Women only train carriages

[Cyclone]

Is delhi the same as the rest of india?

Is london like sheffield?

 

Is Delhi like Sheffield? No, so much for your "they do it in Delhi and it works there"... Firstly it doesn't, and secondly Delhi is not like Sheffield and India is not like the UK.

[Olive]

How so?

Are fat people charged more on airplanes?

Do fit people get a discount when going to the gym (or pay more maybe).

Is age discrimination legal in any way?

You personally are free to discriminate, we aren't talking about individuals though, we're talking about a public transport provider.

Perhaps. Discrimination was only one of the long list of reasons this idea was nuts though.

 

Large people aren't allowed on some theme park rides (neither are short people). Under 18s aren't allowed in to see some films at the cinema. We don't allow the sale of alcohol to under 18s. People without a disabled badge aren't allowed to park in disabled spaces.

 

There's more than one definition of "discrimination". All I'm saying is that discrimination is fine if there's a good reason for it, ie when discrimination means "the ​ability to ​see the ​difference between things or ​people".

 

People tend to use the term in the sense of "​treating a ​person or ​particular ​group of ​people ​differently, ​especially in a ​worse way from the way in which you ​treat other ​people, because of ​their ​skin ​colour, ​sex, ​sexuality" (Cambridge dictionary). But doesn't necessarily have to be "in a worse way". It could be "in a perfectly reasonable way".

 

Hence, if the WAS an overwhelming need to give women their own carriage, eg if it would be virtually impossible to travel without harassment without it, then it's not prejudicial to do so. But as I've said, I don't think this is the case.

[WiseOwl182]

Large people aren't allowed on some theme park rides (neither are short people). Under 18s aren't allowed in to see some films at the cinema. We don't allow the sale of alcohol to under 18s. People without a disabled badge aren't allowed to park in disabled spaces.

 

There's more than one definition of "discrimination". All I'm saying is that discrimination is fine if there's a good reason for it, ie when discrimination means "the ​ability to ​see the ​difference between things or ​people".

 

People tend to use the term in the sense of "​treating a ​person or ​particular ​group of ​people ​differently, ​especially in a ​worse way from the way in which you ​treat other ​people, because of ​their ​skin ​colour, ​sex, ​sexuality" (Cambridge dictionary). But doesn't necessarily have to be "in a worse way". It could be "in a perfectly reasonable way".

 

Hence, if the WAS an overwhelming need to give women their own carriage, eg if it would be virtually impossible to travel without harassment without it, then it's not prejudicial to do so. But as I've said, I don't think this is the case.

 

 

They're not equivalent examples. If there were women only carriages, as a male I'd be banned from using a public service, that I'd be subsidising if ticket prices were the same, on the presumption that I could be a sex pest. That's different to indisputable safety reasons like being too heavy or short, or being legally defined as a child.

 

Applying your same logic to, say, Islamic terrorism, if terrorist attacks on trains reached a certain level (to be defined) then you would also have to ban Muslims from some carriages or trains, on the presumption they could be terrorists.

[Cyclone]

Large people aren't allowed on some theme park rides (neither are short people).

For safety reasons. Weight isn't a protected characteristic either.

Under 18s aren't allowed in to see some films at the cinema. We don't allow the sale of alcohol to under 18s.

Yes, children are technically discriminated against.

People without a disabled badge aren't allowed to park in disabled spaces.

However they are allowed to park.

 

There's more than one definition of "discrimination". All I'm saying is that discrimination is fine if there's a good reason for it, ie when discrimination means "the ​ability to ​see the ​difference between things or ​people".

 

People tend to use the term in the sense of "​treating a ​person or ​particular ​group of ​people ​differently, ​especially in a ​worse way from the way in which you ​treat other ​people, because of ​their ​skin ​colour, ​sex, ​sexuality" (Cambridge dictionary). But doesn't necessarily have to be "in a worse way". It could be "in a perfectly reasonable way".

So you're disagreeing with the "especially" bit?

 

Hence, if the WAS an overwhelming need to give women their own carriage, eg if it would be virtually impossible to travel without harassment without it, then it's not prejudicial to do so. But as I've said, I don't think this is the case.

If that were the case then police and cameras would be a better solution, punish the perpetrators, don't move the victims.

[TJC1]

Is Delhi like Sheffield? No, so much for your "they do it in Delhi and it works there"... Firstly it doesn't, and secondly Delhi is not like Sheffield and India is not like the UK.

 

there is evidence assaults on trains is increasing in india....but Delhi is not India.

 

It's like saying assaults in the UK are increasing while falsely believing assaults in Sheffield are also increasing.

[Cyclone]

It was you that brought India in as a comparison (not that you like comparisons). Now you're saying "Delhi isn't India", well, the UK isn't India either. Duh.

 

And this is the latest news in womens lib from India

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11841021/India-revenge-rape-shows-things-for-women-are-worse-than-ever.html

 

I think trying to use India or Delhi as an example of successful segradation is about as effective as using the US as a model of gun control and low violence.

[TJC1]

It was you that brought India in as a comparison (not that you like comparisons). Now you're saying "Delhi isn't India", well, the UK isn't India either. Duh.

 

And this is the latest news in womens lib from India

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11841021/India-revenge-rape-shows-things-for-women-are-worse-than-ever.html

 

I think trying to use India or Delhi as an example of successful segradation is about as effective as using the US as a model of gun control and low violence.

 

Seen as we cant compare a UK city, shouldnt we look at Delhi and see how it works, if it works, and how it could be improved?

thats just common sense.

[Olive]

They're not equivalent examples. If there were women only carriages, as a male I'd be banned from using a public service, that I'd be subsidising if ticket prices were the same, on the presumption that I could be a sex pest. That's different to indisputable safety reasons like being too heavy or short, or being legally defined as a child.

 

 

Well not really, as you'd still be able to use the train. They'd just be providing an extra option for one section of society, based on a specific reason. I'd liken it more to disabled parking spaces. Everyone can use the normal spaces, everyone pays the same, but people who need special spaces more get to use them exclusively.

 

---------- Post added 03-09-2015 at 16:57 ----------

 

For safety reasons. Weight isn't a protected characteristic either.

 

But here we're getting all muddled up about a definition in law and the meaning of a word.

 

You can discriminate (justly or unjustly) about anything or anyone, whether they're a protected group.

 

Discriminating between a men and women on trains would be safety reasons, so I'm not sure why you would argue on this point? Not that it would be a good idea, you understand, but that would be the rational behind it.

 

---------- Post added 03-09-2015 at 16:58 ----------

 

Yes, children are technically discriminated against.

 

Exactly, that's my point. Discrimination isn't by definition always bad.

 

---------- Post added 03-09-2015 at 17:00 ----------

 

However they are allowed to park.

 

Yes, people without disabled badges are allowed to park. Just like men would be allowed to use the train, just not in the women-only carriage.

 

---------- Post added 03-09-2015 at 17:01 ----------

 

If that were the case then police and cameras would be a better solution, punish the perpetrators, don't move the victims.

 

Totally agree.

[WiseOwl182]

Well not really, as you'd still be able to use the train. They'd just be providing an extra option for one section of society, based on a specific reason. I'd liken it more to disabled parking spaces. Everyone can use the normal spaces, everyone pays the same, but people who need special spaces more get to use them exclusively.

 

No, it's still different. Able bodied people aren't being discriminated against in the same way because there is no presumed guilt involved. Disabled people have a physical need for larger and closer spaces, not a perceived risk of criminality against them from able bodied drivers. A better comparison would be the one I presented you with and you chose to ignore, so I will try again:

 

Applying your same logic to, say, Islamic terrorism, if terrorist attacks on trains reached a certain level (to be defined) then you would also have to ban Muslims from some carriages or trains, on the presumption they could be terrorists.

[Olive]

No, it's still different. Able bodied people aren't being discriminated against in the same way because there is no presumed guilt involved. Disabled people have a physical need for larger and closer spaces, not a perceived risk of criminality against them from able bodied drivers. A better comparison would be the one I presented you with and you chose to ignore, so I will try again:

 

Applying your same logic to, say, Islamic terrorism, if terrorist attacks on trains reached a certain level (to be defined) then you would also have to ban Muslims from some carriages or trains, on the presumption they could be terrorists.

 

Ah, right, I can see where you're coming from now - apols it's taken so long. It's only that way if you choose to see it in those terms. Some will that all men are being tarred with the same brush, others will see it as giving a women a choice of feeling safer.