Penny Arcade and 'The Mike Problem'

[Metcarfre]

I just wanted to say that the distinction for me is that the freedom to not be attacked, harrased and so on is a basic right and not a privilege. Where men are privileged is in the fact that they do enjoy these basic rights without having to fight for them. For me it's important to note that difference.

Interesting. I wouldn't have thought to put it like that, but I think that's very apt. Thinking of it like that helps me get my head around the way the terminology is used. Thank you for that.

Yeah, agreed.

The question, then, is which is the best way to discuss how someone's perspective is affected by these differential experiences? Why isn't saying "I'm privileged to enjoy my right to be free from harassment as a white hetero male" correct? Is there a better way?

Of course, this is entirely tangential to the overall discussion, but, you know, threads.

[Mums]

Well, for now it's not wrong to say that one is privileged as a white male for that reason. The end goal would probably be for it to not be a privilege to enjoy that freedom, instead it would be the norm.

I think the terminology problem was when the discussion steered toward something like "since women tend to get raped more often then men do we can see that men have the privilege of the right not to get raped" everybody has the right to not get raped. I think that's the first step to fixing things, to realize everybody's equality. Mens privilege lies in that they don't have their rights violated, not that they have more rights. If we all acknowledge that we all have the same rights we can start working towards stopping the violation of those rights towards whomever is being violated.

[Metcarfre]

Sure, I can buy that. But I think what people are trying to say when they say something like "check your male privilege!" it can mean something like "Because you're a man, I don't think you understand my [theoretical woman] fear of being raped or assaulted in a public setting."

It's, understand the personal perspective you have on issues, and why that means two equally intelligent people can react differently to the same facts or events.

For example, a man could react to the original Dickwolves controversy and say, "well, it's just a joke, I don't see what the big deal is." Whereas a woman - particularly a victim of sexual violence - could say, "that PA thinks this is funny and OK, and that their audience reacts to it positively, makes me feel uncomfortable, fearful, and threatened, especially so if I choose to go to PAX."

[Avistew]

@Wraith: ok, I appreciate that your definition of right isn't the same as I've always been using. But then, what word do you use for what I've been calling a right? If I say "so and so wants the right to do this because they don't have it", but can't say "right" because they should have it, therefore it's not the right that they don't have, it's something else... then what is that something else?

If I say that a gay couple want the *bleep* to walk together hand in hand, what is the word for "*bleep*" since it's not "right" or "privilege"?

[King Kool]

I gotta be honest.

That above definition of "privilege" is the first time it's sort of clicked for me. I'm still not really sold on the word itself, but if that's the definition we're working with, I really have no problem with the concept.

[Wraith]

my responding sarcastically to Wraith's entirely meaningless syntactic argument

Nice try. You didn't "respond sarcastically to a meaningless argument."

You pulled a textbook strawman. What I like to refer to as "the oppression straman." I see this little game every day. You take a logical argument, falsely claim it was an entirely different argument, respond to said false argument (instead of the one I actually made) with righteous indignation and then leverage your personal adversities and the sympathy brought about by discussing them as a "get out of a logical argument free card."

It is cheap, it is dishonest, and it is manipulative.

You sir, are the very model of the type of "oppression olympian" I have talked about in this this thread.

Re: Cis White Male Privilege.

I defer to Mister John Scalzi - Being a Straight White Male is western life's Easy Difficulty Setting.

"I’ve been thinking of a way to explain to straight white men how life works for them"

Not really terribly impressed by someone who has apparently decided that it's his job to explain to other people "how life works for them" based entirely on their ethnicity and sexual preference.

Firstly, it is a privilege for a white heterosexual male not having to fight for the basic rights.

No, it's not. Not having to fight for basic rights is itself a basic human right. And like I said, the denial of a human right does not make it cease to be a human right. A privilege is something that people are not inherently entitled to.

Have you ever noticed that no one accuses China of having a horrible "privilege violations" record? They have the worst "human rights violation" record. We do not call these thing privileges just because they are so often denied the people there.

I just think that what Wraith is trying to say is that homosexual, bisexual, transpeople, and everyone else (sorry for the ignorance in the different names) shouldn't be fighting for having the privilege of not being denied their basic rights.

Well, no; not really. I mean, you're absolutely right that they should not have to fight for equal protection of those rights; but my argument (at least on this particular subject) boils down to "people should stop referring to basic human rights as privileges." Simple as that, really.

Sure, I appreciate that. However, if I can draw your attention to a statement that I made earlier in this thread:

Are you confident that this is the meaning? Or is it really "because you have never experienced this, it isn't on your radar, whereas other people have to live with it everyday"? At the end of the day, you have experienced things I have not, I have experienced things that you have not, any given person in the thread may have experienced something else, and we are not doing each other any favours pretending that they are exactly the same.

And I responded to that. What I was responding to with the comment you just quoted, was

Maybe you can clear this up for me, then, because when people tell you what they mean, and you reply saying that you're "pretty confident" that they mean something else, that certainly feels like attaching negative connotations to other people's words to me. If that's not what you meant, can you please clarify?

So I clarified exactly why I said I felt confident of their meaning; as opposed to attaching unfair negative connotations to other people's words, which I also provided an example of.

You asked, I answered.

I realize in hindsight that I phrased that poorly, choosing snark over clarity. What I should have said instead of the first two sentences was, "When people in this thread, including myself, talk about privilege, what is meant is that it refers to things that because someone has never and will never experience due to circumstance, aren't on their radar, whereas other people have to live with it everyday". I continue to stand by the remainder of that quote.

I understand what you mean. I'm simply saying that's not privilege, and that considering the fact that using that word actually implies that people are not inherently entitled to the things you're referring to is an incredibly ironic fail.

Whether you agree or not is not the issue. I would just like to know if you honestly believe that the quoted statement of yours is actually the same thing as what I was trying to get across, or if this was because of my poor communication.

No, I don't think it's the same as what you were saying. It was an example of the most common usage of the term.

But at the moment yes, Cis White Males do have a privileged position in western society.

Then I ask you - keeping in mind the difference between privileges and rights - what privileges do Cis White Males enjoy that others do not?

So it's entirely wrong to rail against the label of "privilege". Saying "it shouldn't be like that" is not a reason to deny it is like that and ask people who have such privilege to be aware of it.

Except that I didn't say that the term shouldn't be used "because it shouldn't be like that."

Seriously, this is not a complicate argument. I don't understand why I have to keep repeating this: the reason privilege is the wrong label is because it's inaccurate. Privileges are things that people are NOT inherently entitled to.

China doesn't have "a horrible privilege violations record." The have a horrible human rights violations record, because the fact that these rights are so often denied poor Chinese workers does not mean they are no longer rights.

If being denied these things stops them from being rights, then why do we call it "the fight for gay rights?" Shouldn't it be "the fight for gay privilege?" Because according to you, the things they are fighting for are privileges.

This is actually the reason the term gets used at all.

Here's an example of an argument that demonstrates the concept of "privilege" making it hard for someone to understand something...

"Why do Women get to have Men Free Spaces, but Men can't have Men's Only Clubs?"
"Because Men Free Spaces are about safety, and that's because women are outstandingly more likely to be the victims of violent crimes at the hands of men than men are from women. There are plenty of spaces that are safe for men already!"
"Well okay, but the solution to that isn't Men Free Spaces, it's to stop men attacking women!"
"Yes. But till then we need to do something to make things safer for women!"
"But that's Discrimination!"
"Yes, because it's something women need right now and men don't!"

The root is a failure to understand that the action is to try and give Women some additional privileges to counter balance the existing privilege that men have. But if you don't want to accept that men have privilege, it looks like giving Women something Men don't have.

It's sexist, discriminatory bullshit is what that is.

"women are outstandingly more likely to be the victims of violent crimes at the hands of men than men are from women." Really? You realize that 40% of intimate partner violence are MEN, right? A 10% shift and men would be victims as often as women. The difference is that when women are the aggressors, it is far more likely to be ignored.

You realize this logic could easily used to justify segregation? "Well, in this region, the overwhelming majority of gangs and violent crime are perpetrated by black men, so we don't allow them in this club."

You don't get to punish millions of people because they were born with the same genitals as people who have committed violent acts. You don't get to treat innocent people as potential violent offenders based solely on the circumstances of their birth.

You are giving women something men don't have. You are very blatantly justifying sexual discrimination.

Not that it matters, men still get turned away from soup kitchens hungry because it's a "woman only day." 12 year old boys are still forced to stay with their abusive fathers because they're not allowed to stay in shelters wit their mothers (and God help you if you bring up the idea of a shelter for battered men). Male victims of domestic violence who call DV hotlines are still redirected to hotlines set up for men seeking guidance and support with rage issues because the DV hotlines only take female callers.

But hey, who cares, right? They're men! They don't have vaginas, so to hell with them!

If I say that a gay couple want the *bleep* to walk together hand in hand, what is the word for "*bleep*" since it's not "right" or "privilege"?

How about "a gay couple want to be able to walk hand in hand." Just a matter of phrasing, really.

[ex-Lurker]

DISCLAIMER: Sorry if I'm putting words into people's mouths, if so my bad.

From what I've read it seems like the two sides are debating over "rights" and "privileges" because of different viewpoints.
One side (e.g. Wraith) believes that the ability for anyone to be treated like a white het cis-male is a right due to documents like the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights stating that everyone should be treated equally.
The other side (e.g. Ditto) views said ability to be a privilege because not everyone has this ability, and in fact only a portion of the population has this ability.
If this is true, then the debate breaks down to "what should be" and "what is" and as I noted before, the definition you subscribe to depends on individual outlook on life. One side is defining by the strict sense of the word, and the other is defining by real-life facts, both are equally valid.
Note: My little attempt to clear things up, for myself and others, feel free to poke holes in my points. I deliberately used "ability" to avoid "rights" and "privilege" so sorry if that word turned clunky.

[mariomario42]

You realize this logic could easily used to justify segregation? "Well, in this region, the overwhelming majority of gangs and violent crime are perpetrated by black men, so we don't allow them in this club."

You don't get to punish millions of people because they were born with the same genitals as people who have committed violent acts. You don't get to treat innocent people as potential violent offenders based solely on the circumstances of their birth.

You are giving women something men don't have. You are very blatantly justifying sexual discrimination.

This was well said and I agree with this. If people get one thing out of reading all these pages, it should be this since you can apply it to everything.

[phlip]

How about "a gay couple want to be able to walk hand in hand." Just a matter of phrasing, really.

Maybe the term "privilege" is a bit of a misnomer. On a good day, depending on my mood, I could probably grant that. But even given that... the effect is real, and I don't think you're arguing otherwise. There is a significant laundry list of things social minorities should be able to do, but are unable to. Whether you term that as "privilege" or as "minorities having rights systematically violated"... it is a real thing that happens, and is a thing that it is relevant to bring up in discussions. And that is so much easier when there's a term for it. "Privilege" might not be an absolutely perfect term, given certain narrow definitions of the term, but it's useful to be able to not have to start from scratch describing the systematic violation of rights of minorities in every discussion. See also: every piece of jargon in every context ever.

If I'm reading you right, you don't seem to be arguing against the idea that the violation exists, or that it's a problem... you just seem to be arguing against the word used to describe it. I believe that a simple debate about terminology has no need to go on for nearly as long as it has, and has a tendency to distract from the actual issues at hand... by turning the discussion into a debate about the word, it has been derailed from being a debate about the problem the word represents.

Not really terribly impressed by someone who has apparently decided that it's his job to explain to other people "how life works for them" based entirely on their ethnicity and sexual preference.

You don't get to punish millions of people because they were born with the same genitals as people who have committed violent acts. You don't get to treat innocent people as potential violent offenders based solely on the circumstances of their birth. [...] But hey, who cares, right? They're men! They don't have vaginas, so to hell with them!

I think it's pretty hilarious you pulling out all these old standbys in the same post as attacking someone else for a strawman argument. Practise what you preach sometime, perhaps?

[JayBlanc]

This is actually the reason the term gets used at all.

Here's an example of an argument that demonstrates the concept of "privilege" making it hard for someone to understand something...

"Why do Women get to have Men Free Spaces, but Men can't have Men's Only Clubs?"
"Because Men Free Spaces are about safety, and that's because women are outstandingly more likely to be the victims of violent crimes at the hands of men than men are from women. There are plenty of spaces that are safe for men already!"
"Well okay, but the solution to that isn't Men Free Spaces, it's to stop men attacking women!"
"Yes. But till then we need to do something to make things safer for women!"
"But that's Discrimination!"
"Yes, because it's something women need right now and men don't!"

The root is a failure to understand that the action is to try and give Women some additional privileges to counter balance the existing privilege that men have. But if you don't want to accept that men have privilege, it looks like giving Women something Men don't have.

It's sexist, discriminatory bullshit is what that is.

"women are outstandingly more likely to be the victims of violent crimes at the hands of men than men are from women." Really? You realize that 40% of intimate partner violence are MEN, right? A 10% shift and men would be victims as often as women. The difference is that when women are the aggressors, it is far more likely to be ignored.

The United States Department of Justice compiled homicide statistics in the United States between 1980 and 2008. And yes men were more likely to be the victims of homocides, by 76% to 23%, a fact that MRAs love to bring up. But that's because they don't then bring up the other part... 89.5% of homicides were committed by men.

Breaking it down further, homicides where there was a male victim of a female, constituted only 9% of cases. Homicides where there was a female victim of a male constituted 21% of cases. I would say that more than double the incidences is an overwhelming difference.

As a side note, only 2.2% of cases were a female victim of a female.

You realize this logic could easily used to justify segregation? "Well, in this region, the overwhelming majority of gangs and violent crime are perpetrated by black men, so we don't allow them in this club."

The first difference is that it's not predominantly more likely to be a white victim of a black homicide. 84% of white victims were killed by white perpetrators. Additionally there is a starkly higher occurrence of black victims than white victims.

Violent crime rates are demographically correlated with poverty, it is only a secondary correlation with race because race is correlated with financial status. Unless you want to argue that across the entire spectrum of financial status, black men commit more crimes, which just isn't true.

More black people are poor. You're more likely to live in a poor area, and so be the victim of crime, if you're black. The causative indicative correlation here is poverty, not race. White people have less poverty, so are much less likely to be involved either as victim or perpetrator of crime.

Now, we don't need "segregation" for poor people, because rich people can afford better security.

And claiming that "women only spaces" is negative segregation would suggest that Men are loosing out on this somehow. Men are not losing any privilege or rights by the existence of limited, isolated and small "women only spaces". To claim it's similar to "segregation" is outlandish, no one is demanding that Men can only sit on the back seats of all public transport, no one is applying a blanket discrimination that would separate the sexes at all public events. There is no tangible threat to the ability of men to use public transport, if there's a couple of women only night buses. Men can just get on *every other night bus*.

At this point, please insert some witty response to your abusing statistics or just repeating what you heard some idiot on the radio or TV say. I'm just too tired of having to come up with them every time something like this gets discussed.

[Lyinginbedmon]

Guys, stop feeding the troll. As he has said, Wraith is the only label he needs.

[JustAName]

Lying, please don't.

[JackSlack]

I'm going to regret speaking up at all, but no, I do not believe Wraith is a troll. Troll implies insincerity, and while I find Wraith abhorrent, I do believe in his sincerity.

[JustAName]

Yeah. (Agreeing with JackSlack.)

[Lyinginbedmon]

Oh for sure, the term is imprecise in this context, but the end result is the same. At this point, further discourse with him is just baiting more hostility.

[Elomin Sha]

Wraith has been rather neutral in his emotions this time round than his norm in previous debates. He hasn't threaten exploding lying's mind with hypothetical telekenetic powers once.

[empath]

...I'm regretfully going to agree with Lying's INTENT here - while Wraith is not being malicious in this, his tangent on the discussion IS derailing the topic rather completely.

We are debating SEMANTICS now - while I do feel words have power, *quibbling* over terms (when I suspect both sides are of the same sentiment regarding the issue the terms are being used in)

Let's nip this in the damn bud right now.


Wraith:

I'm going to take the following statement as given for your worldview - "a 'right' is something that everyone DESERVES, and whether they get it or are denied it doesn't change it from being a 'right'. For example, say - for argument's sake - everyone deserves the right to not be publicly harassed without cause or provocation, but despite the fact that people ARE harassed unfairly does NOT mean that isn't called a 'right' anymore.

But, and I'd like you to answer this direct question:

"Yes" or "No" - do you feel it's fair or just that some people are regularly (or even systematically) denied things that you, yourself, would agree are rights?

[mariomario42]

The first difference is that it's not predominantly more likely to be a white victim of a black homicide. 84% of white victims were killed by white perpetrators. Additionally there is a starkly higher occurrence of black victims than white victims.

Violent crime rates are demographically correlated with poverty, it is only a secondary correlation with race because race is correlated with financial status. Unless you want to argue that across the entire spectrum of financial status, black men commit more crimes, which just isn't true.

I didn't want to get too involved, but that's some good cherry picking.

You are specifically addressing murder when it comes to whites, but then glossing over black murders with vagueness. Nothing mentions the disproportionate murder rates of blacks to their population in the US. If you want to look at facts, you will have to look at all of them.

The more important issue is why can blacks be covered by the veil of poverty, but that doesn't work for males? When in poverty males are the ones that often find themselves in gangs and other trouble. There's lots of gangs of many races, but they are predominately male. But that's just due to poverty right? It's an both or none situation.

Maybe we shouldn't assume physical characteristics makes a person have certain traits. That's prejudice, and when you're doing that about someone's sex or race, that's racism and sexism. It doesn't matter if it's good, bad, or perfectly neutral, we want to avoid it since it's not the right thing to do.

Also, I'll say that your comment of rich people having better security and that's why crime rates are lower as you being tired.

[Wraith]

[The United States Department of Justice compiled homicide statistics in the United States between 1980 and 2008. And yes men were more likely to be the victims of homocides, by 76% to 23%, a fact that MRAs love to bring up. But that's because they don't then bring up the other part... 89.5% of homicides were committed by men.

Breaking it down further, homicides where there was a male victim of a female, constituted only 9% of cases. Homicides where there was a female victim of a male constituted 21% of cases. I would say that more than double the incidences is an overwhelming difference.

Nice job of “breaking down further.”

But why stop there, eh? 80% of murders in our culture (which for the record are the lowest they’ve been in almost 50 years - In only 5 years since 1910 have they been lower: 1955-59; despite the ever-growing amount of fear being promoted) are committed by friends and family.

Now, you said 21% of murders had a female victim male, yes? So 21% of the 80% of murders that were committed by strangers are man on woman, that equals 16.8%.

Now, the most recent stat I could find on how many total murders were committed in the states was 13,636 in 2011. I do know, however, that the number was lower last year; so we’ll use this as a liberal guess, eh?

16.8% of 13,636 is just under 2291. Out of approximately 150 million women living in the united states. That’s about .001527333 of women murdered by strangers. That means there is less than .0016% chance that a woman will meet a man that will murder her.

Congratulations. You just justified sexual discrimination based on a less than .0016% chance that a woman might meet someone that will kill her. For that you’re willing to exclude nearly 150 million people who have absolutely no connection to said murders other than sharing the same genitals.

nice.

You realize this logic could easily used to justify segregation? "Well, in this region, the overwhelming majority of gangs and violent crime are perpetrated by black men, so we don't allow them in this club."

The first difference is that it's not predominantly more likely to be a white victim of a black homicide. 84% of white victims were killed by white perpetrators. Additionally there is a starkly higher occurrence of black victims than white victims.

I didn’t say that the number did support it. I said that in a region where they did, the argument could easily be used to justify racial discrimination and segregation.

I love that your response to this wasn’t about how wrong racial discrimination was; no, you’re argument was “the numbers don’t back it up.”

Tell me, how strong do “the numbers” have to be for you before racism, sexism, and other such discrimination is acceptable for you? Clearly, 21% of murders being man on woman is enough to justify sexual discrimination in your eyes. What if a club was situated in a place with a heavy problem with black gans, resulting in 10% of the murders committed against people who were not black were commited by black men. Would this be enough to justify having a “no blacks” policy? Or would it have to be 15%? What about 20%? I mean, 21% seems to be the magic number, so why not 20?

You can spin the math all you want. At the end of the day, it adds up to the same thing: you are justifying discrimination against millions of people based on nothing more than the fact they were born with the same genitals as as a comparatively tiny amount of people who do bad things.


PS - you bring up poverty. You know that 80% of homeless people are male, yea? I guess having no choice but to live in cardboard boxes on the street is our…”privilege,” eh? Because I notice that you took poverty into account when talking about why racial segregation was wrong, but you don’t seem to be mentioning it when it comes to sex discrimination. Funny how that works.

And claiming that "women only spaces" is negative segregation would suggest that Men are loosing out on this somehow.

Oh noooo, no of course not. Negative segregation? Who ever heard of such a thing! Clearly this is an entirely positive form of sexism. Because that’s just exceedingly common.

Men are not losing any privilege or rights by the existence of limited, isolated and small "women only spaces". To claim it's similar to "segregation" is outlandish, no one is demanding that Men can only sit on the back seats of all public transport, no one is applying a blanket discrimination that would separate the sexes at all public events. There is no tangible threat to the ability of men to use public transport, if there's a couple of women only night buses. Men can just get on *every other night bus*.

Oh, well as long as it’s not blanket discrimination, right? Let’s just allow a few woman-only clubs. And what’s the harm in a few white-only golf clubs. They can just go to every other golf course. And so what if there’s a few gyms that ban ban gay guys. They can just go to every other gym. So long as they’re only a “a few “limited, isolated” areas, right? Where’s the harm. It’s not like setting a precedent ever lead anywhere.

At this point, please insert some witty response to your abusing statistics or just repeating what you heard some idiot on the radio or TV say. I'm just too tired of having to come up with them every time something like this gets discussed.

It must be such a burden having to constantly defend sexist discrimination against all those horrible people who believe in equality. Poor you.

Guys, stop feeding the troll. As he has said, Wraith is the only label he needs.

Troll? A troll is someone who comes into a conversation for the sole purpose of angering people. You honestly believe that I don’t believe what I’m saying? That I’m just trying to piss people off?

If “troll” just meant someone who angers a lot of people with a contrary view, the you should have been banned memorial day 2011, when this community were discussing dead loved ones that they were thinking about who had been lost to war, and you came in and used it as a soap box to say that you saw no reason why dead soldiers should be mourned because they go overseas and kill people.

And lord knows you shouldn’t still be on Facebook after you used your religious friend’s cancer announcement as an opportunity to deride religion, insulting his loved ones who were offering up prayers.

And yes, I am more aggressive with you than with others; because you are the only person in this entire thread who has felt the need to twice make a post that says absolutely nothing except for a jab at me personally. No arguments on the topic, no attempts to refute or even respond to my logic. You just drop in, give an ad-hominem swipe, and then expect everyone to get on board.

You are responsible for the hands-down most repellent things I’ve ever seen on this community, and you’re calling me a troll. Nice.

"Yes" or "No" - do you feel it's fair or just that some people are regularly (or even systematically) denied things that you, yourself, would agree are rights?

No. Of course not. Absolutely not. Unequivocally, unquestionably, undeniably not.

I simply belief in my China example. They have a horrible human rights record, and that is a terrible, horrible thing. I’ve never met anyone who thought otherwise. But the fact that china regularly denies the human rights of its impoverished workers does not make those rights any less so.

[Lyinginbedmon]

Wraith, if you ever want anyone to remotely change their ways to suit yours, perhaps you shouldn't persist in deriding them long afterwards. I'm trying very hard not to bite at your hooks, but you throw so many, and they all look so very much the same for all the years you've been using them.

[Wraith]

Wraith, if you ever want anyone to remotely change their ways to suit yours, perhaps you shouldn't persist in deriding them long afterwards. I'm trying very hard not to bite at your hooks, but you throw so many, and they all look so very much the same for all the years you've been using them.

In other words, when you come in here taking shots at me - shots completely unrelated to the discussion - because of your personal feelings of animosity, I should put aside my feelings and not bring up the ridiculously, horribly, inexcusably offensive things that you've done that mark your comments as hypocritical. I should just let you paint me as a troll and ignore the fact that you use people's personal tragedies - their illness, the deaths of their loved ones, the dirty laundry form their relationships - as opportunities to insult them.



Here's an idea: if you don't have something to add to the conversation, fuck off. Then you won't have to worry about me doing that. I don't go into conversations you're actually contributing to, to talk smack. That's on you.

[Lyinginbedmon]

[Wraith]

[Duckay]

I would like to address a lot of the points made in this thread but at this stage I don't think I can do them justice (circumstances being what they are) so I'd like to hold off until I can respond properly.

For the moment, I'd like to address one thing specifically.

I was thinking about this at work today. I've worked with a number of different care organizations (currently working as I do for an agency that provides staff for other organizations), and seen a range of policies regarding male workers and female clients. Some will not allow a male worker to be alone with a female client at all, some allow male workers to be alone with female clients but require that personal hygiene / toileting is managed by a female worker, and so on. I have not seen any similar policies for male clients with female workers, except in specific cases of male clients who have done something in the past that mean that a female worker would not be safe.

There are a number of different reasons given for this. To protect the clients from inappropriate behavior from staff, to protect staff from allegations made by clients or the family of clients, for client comfort, and even for the practical reason that there are more female staff than male staff in the industry. I've also heard people despair that they don't like the policies that they have created by that society being the way it is, it's the safest way (legally speaking).

Personally I find it difficult to discern where the line should be. I lean towards thinking the ideal being a blanket ruling that clients should have their personal hygiene and toileting attended to by staff members of the same sex for the sake of the clients' comfort, but I freely admit that I am entirely uncertain about this. And I don't honestly know at what point I feel that the policy goes "too far", as it were. I've heard some of the policies being described as being discriminatory in much the same way as Wraith is addressing in this thread and I'm not certain at what point, if any, I agree with that.

There are a lot of factors I can see here, not the least of which is the social issues that have built up around the subject.

[Lyinginbedmon]

Were I to contemplate the implementation of such a policy, the first and most obvious route would be to go by the same gender as the client, but that doesn't factor in non-binary sex identities nor sexualities.

Perhaps employees of the same identity as the client, with respect also being given to not pair people together where either side might experience sexual attraction?

Not the most elegant of solutions, quite a bit more overhead to consider, but would mean a near-minimum of inappropriate events.