> You're right that women ought to be the ones in charge of dealing with this sort of thing,
That's pretty contrary to the typical diversity rationale that suggests out group people have valuable inputs. I think it makes a lot of sense to have society as a whole making decisions about how society as a whole operates. It's not just an individual's choice if they take a drug which may or may not end up being like thalidomide. At the very least it affects fathers, and those born with the side effects.
Of course women should have a voice in this area, but also should many other groups :)
In liberal democracies, people have a right to get to have their say (on a soap box and at the ballot box) in matters that don't rationally concern them.
In a liberal democracy, a common citizen 'dictating' simply means saying something with a jackass commanding tone. Such advocacy for policy/governance is a protected right in liberal democracies.
It is my right to say: "I command you to dye yourself blue and dance for my amusement." And it's your right to tell me to fuck off.
read my words carefully: i didn't say anything about the words themselves, nor the act of speaking those words, i said the ideas and positions are antithetical.
The idea to which you responded was the assertion that people have a right to vote in matters that don't concern them. This is the central premise of liberal democracy.
That's pretty contrary to the typical diversity rationale that suggests out group people have valuable inputs. I think it makes a lot of sense to have society as a whole making decisions about how society as a whole operates. It's not just an individual's choice if they take a drug which may or may not end up being like thalidomide. At the very least it affects fathers, and those born with the side effects.
Of course women should have a voice in this area, but also should many other groups :)