This is a question in response to the GPs post that:
>>masses of historical evidence
>The ones that show that being a male has long been a major disadvantage in a legal system?
This is a purposed answer to the previous question, making the claim that there is plenty of historical evidence that males have been strongly discriminated against by the legal system, even if we went back in time. Need I source a claim showing that men were more likely than women to be charged, convicted, and receive longer sentences? This has been the case for at as far back as I've looked.
The reason for this is because GP acted as if I was ignoring some evidence that would justify the argument that the legal system is biased against women because it goes easier on them and make it somehow compatible with the second argument that the legal system is biased against racial minorities because it treats them harsher. It shouldn't be hard to see that these things still appear to be in contradiction.
>Yes, going back into the past being a minority was even worse than it is today, to a point where there was absolutely no justice at all
This is to preempt a response that if you went back in time, the legal system was even more biased against minorities than it is today. Instead of waiting for that response to be potentially made, I made it myself. I preempt this based on past experiences of seeing the point made in counter to my point.
> but that doesn't have an impact on the line of reasoning used to try to say the legal system discriminates against women.
I then follow up saying that I don't see this as a counter, because it doesn't impact the half of the two statements I have a problem with. One can try to explain why racial minorities being treated worse in the past by the legal system supports the statement that the legal system going easier on women is discriminating against women, only that the claim that I made in the first half of this sentence is not enough.
>This type of response only further reinforces the notion that the underlying reasoning and terminology is created ad-hoc to justify existing notions.
I then finish by saying the type of response from GP, which does not explain their argument to any degree other than a claim of forgetting to take historical evidence into account, makes people more dismissive of the original line of reasoning and the terminology associated with it, that of systematic discrimination, because the historical evidence appears to support my claim, not theirs. In short, an unsatisfactory defense strengthens the opposition's argument.
From what I can tell, the person who introduced the (unrelated) gender discrimination issue to this thread is you. As to the rest of your comment: I didn't doubt that any of what you had to say was important to you. I just don't think it has anything to do with what I said upthread.
