"In 2012, although male academic staff overwhelmingly dominated in the university's engineering faculty, the university's education department had..."

[jutfrank]

#1 is a prescription/requirement imposed by somebody who has no authority to impose them and no power to enforce them.
#2 and #3 are requirements imposed by auothorities who can enforce it -courts, universities, press councils, etc.

This appears to be an argument from authority. We can disagree on where authority comes from, its legitimacy, and on what it prescribes. That's where the political controversy comes in. The whole controversial issue of gender is a prime example of this.

 

[5jj]

Oh, absolutely, yes, but not to everyone in those countries.

Those who don't accept it are going to have to change - in public at least - or they will be in breach of the law.

 

[jutfrank]

Yes, that's right. You have to follow the law, but you don't have to agree with it, of course.

Would you help me understand the difference in meaning between personal opinions and 'absolute requirements', as mentioned in your post #19? Are you talking only about legal requirements?

 

[5jj]

My terminology may not have been brilliant, but I should have thought my overall meaning was reasonably clear.

I am not talking about legal requirements only. In the area of prejudice and discrimination, the law seems a little slower in making progress than most citizens. (It took gay men over sixty years to achieve complete equality with heterosexuals in the whole of the UK after the partial decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1967).

Gender fluidity is catching up. Gender self-identification is something those of us who interact with others do have to consider these days.

 

[jutfrank]

We don't seem to be making much progress here.

 

[5jj]

Right. Time to close the thread.

 

[probus]

One final linguistic note before this thread dies. People have pointed out in the past that logically all three of chai tea, naan bread, and sharia law are redundant because chai = tea, naan = bread, and sharia = law.
I think that last point is what @jutfrank was getting at when he said that what counts as law is open to discussion.