Argentina's pension plan allows women to retire 5 years earlier than men

[6andcounting]

Argentina also has what amounts to a no questions asked gender changing process.

The Daily Mail is cancer to copy and paste from, so here's the link.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5544173/Argentinian-man-legally-changes-gender-retire-earlier.html

[*michaelsean*]

She has never expressed an interest in men, and continued dating women even after registering for the change, the relative said.

Using the feminine pronoun while claiming he is lying. And maybe Sergio is a lesbian.

I wonder what the law allowing women to retire five years earlier stems from.

[BmorePat87]

(03-29-2018, 08:51 AM)michaelsean Wrote: She has never expressed an interest in men, and continued dating women even after registering for the change, the relative said.

Using the feminine pronoun while claiming he is lying.  And maybe Sergio is a lesbian.  

I wonder what the law allowing women to retire five years earlier stems from.

I'm not sure if this person is lying or not, and I don't really care, but the relative is confusing gender identity with sexual orientation. 


Argentina set themselves up for people potentially abusing this system by saying women get to retire 5 years earlier. 

[hollodero]

(03-29-2018, 08:51 AM)michaelsean Wrote: She has never expressed an interest in men, and continued dating women even after registering for the change, the relative said.

Using the feminine pronoun while claiming he is lying.  And maybe Sergio is a lesbian.  

I wonder what the law allowing women to retire five years earlier stems from.

I don't mind any no questions asked policies, but I can talk a little to that retirement part. It's similar in my country, women can go five years earlier, despite also not being eligible for the draft and having a way higher life expectancy. So on first glance, it's not really fair. It also isn't on additional glances.

I brought that up some times and every time I got grilled for even thinking about calling it unfair. People claimed I'm an insensitive sexist (when in fact I'm a really sensitive sexist of course). A women told me retiring earlier is only fair because "women almost die every month". Another one pointed to the increased level of stress because men always approach her, now isn't that a bummer. Nearly all of them freaked out about even daring to bring it up.
The men, righteous and PC as always, usually claim women face so many disadvantages in life and especially in work life that there needs to be such compensation. Also, women get children, whatever that has to do with anything. But these points are actually where it stems from, the general disadvantages women face ("societal, professional and domestic"). The legislator have no better point than things we actually should fight instead of instutionalize. (Don't know if that is clear, but as a sexist I might say, well women can retire earlier as compensation anyways, so why need there to be any laws against gender discrimination? - Of course, I'm all for the latter and all against the former, but to me the one comes with the other.)

That being said, back in the '90s the courts already called the differing retirement ages unconstitutional, national and EU-wide. Still there's no movement until I guess 2030, where there might be one, but probably there won't be. That this difference just has to be is burned into our skulls, and not even the right-wingers dare to really touch that one.

Don't know about Argentina, but I guess the argument is similar. And maybe more legit, but I don't know about women's equality there.