The fact that we're talking about hair length doesn't really matter, Green. We're talking about whether or not a transgendered person has the right to dress as their trans identity rather than their biological identity at work. The hair length is representative of that. The ACLU has taken on cases about the right to wear crosses and pentacles, because they're representative of religious freedom - even though you might think that the right to wear a two-inch piece of sterling silver is entirely trivial, not everybody is going to agree with you.
And, yes, employers have the right to enforce a dress code. But the dress code has to be fair. For instance, if a dress code states that no jewelry is to be worn, but an exception is made for a Christian who wears a cross pendant, then the employer would then have to make an exception for a Jewish person to wear a star of David. Likewise, if transgendered people are protected (which they might not be, I dunno), and the dress code says that women can wear hair below the collar, then the employer would probably also have to allow transgendered women to have hair below the collar.
I think there's a legitimate question over how dress codes can be applied fairly to transgendered people, but it depends entirely on the status of transgendered people in Washington state law, which is an issue I'm completely ignorant about.
I share your skepticism of Oboro's chances to win this hypothetical case in court, but for completely different reasons than you. It's not because courts always side with employers on matters of dress code, but because it's uncommon for courts to recognize transgendered people as their trans identity.
This makes a lot more sense, and you're right it hinges entirely upon the legal definitions of transgender and transexuality. I'd be willing to bet $2, right now, the the courts would rule that employers are allowed to enforce dress codes as they see fit.
I understand how this is not ideal. I also understand that this is repeatedly how American courts have ruled.
Also, I've been hearing that we only need to get through the semi to make the club world champs. Basically because the other two teams are Japanese and they get a team in anyway for hosting it.
I have an apology for that on my clipboard, I just didn't get to post it yet because the debate is still happening
Also, sorry for blowing up on you like that, cel. It was uncalled for and I got a bit hot-headed.
There
yaaaay hugs for everyone
It's not my fault I have such a bad temper, the absurd levels of stress in my body consistently leave me with serum levels of adrenals and testosterone far above the bounds for someone of my size/age. Stupid testosterone correlates more strongly with stress than anything else. :x
Seriously, I was almost prescribed anti-androgens purely on the basis of controlling the byproducts of my stress, since it was essentially creating a positive feedback loop.
Also, I've been hearing that we only need to get through the semi to make the club world champs. Basically because the other two teams are Japanese and they get a team in anyway for hosting it.
Yeah that's true. And wicked.
Fuck yeah! We'd get more money for winning the semi than winning the final.
I know "gender discrimination" is illegal. My point is that requiring different dress codes based on gender has not been found illegal. It's actually been supported over and over.
You're right, let's just respect all the legal decisions made in the past and never change them to accommodate a changing world and social mores.
... wait a minute ...
Okay, fine -- I like dress codes.
If I had my own company, I would enforce a loosely defined dress code of "professional." Odds are I would shy away from people with slovenly appearance, poor fashion, or unorthodox hairstyles, or anything like hand/neck/face tattoos or piercings, because I am aware of the importance a person's outward appearance can have on other people, namely my customers and prospective clients.
I support a business' right to enforce a dress code. I think Safeway's are a little too rigid, but then again, like I said, I've seen firsthand that Safeway's are allowed leeway within that code. I mean, what part of "an obviously transgendered person cashiers, with long hair, broad shoulders, an Adam's apple, and a jawline stronger than mine, all rouged up with a touch of eyeliner" at the Safeway next to my house didn't click?
So I mean, whatever -- fight the good fight. I'm still going to wear a tie when I want to make a good impression.
Employers aren't really interested in justice, morality or ethics. That's a pretty big hurdle and basically we've only seen major changes to the way employees have to be treated when the public actually has the willingness to show decisive support for an issue because the employer stands to lose money.
As it currently stands this issue seems like something that can be swept under the rug pretty easily without doing any damage to their public image.
I have an apology for that on my clipboard, I just didn't get to post it yet because the debate is still happening
Also, sorry for blowing up on you like that, cel. It was uncalled for and I got a bit hot-headed.
There
Thanks, no biggy, and sorry if I'm being frustrating, but I think we just disagree on some fundamentals totally unrelated to the actual hypothetical legal question at hand.
As it currently stands this issue seems like something that can be swept under the rug pretty easily without doing any damage to their public image.
So we keep filling up the space under the rug until they can't fit anything else. I don't know.
Look, you've all posted in racism and sexism threads shit akin to you can't morally avoid a fight just because it's difficult or unlikely to succeed. The first steps of all cultural revolutions leave no footprints. That's just part of the process.
This is why it's so disgusting that you're basically loling at me right now.
Uh, cel, I think that you were then describing a transwoman, not a transman. You refer to them by their adopted gender, not their former one.
Also, your theoretical dress code doesn't have any sort of based-on-sex stipulations like the ones you're so staunchly supporting here. Huh ...
If I am to be understanding Cel, it does.
There are more perspective customers that don't understand the transgender argument and would see a form of dress that relates to a persons gender and not their sex as a taboo to the companies discredit.
(Hey I never posted in the racism or sexism threads. Probably. Well not the sexism one. I think.)
Uh, cel, I think that you were then describing a transwoman, not a transman. You refer to them by their adopted gender, not their former one.
Also, your theoretical dress code doesn't have any sort of based-on-sex stipulations like the ones you're so staunchly supporting here. Huh ...
If I am to be understanding Cel, it does.
There are more perspective customers that don't understand the transgender argument and would see a form of dress that relates to a persons gender and not their sex as a taboo to the companies discredit.
(Hey I never posted in the racism or sexism threads.)
Yeah, you're right. So we should be allowed not to hire black people in the south, either, right?
I mean, I know that's tacitly accepted at some corporations, but ...
Also note -- my definition of "professional" would obviously subtract points for men wearing overtly feminine things, and I would have a stern talking to if a man was dressing overly feminine.
In the real world, women have more malleability as far as slacks / skirts go, so it'd be hard to say "unprofessional" to a woman in jeans, but if they, say, had a meeting with a client, I'd want them at least in slacks.
Are you guys really not bothered at all by -- and I mean this purely in a sense of ideals, not a 'well I could get away with it right now' sense -- the idea of it being acceptable to force women to dress one way and men to dress a different way?
As it currently stands this issue seems like something that can be swept under the rug pretty easily without doing any damage to their public image.
So we keep filling up the space under the rug until they can't fit anything else. I don't know.
Look, you've all posted in racism and sexism threads shit akin to you can't morally avoid a fight just because it's difficult or unlikely to succeed. The first steps of all cultural revolutions leave no footprints. That's just part of the process.
This is why it's so disgusting that you're basically loling at me right now.
I don't get as worked up about fashion, as I've said.
If a black man didn't know to wear a tie to an interview for an office job, I would have no problem with his prospective employer crossing him off the list for that reason alone.
As it currently stands this issue seems like something that can be swept under the rug pretty easily without doing any damage to their public image.
So we keep filling up the space under the rug until they can't fit anything else. I don't know.
Look, you've all posted in racism and sexism threads shit akin to you can't morally avoid a fight just because it's difficult or unlikely to succeed. The first steps of all cultural revolutions leave no footprints. That's just part of the process.
This is why it's so disgusting that you're basically loling at me right now.
I'm not lolling but the situation (wtf is lolling in the google chrome dictionary?) is heavily weighted against you. There has to be such an abundance of shit swept under the rug that your common person begins to perceive that they're blatantly tripping over something.
Unfortunately I don't think this issue has reached that point so while this case would of course bolster the cause. . .well it comes down to being ethical or practical.
Uh, cel, I think that you were then describing a transwoman, not a transman. You refer to them by their adopted gender, not their former one.
Also, your theoretical dress code doesn't have any sort of based-on-sex stipulations like the ones you're so staunchly supporting here. Huh ...
If I am to be understanding Cel, it does.
There are more perspective customers that don't understand the transgender argument and would see a form of dress that relates to a persons gender and not their sex as a taboo to the companies discredit.
(Hey I never posted in the racism or sexism threads.)
Yeah, you're right. So we should be allowed not to hire black people in the south, either, right?
I mean, I know that's tacitly accepted at some corporations, but ...
you guys are fucking disgusting.
If I own a corporation and their is a noticeable dip in my profits based on my willingness to hire or not hire black people I will do whichever benefits me the most.
There will be very little sleep lost in my mansion.
Uh, cel, I think that you were then describing a transwoman, not a transman. You refer to them by their adopted gender, not their former one.
Also, your theoretical dress code doesn't have any sort of based-on-sex stipulations like the ones you're so staunchly supporting here. Huh ...
Fine -- men have to wear bowties, women have to wear lipstick, and it's a fucking office job. I bet you $5 this time I could get away with that, too.
Who cares if you can get away with it?
That has nothing to do with what this debate is about.
Like I said, and didn't mean it facetiously -- I support an employer's right to discriminate based on appearance. I think dress codes are acceptable.
I understand the plight of the transgendered person (as much as I can...), and I respect their rights to live life as they choose. Being able to move in-between genders doesn't absolve one of the responsibility to conform to fashion or dress standards based on the context in which they are operating.
I expect my queer ushers at the operas to have a bowtie and a clean haircut, and if a transman wants to work at the smut movie theater down the street selling candy, his ass better be ready to put some stockings on. That's how the world works.
Are you guys really not bothered at all by -- and I mean this purely in a sense of ideals, not a 'well I could get away with it right now' sense -- the idea of it being acceptable to force women to dress one way and men to dress a different way?
I don't like it...but I've learnt to deal with the fact that I am expected, in most jobs, to wear make-up and clothes which prove beyond doubt that I'm a woman, and I also accept that there are very few employers in the world that would allow a man to wear a skirt to work.
Also, I've been hearing that we only need to get through the semi to make the club world champs. Basically because the other two teams are Japanese and they get a team in anyway for hosting it.
Yeah that's true. And wicked.
Fuck yeah! We'd get more money for winning the semi than winning the final.
So you guys are willing to just give up. That's awesome.
If I posted the same sentiment in Jinnigan's racism thread, or The Cat's sexism threads -- were such beautiful things still around in these days, these dark and torrid days -- I would be run out of town on rails.
Let's just give up.
Humanity should not aspire to higher things.
Let's just give up.
People like you are the people who make my life hard. Do you know why I'm getting angry?
Because you have conclusively admitted to the fact you are, and want, to be part of the problem.
Are you guys really not bothered at all by -- and I mean this purely in a sense of ideals, not a 'well I could get away with it right now' sense -- the idea of it being acceptable to force women to dress one way and men to dress a different way?
I'm not bothered by it, because you're not "forced" to. If you don't like Safeway's dress code, work somewhere else. Lord knows I appreciate my current job in part because the dress code is more casual than most offices.
I mean, if I worked for UPS, I'd feel like a fucking jack-ass in their uniforms. I've seen cute women in UPS uniforms, but jeez you wouldn't know it with the way that shit-stain brown aggressively unflatters them. But if you work for UPS, you still gotta wear that shit, and I completely respect UPS' decisions to enforce the dress code upon their employees. Their appearance relates directly to their business, and as such, they should be allowed to enforce it.
And shit -- like I said -- if they made Lady Shit-Stain Brown uniforms with skirts and stockings, it might be a damn welcome change. Sure it'd be demeaning and I'd support each and every woman that walked off the job because of it, but threat of mass worker action like that might also cause UPS to review their policies.
It's a negotiation between employer and employee as to what's allowable. Rarely do I see it go overboard in one direction (note: I boycott Hooters not only as an employee, but as a customer as well, because they are so appalling -- doesn't mean I think we should outlaw the chain).
You're overstating it by saying Safeway is "forcing" someone to have short hair.
Let's just all get new jobs! There's always new jobs! Let's not fight discrimination or irrational control of entities over gender roles and narratives! Let's not fight the things worth fighting!
You are scum.
Oboro on
words
0
Options
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
edited September 2008
I think that expecting society to accept something that was considered ridiculously taboo some time ago, and in certain cases impossible until very recently (with regards to medical advances) is a bit much, as much as I would LIKE to see it happen.
Kurt Vonnegut on the Daily Show had an interesting speech where he said that "the war in Iraq is going great and democracy is on the rise... cause you see, good democracies start with genocide.... then it takes about 80 years to free the slaves, and 60 after that to give women their rights, and 40 after that to give the former slaves their rights and to apologize for the genocide some 200 years prior. So Iraq is on the right path, and it is the American administration who is on the wrong path, thinking that you can bring a country up to where we are at right now in a matter of months."
Basically, I do not fault a company for not hiring a blatantly transgendered person into a public position, because society would shun the company in all but the most liberal of places (NYC, SF, etc.). But at the same time, I want the transgendered people to keep trying, so that over time society will see their plight and will accept them.
I am sure I rambled a bit.
syndalis on
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Posts
I understand how this is not ideal. I also understand that this is repeatedly how American courts have ruled.
Also, sorry for blowing up on you like that, cel. It was uncalled for and I got a bit hot-headed.
There
Yeah that's true. And wicked.
yaaaay hugs for everyone
Seriously, I was almost prescribed anti-androgens purely on the basis of controlling the byproducts of my stress, since it was essentially creating a positive feedback loop.
I know it makes sense and that it totally should do healing agro and I'm not arguing that it should be changed, I just don't like it.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Fuck yeah! We'd get more money for winning the semi than winning the final.
If I had my own company, I would enforce a loosely defined dress code of "professional." Odds are I would shy away from people with slovenly appearance, poor fashion, or unorthodox hairstyles, or anything like hand/neck/face tattoos or piercings, because I am aware of the importance a person's outward appearance can have on other people, namely my customers and prospective clients.
I support a business' right to enforce a dress code. I think Safeway's are a little too rigid, but then again, like I said, I've seen firsthand that Safeway's are allowed leeway within that code. I mean, what part of "an obviously transgendered person cashiers, with long hair, broad shoulders, an Adam's apple, and a jawline stronger than mine, all rouged up with a touch of eyeliner" at the Safeway next to my house didn't click?
So I mean, whatever -- fight the good fight. I'm still going to wear a tie when I want to make a good impression.
As it currently stands this issue seems like something that can be swept under the rug pretty easily without doing any damage to their public image.
Also, your theoretical dress code doesn't have any sort of based-on-sex stipulations like the ones you're so staunchly supporting here. Huh ...
Look, you've all posted in racism and sexism threads shit akin to you can't morally avoid a fight just because it's difficult or unlikely to succeed. The first steps of all cultural revolutions leave no footprints. That's just part of the process.
This is why it's so disgusting that you're basically loling at me right now.
If I am to be understanding Cel, it does.
There are more perspective customers that don't understand the transgender argument and would see a form of dress that relates to a persons gender and not their sex as a taboo to the companies discredit.
(Hey I never posted in the racism or sexism threads. Probably. Well not the sexism one. I think.)
That has nothing to do with what this debate is about.
I mean, I know that's tacitly accepted at some corporations, but ...
you guys are fucking disgusting.
In the real world, women have more malleability as far as slacks / skirts go, so it'd be hard to say "unprofessional" to a woman in jeans, but if they, say, had a meeting with a client, I'd want them at least in slacks.
Argguing?
I don't think that'... right.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
If a black man didn't know to wear a tie to an interview for an office job, I would have no problem with his prospective employer crossing him off the list for that reason alone.
I'm not lolling but the situation (wtf is lolling in the google chrome dictionary?) is heavily weighted against you. There has to be such an abundance of shit swept under the rug that your common person begins to perceive that they're blatantly tripping over something.
Unfortunately I don't think this issue has reached that point so while this case would of course bolster the cause. . .well it comes down to being ethical or practical.
it's aggro baby.
If I own a corporation and their is a noticeable dip in my profits based on my willingness to hire or not hire black people I will do whichever benefits me the most.
There will be very little sleep lost in my mansion.
I understand the plight of the transgendered person (as much as I can...), and I respect their rights to live life as they choose. Being able to move in-between genders doesn't absolve one of the responsibility to conform to fashion or dress standards based on the context in which they are operating.
I expect my queer ushers at the operas to have a bowtie and a clean haircut, and if a transman wants to work at the smut movie theater down the street selling candy, his ass better be ready to put some stockings on. That's how the world works.
s
I don't like it...but I've learnt to deal with the fact that I am expected, in most jobs, to wear make-up and clothes which prove beyond doubt that I'm a woman, and I also accept that there are very few employers in the world that would allow a man to wear a skirt to work.
It sucks, such is life.
Warlocks have so many interlocking parts. It's like playing Tetris with numbers!
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
October 8 can't come soon enough.
If I posted the same sentiment in Jinnigan's racism thread, or The Cat's sexism threads -- were such beautiful things still around in these days, these dark and torrid days -- I would be run out of town on rails.
Let's just give up.
Humanity should not aspire to higher things.
Let's just give up.
People like you are the people who make my life hard. Do you know why I'm getting angry?
Because you have conclusively admitted to the fact you are, and want, to be part of the problem.
I mean, if I worked for UPS, I'd feel like a fucking jack-ass in their uniforms. I've seen cute women in UPS uniforms, but jeez you wouldn't know it with the way that shit-stain brown aggressively unflatters them. But if you work for UPS, you still gotta wear that shit, and I completely respect UPS' decisions to enforce the dress code upon their employees. Their appearance relates directly to their business, and as such, they should be allowed to enforce it.
And shit -- like I said -- if they made Lady Shit-Stain Brown uniforms with skirts and stockings, it might be a damn welcome change. Sure it'd be demeaning and I'd support each and every woman that walked off the job because of it, but threat of mass worker action like that might also cause UPS to review their policies.
It's a negotiation between employer and employee as to what's allowable. Rarely do I see it go overboard in one direction (note: I boycott Hooters not only as an employee, but as a customer as well, because they are so appalling -- doesn't mean I think we should outlaw the chain).
You're overstating it by saying Safeway is "forcing" someone to have short hair.
I haven't.
I'm still up for pajama-ed painting of toenails later if you want.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
You are scum.
Kurt Vonnegut on the Daily Show had an interesting speech where he said that "the war in Iraq is going great and democracy is on the rise... cause you see, good democracies start with genocide.... then it takes about 80 years to free the slaves, and 60 after that to give women their rights, and 40 after that to give the former slaves their rights and to apologize for the genocide some 200 years prior. So Iraq is on the right path, and it is the American administration who is on the wrong path, thinking that you can bring a country up to where we are at right now in a matter of months."
Basically, I do not fault a company for not hiring a blatantly transgendered person into a public position, because society would shun the company in all but the most liberal of places (NYC, SF, etc.). But at the same time, I want the transgendered people to keep trying, so that over time society will see their plight and will accept them.
I am sure I rambled a bit.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
But assuming I get the first one out of the way -- cross it off the list, as it is -- then we can have our slumber party, yesh. ;3