Pageant contestant disqualified over strange circumstances.

[Hamma]

Originally Posted by Malorn

Rules say naturally born female. Contestant wasn't naturally born female.

How is this an issue?

Right?

I mean seriously.. the participant does not have a vagina, Uterus or any of the other required parts. This is a requirement of a naturally born female. I just can't seem to see why this is an issue other than to create a full blown discrimination issue out of what obviously is a non issue. The rules stated were not followed and the participant was disqualified because they do not have a vagina.. One cannot be made female, only to look female.

Not to mention this - which is also key:

Originally Posted by Malorn

It's a privately funded contest, not a state funded contest. They can make whatever rules they want for it.

Then again that goes for the US. Who knows what will happen in Canada.

[Vash02]

Originally Posted by Malorn

It's a privately funded contest, not a state funded contest. They can make whatever rules they want for it.

No they cant, they cant even do that in America. Businesses still have to abide by the laws of the land.


The government stands for all of its citizens and should do its best to stop a creation of a second class citizens, official or de facto.

[Quovatis]

Originally Posted by Vash02

No they cant, they cant even do that in America. Businesses still have to abide by the laws of the land.


The government stands for all of its citizens and should do its best to stop a creation of a second class citizens, official or de facto.

Commerce and private functions/events are two different things. At least in the USA.

[Vash02]

Originally Posted by Quovatis

Exactly. If they really said no blacks, there would be quite the outcry and nobody would participate. It wouldn't be very popular. It's self-regulating in that manner. But I see nothing wrong with it, them being a private organization.

Try that in 1960's America. That kind of system simply does not work.

Originally Posted by Quovatis

Commerce and private functions/events are two different things. At least in the USA.

Do they show it on TV? does that TV show have adverts? yes they do.

[Figment]

Originally Posted by Quovatis

So are you allowed to throw a party in your home in Canada and only invite your white friends or are you required by law to invite your black friends too? Are you required to invite the KKK members that live across the street too (or were they already thrown in jail)? See how silly it can get? I see a private organization the same way.

That's all nice and dandy, but was it in the rules of this private organization that she had to be BORN woman? OR was that a rule they made up after they realised someone participated who once was a male? See, if the rule for instance is, no surgical alterations are allowed whatsoever (where I would personally interpret that as "cheating", like doping) or health threatening things, like no anorexia, then okay I suppose. In that case you could even theoretically say "well, you used hormone treatment", kinda like people using steroids for bodybuilding contests. Then okay, there was a case to be made from a sporting pov.

So does anyone have a copy of the (original) rules? ;p



From my pov, if she is recognized as a woman by the government after a sex change (at least I think that's the point of having a sex change, changing M to F, or F to M), then that should be good enough if the question is "are you a man/woman?".

Tbh, I find it very distasteful and indeed discriminating to make up such a rule in this particular case. You basically make such people 2nd rate humans with these rules and you let them and everyone else know "they are", according to you. That is not just discriminating, that's simply insulting. Of couse that does fit in a long tradition of humans shunning "imperfects" such as transexuals, preventing from getting normal work (for no other reason than appearance), often having them end up in freak shows or worse. It is nobody's fault to be born in any way. If someone make a choice that makes him or her feel more comfortable about themselves, they should be supported tbh.



It kinda reminds me of something else. Some locally organised marathon from last year wanted to stimulate the running sport in the Netherlands in particular. But, they had an open tournament. So what they did was create prizes where everyone could enter, but the prize money would go predominantly to dutch participants (around 10.000 Euro for the first dutch man/woman to cross the finish line) and there were lower prices for the other nationals who'd arrive first. Why? Because without keeping anyone from entering, they wanted to make a promotional and motivational effort for dutch athletes in particular. This due to every single marathon (national and international) held in the past decades in the Netherlands being completely dominated by Africans (Ethiopians and Kenyans in particular). This brought motivation down and running as a national sport has been in decline for a long period. They didn't want to make it a less competitive match though.

Of course the Ethiopian and Kenyan embassies yelled discrimination. They argued that if people are allowed to enter and win, they should get all the prize money and giving money to non-winners would not be fair. Yes, it was discrimination, on the other hand one could argue it was a national tournament in an international setting and international athletes should be happy they were allowed to participate and win around 5.000 Euro still. In fact, you could argue it's like Le Mans where you have a couple different leagues of cars driving at the same time.

That though, is on a different level because the intention behind it is completely different.

[Hamma]

I don't even think this even applies - the rules were broken and the participant does not even have the required equipment to participate as a female.

[Vash02]

Originally Posted by Hamma

I don't even think this even applies - the rules were broken and the participant does not even have the required equipment to participate as a female.

I think you are missing the point of the thread. Its not just because she was kicked out, its also the rule itself.

[WildGunsTomcat]

Originally Posted by Warborn

Is it really a right for someone to discriminate against other people on the basis of their gender, ethnicity, or whatever? Is that something that deserves defending?

As distasteful as it might be to you, yes, that bigot has rights.

He can say whatever he wants as long as he is not physically harming anyone.

But in Canada, I guess harm to someone's ego is the same as physical harm. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but your words put you in jail.

And the USA is backwards compared to Canada how exactly?

[Hamma]

Originally Posted by Vash02

I think you are missing the point of the thread. Its not just because she was kicked out, its also the rule itself.

I don't take issue with it - if someone is not actually a female why should they be allowed to participate in a female event.

Let me also say I have no issue at all with people doing these things, and I have no issues at all with homosexuality. People are allowed to do what they want with their lives without being persecuted for it.

But the whole thought of this just simply makes no sense to me. You cannot change your gender no matter how hard you try, the only thing you can do is change the shell.

[WildGunsTomcat]

Originally Posted by Vash02

I think you are missing the point of the thread. Its not just because she was kicked out, its also the rule itself.

The point is, it's a privately funded organization. They have the right to control their organization however they see fit.

But, as we have pointed out...it's in Canada...and they have very liberal laws when it comes to social justice/injustice.

So who knows how this will go.

But I know in the poor backwards US...the courts would laugh this out of the system based solely on the fact that it's a private pageant and they have the right to remove anyone from the pageant for whatever they wish. As long as they're not accepting federal funding, they have the RIGHT to tell this woman no.

We call that civil liberty here in America....thank God we still have rights here...for now.

[Quovatis]

Originally Posted by Vash02

Try that in 1960's America. That kind of system simply does not work.

Laws were passed in the 1960s to make sure commerce and public places did not have discrimination. There is no law in the US forbidding discrimination in private matters. And yes, it does work. That's why the KKK doesn't have millions of members and their rallies aren't shown on TV with tons of sponsors.

Do they show it on TV? does that TV show have adverts? yes they do.

Nobody is forcing the advertisers to sponsor the program. The event isn't providing a service or product. The TV is, yes, but the carriers of that program aren't allowed to discriminate.

[Firefly]

Originally Posted by Hamma

But the whole thought of this just simply makes no sense to me. You cannot change your gender no matter how hard you try, the only thing you can do is change the shell.

Sex-reassignment surgery pretty much disagrees with you.

[Quovatis]

Your gender is determined by the presence or absence of the Y-chromosome in your DNA. Injecting yourself with estrogen and turning your penis inside-out doesn't change that fact.

[Hamma]

I don't agree that modification of your body makes you another gender regardless of the surgeries performed. You are still a man, and were still born as a man.

EDIT: Q said it better

Originally Posted by Quovatis

Your gender is determined by the presence or absence of the Y-chromosome in your DNA. Injecting yourself with estrogen and turning your penis inside-out doesn't change that fact.

[WildGunsTomcat]

Originally Posted by Quovatis

Your gender is determined by the presence or absence of the Y-chromosome in your DNA. Injecting yourself with estrogen and turning your penis inside-out doesn't change that fact.

Agreed.

100%.

Guess I'm a bigot/intolerant.