Religous sexual discrimination in NYC?

[Tennesseer]

Jul 1, 2016 5:25:33 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jun 30, 2016 22:52:18 GMT -5 Kolt! said:

I'm sorry then. Actually I do think I remember you calling the person out. 

I'm just frustrated is all because I've been trying to watch myself in bringing up transgender issues even if they seem to fall under certain categories. But, then they get brought up and if I talk about them people are known to slam me for speaking up but in the same breath like someone that speaks out in negativity about it. >.> 

---
But I'll give my personal opinion. 

My personal opinion is a trans woman should be allowed to use the pool if she has had surgeries my reason for this is because nobody would know she was a trans woman unless she went advertising it. She wouldn't have a dick and she'd have boobs. If the trans woman has yet to have surgeries then no I do not believe that trans woman should be allowed into the pool until she has done so. 

However, to be honest? If it were me and it was a "Men's Only" for two hours and they told me I wasn't allowed to come swimming because I am a transman but I can come back in two hours I personally wouldn't feel all that bad in this case. I'd still be allowed to swim eventually. It'd be different if they told me I could never come swim in this pool ever.

But... what's interesting is that if this were the case... they'd tell me I can't because I was born with a vagina... but if I tried to enter into the Woman's Only hours they wouldn't let me in there either because there's no way I can pass as a woman...no boobs, and.... I think you can get the picture with my under parts. 

I meant no offense. I just see a hypocrisy from certain posters. When gel said she wasn't modest and didn't want a genetic male in the locker room with her, everyone jumped on her. But for some reason everyone is ok with the modesty of hiskdic Jews. Tenn quoted religious reasons. But if this were a bunch of southern baptist super religious women they would be told to get over it and if they don't like it go build their own pools. thats why I jumped on the transgender thing...because I knew that the same people bashing gel and me for not wanting to be in a locker room with genetic males are the same people saying it's ok that these women don't want men in the pool with them. Well trans women aren't men and can use the bathroom with women...so they should be allowed to use this pool with the women (following the argument on the locker room).

What you don't seem to get is that men are not permanently banned from ever using this pool. These Hasidic women are only asking for a couple of hours a week where they can use the pool in private and out of the eyesight of men.

Even during Hasidic/Orthodox synagogue services, the men and the women sit separately from each other. Often times the women are seated in a synagogue balcony and the men seated on the first floor. If no balcony, then there is a mechitza, a partition, often a wall, separting the men from the women. This is religiously ordered so the men and women don't socially mingle during religiius services.

There is very much a separation of the sexes in the Hasidic sect. The use of the pool is just a continued expression of that religious separation.

[Miss Tequila]

Jul 1, 2016 10:44:18 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jul 1, 2016 5:25:33 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

I meant no offense. I just see a hypocrisy from certain posters. When gel said she wasn't modest and didn't want a genetic male in the locker room with her, everyone jumped on her. But for some reason everyone is ok with the modesty of hiskdic Jews. Tenn quoted religious reasons. But if this were a bunch of southern baptist super religious women they would be told to get over it and if they don't like it go build their own pools. thats why I jumped on the transgender thing...because I knew that the same people bashing gel and me for not wanting to be in a locker room with genetic males are the same people saying it's ok that these women don't want men in the pool with them. Well trans women aren't men and can use the bathroom with women...so they should be allowed to use this pool with the women (following the argument on the locker room).

What you don't seem to get is that men are not permanently banned from ever using this pool. These Hasidic women are only asking for a couple of hours a week where they can use the pool in private and out of the eyesight of men.

Even during Hasidic/Orthodox synagogue services, the men and the women sit separately from each other. Often times the women are seated in a synagogue balcony and the men seated on the first floor. If no balcony, then there is a mechitza, a partition, often a wall, separting the men from the women. This is religiously ordered so the men and women don't socially mingle during religiius services.

There is very much a separation of the sexes in the Hasidic sect. The use of the pool is just a continued expression of that religious separation.

Yet when Gel talks about her religion, her modesty, she gets mocked from posters on here.  I don't understand the difference. 

[Tennesseer]

Jul 1, 2016 10:51:03 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jul 1, 2016 10:44:18 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

What you don't seem to get is that men are not permanently banned from ever using this pool. These Hasidic women are only asking for a couple of hours a week where they can use the pool in private and out of the eyesight of men.

Even during Hasidic/Orthodox synagogue services, the men and the women sit separately from each other. Often times the women are seated in a synagogue balcony and the men seated on the first floor. If no balcony, then there is a mechitza, a partition, often a wall, separting the men from the women. This is religiously ordered so the men and women don't socially mingle during religiius services.

There is very much a separation of the sexes in the Hasidic sect. The use of the pool is just a continued expression of that religious separation.

Yet when Gel talks about her religion, her modesty, she gets mocked from posters on here.  I don't understand the difference. 

Not my problem.

[gregintenn]

Jul 1, 2016 10:51:03 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jul 1, 2016 10:44:18 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

What you don't seem to get is that men are not permanently banned from ever using this pool. These Hasidic women are only asking for a couple of hours a week where they can use the pool in private and out of the eyesight of men.

Even during Hasidic/Orthodox synagogue services, the men and the women sit separately from each other. Often times the women are seated in a synagogue balcony and the men seated on the first floor. If no balcony, then there is a mechitza, a partition, often a wall, separting the men from the women. This is religiously ordered so the men and women don't socially mingle during religiius services.

There is very much a separation of the sexes in the Hasidic sect. The use of the pool is just a continued expression of that religious separation.

Yet when Gel talks about her religion, her modesty, she gets mocked from posters on here.  I don't understand the difference. 

Christian isn't a politically correct "protected class".

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 1, 2016 6:39:06 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

Jul 1, 2016 5:56:17 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Great. Now not only are you selectively kicking people out of the pool they paid for, you're doing so without any practical reason half of the time. Because equality.

The "practical reason" IS equality.

If women want some hours to be "women only" then they have to cede an equal number of hours to "men only". It's that whole "choice" thing that you seem to have trouble grasping.

Jul 1, 2016 5:56:17 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

...or, provided your special interest lobby is powerful enough, you can cry "discrimination" and require that public institutions accommodate you.

I know how the system works, sir.

Apparently you don't know how it's supposed to work though. I know both how it works AND how it's supposed to work... I'm hoping for a day when the two will be one-in-the-same.

(and you can only successfully "cry discrimination" if you are actually being discriminated against... if you made a bad choice that limits your options that's entirely on you)

Equality isn't a practical reason in and of itself. It's an ideal like any other; it can be burdensome and highly impractical.

Case in point: setting aside "men's only" pool hours when none of the men give a damn about men's only pool hours.

As for people making bad choices and limiting their options, I think our society has bent over backwards enough to shield people from their bad choices that giving some exceptionally modest women a few hours at a public pool is within our reach.

Also: "one and the same".

[Kolt!]

Jul 1, 2016 5:25:33 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jun 30, 2016 22:52:18 GMT -5 Kolt! said:

I'm sorry then. Actually I do think I remember you calling the person out. 

I'm just frustrated is all because I've been trying to watch myself in bringing up transgender issues even if they seem to fall under certain categories. But, then they get brought up and if I talk about them people are known to slam me for speaking up but in the same breath like someone that speaks out in negativity about it. >.> 

---
But I'll give my personal opinion. 

My personal opinion is a trans woman should be allowed to use the pool if she has had surgeries my reason for this is because nobody would know she was a trans woman unless she went advertising it. She wouldn't have a dick and she'd have boobs. If the trans woman has yet to have surgeries then no I do not believe that trans woman should be allowed into the pool until she has done so. 

However, to be honest? If it were me and it was a "Men's Only" for two hours and they told me I wasn't allowed to come swimming because I am a transman but I can come back in two hours I personally wouldn't feel all that bad in this case. I'd still be allowed to swim eventually. It'd be different if they told me I could never come swim in this pool ever.

But... what's interesting is that if this were the case... they'd tell me I can't because I was born with a vagina... but if I tried to enter into the Woman's Only hours they wouldn't let me in there either because there's no way I can pass as a woman...no boobs, and.... I think you can get the picture with my under parts. 

I meant no offense. I just see a hypocrisy from certain posters. When gel said she wasn't modest and didn't want a genetic male in the locker room with her, everyone jumped on her. But for some reason everyone is ok with the modesty of hiskdic Jews. Tenn quoted religious reasons. But if this were a bunch of southern baptist super religious women they would be told to get over it and if they don't like it go build their own pools. thats why I jumped on the transgender thing...because I knew that the same people bashing gel and me for not wanting to be in a locker room with genetic males are the same people saying it's ok that these women don't want men in the pool with them. Well trans women aren't men and can use the bathroom with women...so they should be allowed to use this pool with the women (following the argument on the locker room).

It's a different topic as well. The locker room means that these transgender woman will have no where to change if there isn't a unisex place. However, I did say that I don't think a transgender woman should be changing in the locker room if she hasn't had the proper surgeries as I said for this pool.

The reason why the pool situation is more accepted is because even if a transwoman is bar'd from these two hours it's only for two hours. She can come again after these two hours are up and use the pool. If she's bar'd from a restroom or a locker and there's no unisex place to go...she literally can't ever use a restroom or locker in that facility, ever. She can come back and use the pool at a different time.

--
I personally don't care that it's not Christian woman or if it is. If it was a bunch of Christian woman wanting a two hour girl swim time my view would be the same.

--
Locker rooms and Restrooms are a different side of the coin. Saying you don't want a transgender woman in the locker room or restroom means she may not have anywhere to go to the bathroom or change. This means she'll never have a place to pee or change unless there's unisex options and not everyone gives that choice.

Saying you don't want a transgender woman in the pool for two hours doesn't bar her forever, she can come back in two hours.

But I think my motto was the same for locker rooms and the pool? I said that a transgender woman should be allowed to change in a locker room, and be allowed to swim in the all woman's hour if she'd had the proper surgeries as in... vagina and boobs now.

It's not really hypocrisy it's just some people here don't see the pool as a big deal because they can return. The locker rooms and restrooms are an issue because even if they return in two hours they still can't use them.

[billisonboard]

Jul 1, 2016 11:46:24 GMT -5 deminmaine said:

Which is probably another reason why the ladies want their privacy.

Yeah but ... There are swim suits which are great for swimming in. There are suits that don't create any ill placed tan lines for when other outfits are worn. And there are suits that scream, "Look at me". I struggle with the idea of, "if you really don't want me to look, why did you buy and wear that particular swimming suit?" But remember:

[Kolt!]

Jul 1, 2016 10:51:03 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jul 1, 2016 10:44:18 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

What you don't seem to get is that men are not permanently banned from ever using this pool. These Hasidic women are only asking for a couple of hours a week where they can use the pool in private and out of the eyesight of men.

Even during Hasidic/Orthodox synagogue services, the men and the women sit separately from each other. Often times the women are seated in a synagogue balcony and the men seated on the first floor. If no balcony, then there is a mechitza, a partition, often a wall, separting the men from the women. This is religiously ordered so the men and women don't socially mingle during religiius services.

There is very much a separation of the sexes in the Hasidic sect. The use of the pool is just a continued expression of that religious separation.

Yet when Gel talks about her religion, her modesty, she gets mocked from posters on here.  I don't understand the difference. 

I'm not sure who Gel is. But she has the right to her modesty and I don't think she should be mocked for her modesty. It's her choice to be modest but you can't force other's to be modest as well.

The woman that are modest in this setting are just taking two hours from others so they can swim. They don't want to make the pool just for them and take from other's there just asking for two hours. If they were asking to change the pool and make it a 24/7 modest pool only for woman I'd be saying that's not right. But, they just want two hours and I think that's okay.

They're not trying to force anyone else to be modest they just want a little time for themselves.

I think the point is people are allowed to be modest until they try to force others to be modest like them. They can cover themselves up how they want but you can't ask someone else to cover their selves up all the time too.

But say they had a "Two Hour Modest Swim" where everyone had to be completely covered I'd be fine with that too. It's when they start trying to "impose their modesty" and make it a 24/7 thing baring other's from coming in.

--
It's when someone says "Transgender people can't swim here or Men can't swim here at any point in time." but in this situation they can come back later.
--
There's a elderly woman swim at the local pool here every Friday from 8-11 and I think that's perfectly fine too. It's a bunch of white christian woman, my mom's aunt goes to it and they have a picture and they're all church ladies. I don't really see this any different then I see this situation. No men are allowed. No children. And they have to be over the age of 62 I think. I might be wrong on the age but there is an age limit.

[Miss Tequila]

Jul 1, 2016 10:53:51 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Jul 1, 2016 10:51:03 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Yet when Gel talks about her religion, her modesty, she gets mocked from posters on here.  I don't understand the difference. 

Not my problem.

Which means you understand that you are being a hypocrite but don't care...got it.  I know several of you with hypocritical points of view won't explain the difference...which means you are accept that hypocrisy.  Which is fine.  At least you own it

[Miss Tequila]

Jul 1, 2016 12:18:39 GMT -5 Kolt! said:

Jul 1, 2016 10:51:03 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Yet when Gel talks about her religion, her modesty, she gets mocked from posters on here.  I don't understand the difference. 

I'm not sure who Gel is. But she has the right to her modesty and I don't think she should be mocked for her modesty. It's her choice to be modest but you can't force other's to be modest as well.

The woman that are modest in this setting are just taking two hours from others so they can swim. They don't want to make the pool just for them and take from other's there just asking for two hours. If they were asking to change the pool and make it a 24/7 modest pool only for woman I'd be saying that's not right. But, they just want two hours and I think that's okay.

They're not trying to force anyone else to be modest they just want a little time for themselves.

I think the point is people are allowed to be modest until they try to force others to be modest like them. They can cover themselves up how they want but you can't ask someone else to cover their selves up all the time too.

But say they had a "Two Hour Modest Swim" where everyone had to be completely covered I'd be fine with that too. It's when they start trying to "impose their modesty" and make it a 24/7 thing baring other's from coming in.

--
It's when someone says "Transgender people can't swim here or Men can't swim here at any point in time." but in this situation they can come back later.
--
There's a elderly woman swim at the local pool here every Friday from 8-11 and I think that's perfectly fine too. It's a bunch of white christian woman, my mom's aunt goes to it and they have a picture and they're all church ladies. I don't really see this any different then I see this situation. No men are allowed. No children. And they have to be over the age of 62 I think. I might be wrong on the age but there is an age limit.

You weren't one of those attacking GEL in the other thread.  She was mocked and ridiculed by the very same posters in here that think it is ok that the Hasidic women should be allowed modesty because it is fundamental to their religion.  But when GEL mentions her religion and her beliefs she gets attacked (more ridiculed than anything).  Christianity really does seem to be the one thing that is acceptable to ridicule.  And I'm not even religious but I see the hypocrisy. 

[Miss Tequila]

Jul 1, 2016 10:54:08 GMT -5 gregintenn said:

Jul 1, 2016 10:51:03 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Yet when Gel talks about her religion, her modesty, she gets mocked from posters on here.  I don't understand the difference. 

Christian isn't a politically correct "protected class".

And that's what I'm trying to point out. If we go back to some of the other threads, she was outright mocked for her "fake god", told that she can't shove her religious beliefs onto anyone else, and so on. yet the exact same posters are saying it is ok for the Hasidic women to push their religious beliefs...not my problem that they don't want to be around men.

[Kolt!]

But is it being said that they want to impact laws that effect someone 24/7 or just prevent someone from something for a couple of hours?

There's a difference of Never and Just two hours. 

[Miss Tequila]

Jul 1, 2016 13:05:44 GMT -5 Kolt! said:

But is it being said that they want to impact laws that effect someone 24/7 or just prevent someone from something for a couple of hours?

There's a difference of Never and Just two hours. 

I have to disagree with you. If I am not allowed to go somewhere or do something because of someone's religious beliefs, then it doesn't matter if it is 100% of the time or just a few hours a day. We either cater to religion or we don't.

[chiver78]

Jun 30, 2016 18:03:08 GMT -5 whoisjohngalt said:

I know it's not the same thing, but my parents live across from a mosque.  Every Friday afternoon there are police cars (sometimes sheriff, sometimes city police) directing the traffic and staying for the times of the prayers.    I don't know why Friday afternoons, but it gets very very busy there.

This whole separation of church and state is not existent.  Govt gets involved in religion all the time.  I find it hardly to be news.

As far as calling everything "discrimination"- can we please save that for something more serious than 2 hrs of swimming time?

um, that's a hired detail. anyone can hire a police detail, religious group or otherwise.

[Kolt!]

Jul 1, 2016 13:11:19 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jul 1, 2016 13:05:44 GMT -5 Kolt! said:

But is it being said that they want to impact laws that effect someone 24/7 or just prevent someone from something for a couple of hours?

There's a difference of Never and Just two hours. 

I have to disagree with you. If I am not allowed to go somewhere or do something because of someone's religious beliefs, then it doesn't matter if it is 100% of the time or just a few hours a day. We either cater to religion or we don't.

So would you be okay if we never catered to any religions? 

[gregintenn]

Jul 1, 2016 13:20:19 GMT -5 Kolt! said:

Jul 1, 2016 13:11:19 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

I have to disagree with you. If I am not allowed to go somewhere or do something because of someone's religious beliefs, then it doesn't matter if it is 100% of the time or just a few hours a day. We either cater to religion or we don't.

So would you be okay if we never catered to any religions? 

YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Miss Tequila]

Jul 1, 2016 13:20:19 GMT -5 Kolt! said:

Jul 1, 2016 13:11:19 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

I have to disagree with you. If I am not allowed to go somewhere or do something because of someone's religious beliefs, then it doesn't matter if it is 100% of the time or just a few hours a day. We either cater to religion or we don't.

So would you be okay if we never catered to any religions? 

I think my issue is that everyone wants to bash Christians. I sit back and watch these threads and I'm amazed at how disrespectful people are towards Christians and their beliefs yet want us to bend over backwards for other religions.  I have seen posters mock GEL and Virgil openly for believing in God, for believing in the Bible, etc. Yet those same people defend other religions. That is what I can't reconcile. If these people bashed all religions I would understand it. 

I think it is ludicrous that Hasidic jews can't be around the opposite sex yet the same people in this thread mocking Christian beliefs seem to think it's A-OK in 2016 that women need to be separated from men...seems bizarre to me.

[Tennesseer]

Jul 1, 2016 12:37:03 GMT -5 Miss Tequila said:

Jul 1, 2016 10:53:51 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Not my problem.

Which means you understand that you are being a hypocrite but don't care...got it.  I know several of you with hypocritical points of view won't explain the difference...which means you are accept that hypocrisy.  Which is fine.  At least you own it

What else does Miss Tequila friggin see?

[Miss Tequila]

Jul 1, 2016 14:42:24 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

I find this whole thread odd.  It's not religious discrimination!  At most it's gender discrimination.  

It is. But the gender discrimination is due to their religious beliefs. 

[Deleted]

Jul 1, 2016 9:18:42 GMT -5 @sroo4 said:

Jul 1, 2016 6:39:06 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

The "practical reason" IS equality.

If women want some hours to be "women only" then they have to cede an equal number of hours to "men only". It's that whole "choice" thing that you seem to have trouble grasping.

Apparently you don't know how it's supposed to work though. I know both how it works AND how it's supposed to work... I'm hoping for a day when the two will be one-in-the-same.

(and you can only successfully "cry discrimination" if you are actually being discriminated against... if you made a bad choice that limits your options that's entirely on you)

Except that it's not the women making the rules.  There's nothing stopping the pool from holding similar men only hours (except perhaps the fact that it's never been requested or lack of interest in Men only hours)  I very much think that these women who attend during the women only times would not care much if the pool allocated some of the open swimming time to men only,  it's not like they are losing opportunity since they don't swim during open hours. 

Show me where I ever said it was the women making the rules... thanks.

[Deleted]

Jul 1, 2016 10:57:25 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 1, 2016 6:39:06 GMT -5 @richardintn said:

The "practical reason" IS equality.

If women want some hours to be "women only" then they have to cede an equal number of hours to "men only". It's that whole "choice" thing that you seem to have trouble grasping.

Apparently you don't know how it's supposed to work though. I know both how it works AND how it's supposed to work... I'm hoping for a day when the two will be one-in-the-same.

(and you can only successfully "cry discrimination" if you are actually being discriminated against... if you made a bad choice that limits your options that's entirely on you)

Equality isn't a practical reason in and of itself. It's an ideal like any other; it can be burdensome and highly impractical.

Case in point: setting aside "men's only" pool hours when none of the men give a damn about men's only pool hours.

As for people making bad choices and limiting their options, I think our society has bent over backwards enough to shield people from their bad choices that giving some exceptionally modest women a few hours at a public pool is within our reach.

Also: "one and the same".

You got me on the bolded.

I agree that we have gone too far to shield people from their bad choices... that's our fault as a society. That's something that we should probably change, because it grows a society of entitled jerks.

And... you got me on the "one and the same". I'm a big enough man to admit when I was wrong.



The rest of your post however, is bunk... because:

Equality IS a practical reason in and of itself. Whether you believe it to be or not, it is. Burdensome or not. Either something should apply to all or it should apply to none (unless it's physically impossible to do so... like with handicaps that are not in the control of the handicapped person).

Whether men want the "men only" pool hours or not is irrelevant. And I'd bet there are some men that would... like Muslim men that aren't allowed to see scantily clad women.