10 ms·

Anybody who conflates human rights as "politics" are someone I simply cannot respect A persons right to exist is not political (This isn't a dig at OP but it'

Anybody who conflates human rights as "politics" are someone I simply cannot respect A persons right to exist is not political (This isn't a dig at OP but it's worth restating)

marcuskane2 2y ago
[flagged]
nsomaru 2y ago
Human rights are intimately woven into International Law and state sovereignty. The work of the TWAIL scholars is relevant, especially as regards how human rights are deployed to undermine the sovereignty of the global south following the rapid “decolonisation” of the mid 20th century. I’m afraid it’s almost impossible to divorce politics and human rights.
- IntelMiner 2y ago
  Politics are intertwined in every facet of the human experience, because they're effectively the net result of a social group Some people however strive to "live above" politics, or to breathlessly demand things be "apolitical" based on their own biases. That bias in of itself being as "political" as anything else
- vaylian 2y ago
  Politics follow ethics in democratic societies. However, our understanding of ethics is always developing. We now understand that homosexuality is ethical. We understand that transgenderism is ethical. There will be more things in the future where politics has to bow to our improved understanding of ethics. Ethics is always a foundation for democratic politics, because politics needs to govern how we as a society live together in peace.
- BSDobelix 2y ago
  >I’m afraid it’s almost impossible to divorce politics and human rights. It is, example? Nord Korea signed it, the US and Canada just ratified it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_th...
  - wizzwizz4 2y ago
    > the US and Canada just ratified it Canada ratified it years ago (if we're not counting optional protocols), but according to https://indicators.ohchr.org/ https://indicators.ohchr.org/, the US hasn't. Do you have a source?
    - BSDobelix 2y ago
      https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/MTDSG/Volume%20I/Chapter%20IV/IV-11.en.pdf https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/MTDSG/Volume%20I/Cha...
      - colejohnson66 2y ago
        According to that document, the US _signed_ it in 1995, but has yet to _ratify_ it (notice the blank space in the third column).
- number6 2y ago
  First time I heard about TWAIL. Ok, now human rights are controversial? The one ideal, that whoever you are, wherever you are, you hold universal rights because you are a human. This are Western ideas and are not true for the global south? This belief is weaponized? I cannot believe this. Simply outrageous. I never understood the religious people before - to me this is a sacrilege. Universal human rights are the hill I will literally die on.
  - pas 2y ago
    human rights in spirit are not. but in practice (see the the argument below) they are used more as a rhetorical shield. they are toothless paper tigers, they are extremely easy to co-opt and corrupt the spirit. (eg. see how Putin loves harping on about self-determination of people in the annexed regions; how proudly democratic North Korea is.) I hope my extreme summarization is not completely useless. https://www.philosophizethis.org/transcript/episode-191-transcript https://www.philosophizethis.org/transcript/episode-191-tran... // https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiE5rBLrIgM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiE5rBLrIgM
    - number6 2y ago
      First: very nice podcast. Second: the biggest straw man I have ever seen. Rage bait Philosophy.Just because human rights are violated does not mean, that they are useless or non existence. It's a good word of caution specially the normalizing states of emergency and dehumanizing people. Civil libertys and democracy are fragile achievements, that need to be protected by the citizens. Human rights are rights against an overbearing state. All the examples given are valid points, that violate human rights. And for every issue there is a human right group, that fights against the violations. I dont buy his conclusion about potential either... Another magical force. Regarding organisations and corporations he should really read up on Luhmann. So maybe I am a fanatic - none of his arguments strike true for me. Thanks for exposing me to this ideas!
      - pas 2y ago
        Yeah, I had the exact same sentiment. (As in "sure we don't live in a perfect world, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to set goals as a bare minimum baseline".) Oh, here's one more video on human rights https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhRBsJYWR8Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhRBsJYWR8Q (by Jonas Čeika - CCK Philosophy, a collectivist/Marxist?)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
mminer237 2y ago
> A persons right to exist is not political I don't think anyone is saying anyone else should not exist.
- soganess 2y ago
  While I agree that everything is inescapably political, I think the subtext of quoted comment was not just exist as in "be alive", but exist as in "be alive with dignity + autonomy". Which (going by the wiki on Lynn) was clearly a strong point of contention / friction between them and greater society. The Alan Turing comparison springs to mind.
docmars 2y ago
I think an important distinction people are looking for is: It's not the mere existence of a person that's an issue, but rather the coercive, punishing activism that takes place around a false idea that human rights are at risk, while these personal choices are simultaneously being celebrated by nearly every government institution and major corporation in existence. The same activism requires full acceptance by parents, families, and children who do not want these choices influencing their personal lives. To say these rights are at risk is an outright lie. It's one thing to have a significant voter base opposed to those choices and still be fully able to live and express those choices freely and publicly — while it's a whole different issue to have governments actively enforcing a different private life against their will (specifically LGBTQ folks). (Edits: re-word for clarification)
- polairscience 2y ago
  While I agree that institutions and corporations are more actively participating in human rights issues in the recent past, something I think is a really good thing, I don't see the aspects of that coverage that are coercive or punishing. Your argument disingenuous on two points: 1) Nowhere, in history, does "government actively enforcing a different private life against one's will" mean "you are forced to live or participate in a transgender life". For the entirety of history government and corporations have actively forced "different" people like Lynn to conform to your expectations of them. See Lynn being fired from IBM. 2) "To say they are at risk is an outright lie". The rhetoric and social norms around the existence of transgender people enables violent people to murder them. They are absolutely actively at risk. What other phrase, besides "at risk", would you use to explain that transgender people are 4 times more likely to be murdered. They are literally killed for being different and because we dehumanize them. I look forward to the day that what you say is true. That there are people who oppose those choices but that transgender people can live a free and public life without being murdered for being themselves. I think what you're putting forward sounds great.
  - docmars 2y ago
    [flagged]
- 2y ago
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
dragonwriter 2y ago
> A persons right to exist is not political It is, both in the literal sense of political as “relating to government or public affairs”, and also quite often in the frequently used sense of “controversial between political parties or factions”. The fact that your political view is that it should not be political (in presumably the latter sense) does not change the fact that it often factually is.
Bostonian 2y ago
Thirty years almost everyone believed that a person's sex is determined at conception and is immutable, and most people on earth probably still believe that today.
- polairscience 2y ago
  You're using the word sex. There is a known, massively complex, relationship between sex and gender but it's not 1:1. For anyone. Or, if you think that's not true, then please describe to me how they're identical. In a group of men, in any place in the world, you'll find wildly varying accounts of what the male gender "is" all the way down to how their bodies should look. And, gender aside, the most important thing to consider is the existence of intersex people, the diaspora of their bodies, and to consider how you think we should talk about them. Sex is, even outside gender, in fact not immutable. It's biology. These people are also historically denigrated. Please imagine how ~150 years ago we collectively thought (and some people still think) that a person's race determined their intelligence. Historically "fundamental truths" usually end up with people being thought of as subhuman. The "fundamental truth" of sex, as it's presented by those who consider trans folks not people, is the same sort of truth. Biological sex is a spectrum, demonstrably. Gender is also demonstrably a spectrum. I don't care what people believe sex is or isn't. I care that we treat everyone, no matter how "weird" with respect.
  - umvi 2y ago
    > There is a known, massively complex, relationship between sex and gender but it's not 1:1 You could argue though that it's only complex because we (collectively) decided to complicate it in order to accommodate the preferences of small subsets of society. In some other country, society might collectively decide not to accommodate said wishes and instead treat sex and gender as immutable and indistinguishable. Such a course would result in a simpler classification system: XX = female, XY = male, anything else = unclassified (genetic defect handled on a case-by-case basis).
    - altairprime 2y ago
      The classification you've described is not valid for use with Homo sapiens, neither today nor in the future. It's based on the assumption that our genes control our organs, when they're merely a weighted suggestion at best. And, the Y chromosome is gradually withering away in humankind and is expected to disappear someday. Human beings can develop fertile male reproductive organs without it (see below), and evolution abhors exceptions that have no benefit and many drawbacks (such as colorblindness). > a simpler classification system: XX = female, XY = male This would, as with all other such systems that refer to X/Y chromosomes, be invalidated immediately upon contact with reality. I estimate that a couple million people worldwide have one set of fertile reproductive organs that do not match the binary view described – that is: men without, and women with, a Y chromosome. > it's only complex because we (collectively) decided to complicate it in order to accommodate the preferences of small subsets of society None of these people selected a "preference" at birth, and may go their entire lives and have children without ever realizing that their chromosomes and their reproductive organs do not match the XX/XY binary you've presented. > anything else = unclassified (genetic defect handled on a case-by-case basis) This would mislabel XXX, XXY, XYY people as "defects" for genetic circumstances that do not necessarily have any visible presentation, that people may not be aware of at all. It also mislabel some, but not all, intersex people as "defects". Intersex people span the entire spectrum of known chromosome combinations in human beings: Human bodies produce one or more sets of (often) fertile reproductive equipment regardless of what chromosomes are or are not present. Ironically, then, focusing on XX/XY classifications while disregarding the realities of human biology always results in an invalid classification system that is more likely to harm cis people than intersex people.
demosthanos 2y ago
It's a lot more complicated than that. What constitutes a human right is deeply tied up in questions of ethics that are not settled and have no universal acceptance even within a single culture. Any given person will have deep feelings about the human rights that their ethical framework demands, but those deep feelings will often contradict the deeply held feelings of other people. This means that which ethical framework we as a society use to decide what counts as a human right is an inherently political question: it's a decision that we try to make as a society in as nonviolent a manner as possible. And before we get too far off the deep end, I want to note that both sides of the aisle firmly believe that the other side ignores fundamental human rights that their side respects. This is what happens when good people operate with completely opposite ethical frameworks, and we won't get anywhere by just shouting that our framework is the only valid one.
umvi 2y ago
> A persons right to exist is not political I don't think anyone disagrees with that, I think the disagreement comes from the way that activists insist that the best solution for treating [gender dysphoria, etc] is to "socially and heavy handedly force everyone to complete the illusion by treating transgender individuals as indistinguishable from their biological counterparts in every way". That's not the only solution for treating [gender dysphoria, etc], just the current (and perhaps uniquely) American one, and it comes with a variety of problems the obvious of which stem from significant biological factors that make the illusion impossible to complete (sports, etc).
- yawpitch 2y ago
  > sports, etc Just going to keep pointing out that human beings have very little sexual dimorphism compared to the other great apes, and that any difference is any sport that does not actually employ the genitals is probably more down to food access and/or training disparities than actual “significant” biological factors.
  - InitialLastName 2y ago
    > probably more down to food access and/or training disparities than actual “significant” biological factors. I'm not really going to defend the other side here because sports are (by definition) fundamentally arbitrary, but is this really borne out by reality? To use an easy comparison, elite adult womens' track and field athletes might be competitive against high school boys, but not at any higher level. Compare, for example, the international womens' records [0] to the records from this random high school nationals track meet [1]. What food access and/or training advantage are high school kids going to have over the most capable athletes in their sport? [0] https://trackandfieldnews.com/records/womens-world-records/ https://trackandfieldnews.com/records/womens-world-records/ [1] https://nbnationalsout.com/results-and-records https://nbnationalsout.com/results-and-records
    - yawpitch 2y ago
      You’re asking the wrong question… what we’d need to do is take a girl with the same height and muscle mass as a boy and give them both the diet and training (and societal and economic incentives and rewards) of a Usain Bolt from birth, then look for sexual dimorphism’s effect on their sports performance. Looking for support for your confirmation bias in stats that already are influenced by thousands of years of your confirmation bias doesn’t exactly make decent scientific inquiry. Again, when compared with the other great apes (never mind less closely related primates) we humans have relatively minimal sexual dimorphism, and no obvious biological reason to simply assume that two adult peers that had the same dietary and exercise and skills training regimes would have vastly different athletic performance characteristics, especially across a wide range of sports.
throwaway984393 2y ago
[dead]
belorn 2y ago
A persons right to exist is not political. There are however a bunch of things which is political like: Laws governing universal health care, laws governing minors rights to make decisions as minors, laws that makes distinctions between genders, cultural norms around bathrooms (which is mostly a stupid cost-cutting measure), and norms around cultural sports (which are fairly arbitrary). Out of those, the first two should likely remain being political, while the two last ones should be resolved, and the middle one should just not exist.

Anybody who conflates human rights as "politics" are someone I simply cannot respect A persons right to exist is not political (This isn't a dig at OP but it's worth restating)

marcuskane2 2y ago

[flagged]

nsomaru 2y ago

Human rights are intimately woven into International Law and state sovereignty. The work of the TWAIL scholars is relevant, especially as regards how human rights are deployed to undermine the sovereignty of the global south following the rapid “decolonisation” of the mid 20th century. I’m afraid it’s almost impossible to divorce politics and human rights.

IntelMiner 2y ago
Politics are intertwined in every facet of the human experience, because they're effectively the net result of a social group Some people however strive to "live above" politics, or to breathlessly demand things be "apolitical" based on their own biases. That bias in of itself being as "political" as anything else
vaylian 2y ago
Politics follow ethics in democratic societies. However, our understanding of ethics is always developing. We now understand that homosexuality is ethical. We understand that transgenderism is ethical. There will be more things in the future where politics has to bow to our improved understanding of ethics. Ethics is always a foundation for democratic politics, because politics needs to govern how we as a society live together in peace.
BSDobelix 2y ago
>I’m afraid it’s almost impossible to divorce politics and human rights. It is, example? Nord Korea signed it, the US and Canada just ratified it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_the_Child https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_the_Rights_of_th...
- wizzwizz4 2y ago
  > the US and Canada just ratified it Canada ratified it years ago (if we're not counting optional protocols), but according to https://indicators.ohchr.org/ https://indicators.ohchr.org/, the US hasn't. Do you have a source?
  - BSDobelix 2y ago
    https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/MTDSG/Volume%20I/Chapter%20IV/IV-11.en.pdf https://treaties.un.org/doc/Publication/MTDSG/Volume%20I/Cha...
    - colejohnson66 2y ago
      According to that document, the US _signed_ it in 1995, but has yet to _ratify_ it (notice the blank space in the third column).
number6 2y ago
First time I heard about TWAIL. Ok, now human rights are controversial? The one ideal, that whoever you are, wherever you are, you hold universal rights because you are a human. This are Western ideas and are not true for the global south? This belief is weaponized? I cannot believe this. Simply outrageous. I never understood the religious people before - to me this is a sacrilege. Universal human rights are the hill I will literally die on.
- pas 2y ago
  human rights in spirit are not. but in practice (see the the argument below) they are used more as a rhetorical shield. they are toothless paper tigers, they are extremely easy to co-opt and corrupt the spirit. (eg. see how Putin loves harping on about self-determination of people in the annexed regions; how proudly democratic North Korea is.) I hope my extreme summarization is not completely useless. https://www.philosophizethis.org/transcript/episode-191-transcript https://www.philosophizethis.org/transcript/episode-191-tran... // https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiE5rBLrIgM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CiE5rBLrIgM
  - number6 2y ago
    First: very nice podcast. Second: the biggest straw man I have ever seen. Rage bait Philosophy.Just because human rights are violated does not mean, that they are useless or non existence. It's a good word of caution specially the normalizing states of emergency and dehumanizing people. Civil libertys and democracy are fragile achievements, that need to be protected by the citizens. Human rights are rights against an overbearing state. All the examples given are valid points, that violate human rights. And for every issue there is a human right group, that fights against the violations. I dont buy his conclusion about potential either... Another magical force. Regarding organisations and corporations he should really read up on Luhmann. So maybe I am a fanatic - none of his arguments strike true for me. Thanks for exposing me to this ideas!
    - pas 2y ago
      Yeah, I had the exact same sentiment. (As in "sure we don't live in a perfect world, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to set goals as a bare minimum baseline".) Oh, here's one more video on human rights https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhRBsJYWR8Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhRBsJYWR8Q (by Jonas Čeika - CCK Philosophy, a collectivist/Marxist?)

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

mminer237 2y ago

> A persons right to exist is not political I don't think anyone is saying anyone else should not exist.

soganess 2y ago
While I agree that everything is inescapably political, I think the subtext of quoted comment was not just exist as in "be alive", but exist as in "be alive with dignity + autonomy". Which (going by the wiki on Lynn) was clearly a strong point of contention / friction between them and greater society. The Alan Turing comparison springs to mind.

docmars 2y ago

I think an important distinction people are looking for is: It's not the mere existence of a person that's an issue, but rather the coercive, punishing activism that takes place around a false idea that human rights are at risk, while these personal choices are simultaneously being celebrated by nearly every government institution and major corporation in existence. The same activism requires full acceptance by parents, families, and children who do not want these choices influencing their personal lives. To say these rights are at risk is an outright lie. It's one thing to have a significant voter base opposed to those choices and still be fully able to live and express those choices freely and publicly — while it's a whole different issue to have governments actively enforcing a different private life against their will (specifically LGBTQ folks). (Edits: re-word for clarification)

polairscience 2y ago
While I agree that institutions and corporations are more actively participating in human rights issues in the recent past, something I think is a really good thing, I don't see the aspects of that coverage that are coercive or punishing. Your argument disingenuous on two points: 1) Nowhere, in history, does "government actively enforcing a different private life against one's will" mean "you are forced to live or participate in a transgender life". For the entirety of history government and corporations have actively forced "different" people like Lynn to conform to your expectations of them. See Lynn being fired from IBM. 2) "To say they are at risk is an outright lie". The rhetoric and social norms around the existence of transgender people enables violent people to murder them. They are absolutely actively at risk. What other phrase, besides "at risk", would you use to explain that transgender people are 4 times more likely to be murdered. They are literally killed for being different and because we dehumanize them. I look forward to the day that what you say is true. That there are people who oppose those choices but that transgender people can live a free and public life without being murdered for being themselves. I think what you're putting forward sounds great.
- docmars 2y ago
  [flagged]
2y ago

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

dragonwriter 2y ago

> A persons right to exist is not political It is, both in the literal sense of political as “relating to government or public affairs”, and also quite often in the frequently used sense of “controversial between political parties or factions”. The fact that your political view is that it should not be political (in presumably the latter sense) does not change the fact that it often factually is.

Bostonian 2y ago

Thirty years almost everyone believed that a person's sex is determined at conception and is immutable, and most people on earth probably still believe that today.

polairscience 2y ago
You're using the word sex. There is a known, massively complex, relationship between sex and gender but it's not 1:1. For anyone. Or, if you think that's not true, then please describe to me how they're identical. In a group of men, in any place in the world, you'll find wildly varying accounts of what the male gender "is" all the way down to how their bodies should look. And, gender aside, the most important thing to consider is the existence of intersex people, the diaspora of their bodies, and to consider how you think we should talk about them. Sex is, even outside gender, in fact not immutable. It's biology. These people are also historically denigrated. Please imagine how ~150 years ago we collectively thought (and some people still think) that a person's race determined their intelligence. Historically "fundamental truths" usually end up with people being thought of as subhuman. The "fundamental truth" of sex, as it's presented by those who consider trans folks not people, is the same sort of truth. Biological sex is a spectrum, demonstrably. Gender is also demonstrably a spectrum. I don't care what people believe sex is or isn't. I care that we treat everyone, no matter how "weird" with respect.
- umvi 2y ago
  > There is a known, massively complex, relationship between sex and gender but it's not 1:1 You could argue though that it's only complex because we (collectively) decided to complicate it in order to accommodate the preferences of small subsets of society. In some other country, society might collectively decide not to accommodate said wishes and instead treat sex and gender as immutable and indistinguishable. Such a course would result in a simpler classification system: XX = female, XY = male, anything else = unclassified (genetic defect handled on a case-by-case basis).
  - altairprime 2y ago
    The classification you've described is not valid for use with Homo sapiens, neither today nor in the future. It's based on the assumption that our genes control our organs, when they're merely a weighted suggestion at best. And, the Y chromosome is gradually withering away in humankind and is expected to disappear someday. Human beings can develop fertile male reproductive organs without it (see below), and evolution abhors exceptions that have no benefit and many drawbacks (such as colorblindness). > a simpler classification system: XX = female, XY = male This would, as with all other such systems that refer to X/Y chromosomes, be invalidated immediately upon contact with reality. I estimate that a couple million people worldwide have one set of fertile reproductive organs that do not match the binary view described – that is: men without, and women with, a Y chromosome. > it's only complex because we (collectively) decided to complicate it in order to accommodate the preferences of small subsets of society None of these people selected a "preference" at birth, and may go their entire lives and have children without ever realizing that their chromosomes and their reproductive organs do not match the XX/XY binary you've presented. > anything else = unclassified (genetic defect handled on a case-by-case basis) This would mislabel XXX, XXY, XYY people as "defects" for genetic circumstances that do not necessarily have any visible presentation, that people may not be aware of at all. It also mislabel some, but not all, intersex people as "defects". Intersex people span the entire spectrum of known chromosome combinations in human beings: Human bodies produce one or more sets of (often) fertile reproductive equipment regardless of what chromosomes are or are not present. Ironically, then, focusing on XX/XY classifications while disregarding the realities of human biology always results in an invalid classification system that is more likely to harm cis people than intersex people.

demosthanos 2y ago

It's a lot more complicated than that. What constitutes a human right is deeply tied up in questions of ethics that are not settled and have no universal acceptance even within a single culture. Any given person will have deep feelings about the human rights that their ethical framework demands, but those deep feelings will often contradict the deeply held feelings of other people. This means that which ethical framework we as a society use to decide what counts as a human right is an inherently political question: it's a decision that we try to make as a society in as nonviolent a manner as possible. And before we get too far off the deep end, I want to note that both sides of the aisle firmly believe that the other side ignores fundamental human rights that their side respects. This is what happens when good people operate with completely opposite ethical frameworks, and we won't get anywhere by just shouting that our framework is the only valid one.

umvi 2y ago

> A persons right to exist is not political I don't think anyone disagrees with that, I think the disagreement comes from the way that activists insist that the best solution for treating [gender dysphoria, etc] is to "socially and heavy handedly force everyone to complete the illusion by treating transgender individuals as indistinguishable from their biological counterparts in every way". That's not the only solution for treating [gender dysphoria, etc], just the current (and perhaps uniquely) American one, and it comes with a variety of problems the obvious of which stem from significant biological factors that make the illusion impossible to complete (sports, etc).

yawpitch 2y ago
> sports, etc Just going to keep pointing out that human beings have very little sexual dimorphism compared to the other great apes, and that any difference is any sport that does not actually employ the genitals is probably more down to food access and/or training disparities than actual “significant” biological factors.
- InitialLastName 2y ago
  > probably more down to food access and/or training disparities than actual “significant” biological factors. I'm not really going to defend the other side here because sports are (by definition) fundamentally arbitrary, but is this really borne out by reality? To use an easy comparison, elite adult womens' track and field athletes might be competitive against high school boys, but not at any higher level. Compare, for example, the international womens' records [0] to the records from this random high school nationals track meet [1]. What food access and/or training advantage are high school kids going to have over the most capable athletes in their sport? [0] https://trackandfieldnews.com/records/womens-world-records/ https://trackandfieldnews.com/records/womens-world-records/ [1] https://nbnationalsout.com/results-and-records https://nbnationalsout.com/results-and-records
  - yawpitch 2y ago
    You’re asking the wrong question… what we’d need to do is take a girl with the same height and muscle mass as a boy and give them both the diet and training (and societal and economic incentives and rewards) of a Usain Bolt from birth, then look for sexual dimorphism’s effect on their sports performance. Looking for support for your confirmation bias in stats that already are influenced by thousands of years of your confirmation bias doesn’t exactly make decent scientific inquiry. Again, when compared with the other great apes (never mind less closely related primates) we humans have relatively minimal sexual dimorphism, and no obvious biological reason to simply assume that two adult peers that had the same dietary and exercise and skills training regimes would have vastly different athletic performance characteristics, especially across a wide range of sports.

throwaway984393 2y ago

[dead]

belorn 2y ago

A persons right to exist is not political. There are however a bunch of things which is political like: Laws governing universal health care, laws governing minors rights to make decisions as minors, laws that makes distinctions between genders, cultural norms around bathrooms (which is mostly a stupid cost-cutting measure), and norms around cultural sports (which are fairly arbitrary). Out of those, the first two should likely remain being political, while the two last ones should be resolved, and the middle one should just not exist.