in handling unanticipated needs. (I recall a genetically male person becoming pregnant recently. We may expect more such novel events.) It also forces people to think outside the box. (Please excuse my use of that cliche.)

I get what you're saying but until men can truly bear children then I probably have the best example in this thread.

I WIN. HAHAHAHAH

I'm just kidding. =P
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
I get what you're saying but until men can truly bear children then I probably have the best example in this thread.

I WIN. HAHAHAHAH

I'm just kidding. =P
Well, there is already that pregnant person who could be argued to be male.
Would we want a law which granted "maternity leave" to exclude a person who just gave birth, but isn't female?
There's simply no need to make leave about gender...only about the condition & needs of the person in question.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
Well, there is already that pregnant person who could be argued to be male.
Would we want a law which granted "maternity leave" to exclude a person who just gave birth, but isn't female?
There's simply no need to make leave about gender...only about the condition & needs of the person in question.
You're right, the laws should be worded correctly.

But even then, in the current population, that law would favor 99.999999999999999% of a specific population. =P

I might have added one too many 9s though.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
You're right, the laws should be worded correctly.
But even then, in the current population, that law would favor 99.999999999999999% of a population. =P
I might have added one too many 9s though.
Nines are cheap, so no worries.

I don't look at rights as mattering only if the applicable group is large.
If even one person receives justice from generalization of rights, then it's worth it.
 

suncowiam

Well-Known Member
Nines are cheap, so no worries.

I don't look at rights as mattering only if the applicable group is large.
If even one person receives justice from generalization of rights, then it's worth it.

Fair enough, but my original thought was based solely on the once accepted biological fact that only females can get pregnant.

This pregnant man deserves time off and so do other pregnant men that choose to be pregnant in the future. Heck, I might even try it to convince my wife for a third.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
Fair enough, but my original thought was based solely on the once accepted biological fact that only females can get pregnant.
This pregnant man deserves time off and so do other pregnant men that choose to be pregnant in the future. Heck, I might even try it to convince my wife for a third.
We live in interesting times, eh?
 
Top