The courts have consistently ruled in favor of the employer to regulate dress codes, also w/r/t sex codes by sex and gender discrimination in hiring and all kinds of things. I get your distinction about gender, but it's irrelevant.
Sexuality is protected by the Constitution, thus transgender being a protected class. Hair length, emphatically not. It's not my fault for misunderstanding your argument, it's your fault for failing to separate the two categories.
BZZZZT and BZZZZT
The first is only valid if the employer is able to prove that the sex/gender is absolutely vital to the profession, and transgenderism is protected under separate statutes of gender identity in some states instead of under the umbrella of 'sexuality.' Also, that's not a constitutional protection, it's something granted on a state-by-state basis.
Again, I don't think you even get what I'm talking about, nor do I think you care, and nor do I think that I can convince you to care, so ... whatever. I'll keep fighting important causes, you can go fight video game rappers. :P
EDIT: 1) is tentatively yes but I am unsure of Washington-specific precedent (though nationally there is pre-operative precedent), 2) I don't understand. They have separate hair length codes, which are simply labeled 'male and female' which I would assume are assuming cisgenderism.
You're attributing too much importance to transgenderism in this instance. See preceding post.
Also, like I said with the example of the obviously transgendered man frequently working the cash register at the Safeway next to my house, it's an issue that managers apparently have some discretion in. You're fighting windmills.
Add to that the real list of employee discrimination grievances across the country abd it's seriously hard to get huffy about something as trivial as hair length.
And FWIW, so I don't seem to be wrapped up in myself, I also don't think that corporations should be able to institute a dress code along the line of "our female employees must wear business attire with skirts instead of pants," or anything else that in any way distinguishes between the sexes
You're attributing too much importance to transgenderism in this instance.
If transgendered people are protected in Washington or recognized as their psychological gender rather than their biological gender by law, then that is what matters. If the law says neither of those things, then it doesn't matter.
I think you're conflating a whole lot of not-really-related ideas.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
The first is only valid if the employer is able to prove that the sex/gender is absolutely vital to the profession
You'd have to show me support for that.
and transgenderism is protected under separate statutes of gender identity in some states instead of under the umbrella of 'sexuality.' Also, that's not a constitutional protection, it's something granted on a state-by-state basis.
You're not seeing the forest for the trees.
I know the legal definitions of transgenderism are murky, but Safeway's motivation for not discriminating against transgendered people is largely rooted in the fact that there are vague, if untested, federal precedents for protecting sexuality, then add to that the state by state thing.
Obo -- I get it. Transgenderism is important to you. But we're talking about hair length. I would be absolutely slack-jawed if the ACLU actually took up a case about hair length.
Obo -- I get it. Transgenderism is important to you. But we're talking about hair length. I would be absolutely slack-jawed if the ACLU actually took up a case about hair length.
You're being thick to the point where I now think less of you. Congratulations. You have lost some of the very high amount of respect I formerly held for you.
Wouldn't defining a gender by hair length be in a sense kind of like a step backward..guh nevermind i don't know. i mean i get the point but i think it leads to some odd places once ruled upon.
Then again maybe that's just the crazy in me that gives a lot of power to corporations and what not hindering my vantage point here.
And FWIW, so I don't seem to be wrapped up in myself, I also don't think that corporations should be able to institute a dress code along the line of "our female employees must wear business attire with skirts instead of pants," or anything else that in any way distinguishes between the sexes
Hey, I agree with you in that regard. I still think courts have consistently found that employers are free to do exactly that. I'm sure I could get fired for wearing skirts every day, and I'm sure the courts wouldn't fucking care.
Regardless of who is right, or even who is legally correct, what I find somewhat insane is that someone with $5 to their name and a the looming prospect of Rent would seriously be contemplating somehow taking their would-be employer to court.
Regardless of who is right, or even who is legally correct, what I find somewhat insane is that someone with $5 to their name and a the looming prospect of Rent would seriously be contemplating somehow taking their would-be employer to court.
Because I'm goddamn Oboro and I never stop thinking big.
Obo -- I get it. Transgenderism is important to you. But we're talking about hair length. I would be absolutely slack-jawed if the ACLU actually took up a case about hair length.
You're being thick to the point where I now think less of you. Congratulations. You have lost some of the very high amount of respect I formerly held for you.
Likewise?
There is the chance that you're wrong in this, you know...
Regardless of who is right, or even who is legally correct, what I find somewhat insane is that someone with $5 to their name and a the looming prospect of Rent would seriously be contemplating somehow taking their would-be employer to court.
If it was a seriously legitimate case and there was enough support it would mostly end up paying for itself.
Obo -- I get it. Transgenderism is important to you. But we're talking about hair length. I would be absolutely slack-jawed if the ACLU actually took up a case about hair length.
You're being thick to the point where I now think less of you. Congratulations. You have lost some of the very high amount of respect I formerly held for you.
Likewise?
There is the chance that you're wrong in this, you know...
Actually, there isn't. You are objectively wrong for waving this off with "lol hair length" when it is something completely analogous to something you have already agreed to. It is sexual discrimination to allow men one thing and allow women another. Q. E. D.
My enthusiasm has not been dampened by the fact that I caught some weird bird flu type thing off a seat at the Jets game Saturday night.
You manage to get a ticket for the semi? If they haven't sold out yet they're at least down to standing room tickets.
Yeah, got mine a few days ago. If we get past the Rivaldo show though, getting Final tickets is gonna be a bitch. Even my non United supporting friends are getting into it. At least it's not as bad as gigs these days are. Football fans aren't so much the types to be sitting on the Venutix website frantically clicking refresh as 9am rolls around.
What gets me is that I think we all except that gender is not defined by the way a person dresses and all of those other characteristics. While yes certain types of dress are important to people for a variety of reasons wouldn't making a ruling that X type of dress must be allowed for a certain type of person go against that first idea?
Regardless of who is right, or even who is legally correct, what I find somewhat insane is that someone with $5 to their name and a the looming prospect of Rent would seriously be contemplating somehow taking their would-be employer to court.
If it was a seriously legitimate case and there was enough support it would mostly end up paying for itself.
Except for the time lost.
For someone with a fair bit of savings who could somehow afford to wait out the umpteen-bazillion years worth of appeals before seeing a dime maybe.
Justice is a little harder to come by for someone who is more concerned with how to get money for food next week or rent for next month.
No offense to Obo there. I've been in the same kind of financial situation. It's just sometimes staying alive and off the streets so you can make a real difference for your cause later is more important....
What gets me is that I think we all except that gender is not defined by the way a person dresses and all of those other characteristics. While yes certain types of dress are important to people for a variety of reasons wouldn't making a ruling that X type of dress must be allowed for a certain type of person go against that first idea?
You need to unilaterally bar or allow things. This is my point.
No offense to Obo there. I've been in the same kind of financial situation. It's just sometimes staying alive and off the streets so you can make a real difference for your cause later is more important....
Having lived on the streets before, I am more comfortable living on the streets again than I am bowing to the whims of some two-bit company and cutting off my hair. My hair has kept me alive. I will not cut off my hair.
Regardless of who is right, or even who is legally correct, what I find somewhat insane is that someone with $5 to their name and a the looming prospect of Rent would seriously be contemplating somehow taking their would-be employer to court.
If it was a seriously legitimate case and there was enough support it would mostly end up paying for itself.
Except for the time lost.
For someone with a fair bit of savings who could somehow afford to wait out the umpteen-bazillion years worth of appeals before seeing a dime maybe.
Justice is a little harder to come by for someone who is more concerned with how to get money for food next week or rent for next month.
No offense to Obo there. I've been in the same kind of financial situation. It's just sometimes staying alive and off the streets so you can make a real difference for your cause later is more important....
You know there are organizations that exist to push certain cases, right?
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.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Have there been any rulings like this for religious matters with major corporations? That could be a good place to start looking for evidence that supports your claim. If a person of a certain faith is allowed to wear something that by the strictest definition of the dress code is forbidden.
My enthusiasm has not been dampened by the fact that I caught some weird bird flu type thing off a seat at the Jets game Saturday night.
You manage to get a ticket for the semi? If they haven't sold out yet they're at least down to standing room tickets.
Yeah, got mine a few days ago. If we get past the Rivaldo show though, getting Final tickets is gonna be a bitch. Even my non United supporting friends are getting into it. At least it's not as bad as gigs these days are. Football fans aren't so much the types to be sitting on the Venutix website frantically clicking refresh as 9am rolls around.
If we get through I'll probably line up at the one in dacosta arcade from the end of the game until it opens the next day. 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.
Read the first fucking quote in that tree, you fucking thick-ass fuck. The quote by you. Idiot.
EDIT: Seriously, are you drugged right now? Drunk? Channeling a court jester?
EDIT 2: for full context,
Differing dress code =!= gender discrimination.
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.
Your contention that "as long as it doesn't interfere with the functions of the job" is demonstrably false. In my brief anecdote, I could easily get fired for reporting to my office job in a skirt every day, a job where I don't even interact with customers. I might even be able to get fired for showing up in a fucking kilt, maybe just not shaving, maybe for getting a neck tattoo, maybe for getting piercings, etc. Courts have ruled over and over that employers can require certain appearance or attire. They would do this by saying something like "it's unprofessional" or some such horseshit I have no idea.
It's illegal to deny someone a position based on their gender.
It is not illegal to deny someone a position based on their appearance.
What gets me is that I think we all except that gender is not defined by the way a person dresses and all of those other characteristics. While yes certain types of dress are important to people for a variety of reasons wouldn't making a ruling that X type of dress must be allowed for a certain type of person go against that first idea?
You need to unilaterally bar or allow things. This is my point.
Oh. Got it. Well in that case from the perspective $ this would be quite the fight until the public is actively supportive.
Then there is also the fact that WA is an at-will employment state and if there was some kerfuffle over dress code or hair length they can just fire someone for no specified cause or reason and unless they are really, really careless it would be next to impossible to prove this was actually a case of discrimination.
Edit: Or do any of the other things employers can do when someone is Surplus To Requirements. Like not fire someone but cut their hours below what they need to earn to get by. Can you really prove their decision to get 2 part timers instead of 1 full timer was discrimination?
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.
Regardless of who is right, or even who is legally correct, what I find somewhat insane is that someone with $5 to their name and a the looming prospect of Rent would seriously be contemplating somehow taking their would-be employer to court.
The looming prospect of :?:
Don't do it Oboro! You've got too much going for you to sink to musical theatre!
Then there is also the fact that WA is an at-will employment state and if there was some kerfuffle or dress code or hair length they can just fire someone for no specified cause or reason and unless they are really, really careless it would be next to impossible to prove this was actually a case of discrimination.
I'm not speaking out against theoretical incidents, but about the irrationality and contradicting nature of current laws, as well as what I perceive as a fundamental injustice in allowing differing dress codes for different sexes or genders. I don't care if it's not possible to make a case against someone being fired for this now, I care about creating an environment where at least such despicable stipulations can no longer be made publicly.
Posts
The first is only valid if the employer is able to prove that the sex/gender is absolutely vital to the profession, and transgenderism is protected under separate statutes of gender identity in some states instead of under the umbrella of 'sexuality.' Also, that's not a constitutional protection, it's something granted on a state-by-state basis.
You're not seeing the forest for the trees.
Also, like I said with the example of the obviously transgendered man frequently working the cash register at the Safeway next to my house, it's an issue that managers apparently have some discretion in. You're fighting windmills.
Add to that the real list of employee discrimination grievances across the country abd it's seriously hard to get huffy about something as trivial as hair length.
If transgendered people are protected in Washington or recognized as their psychological gender rather than their biological gender by law, then that is what matters. If the law says neither of those things, then it doesn't matter.
I think you're conflating a whole lot of not-really-related ideas.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
My enthusiasm has not been dampened by the fact that I caught some weird bird flu type thing off a seat at the Jets game Saturday night.
Also, get down and lick Elk. How are ya? King of America yet?
I know the legal definitions of transgenderism are murky, but Safeway's motivation for not discriminating against transgendered people is largely rooted in the fact that there are vague, if untested, federal precedents for protecting sexuality, then add to that the state by state thing.
Obo -- I get it. Transgenderism is important to you. But we're talking about hair length. I would be absolutely slack-jawed if the ACLU actually took up a case about hair length.
USPS sucks so bad.
You manage to get a ticket for the semi? If they haven't sold out yet they're at least down to standing room tickets.
Wouldn't defining a gender by hair length be in a sense kind of like a step backward..guh nevermind i don't know. i mean i get the point but i think it leads to some odd places once ruled upon.
Then again maybe that's just the crazy in me that gives a lot of power to corporations and what not hindering my vantage point here.
There is the chance that you're wrong in this, you know...
If it was a seriously legitimate case and there was enough support it would mostly end up paying for itself.
Except for the time lost.
What you quoted is, like, saying you have to have chick firefighters and shit.
Yeah, got mine a few days ago. If we get past the Rivaldo show though, getting Final tickets is gonna be a bitch. Even my non United supporting friends are getting into it. At least it's not as bad as gigs these days are. Football fans aren't so much the types to be sitting on the Venutix website frantically clicking refresh as 9am rolls around.
Read the first fucking quote in that tree, you fucking thick-ass fuck. The quote by you. Idiot.
EDIT: Seriously, are you drugged right now? Drunk? Channeling a court jester?
EDIT 2: for full context,
For someone with a fair bit of savings who could somehow afford to wait out the umpteen-bazillion years worth of appeals before seeing a dime maybe.
Justice is a little harder to come by for someone who is more concerned with how to get money for food next week or rent for next month.
No offense to Obo there. I've been in the same kind of financial situation. It's just sometimes staying alive and off the streets so you can make a real difference for your cause later is more important....
You know there are organizations that exist to push certain cases, right?
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.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
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.
Your contention that "as long as it doesn't interfere with the functions of the job" is demonstrably false. In my brief anecdote, I could easily get fired for reporting to my office job in a skirt every day, a job where I don't even interact with customers. I might even be able to get fired for showing up in a fucking kilt, maybe just not shaving, maybe for getting a neck tattoo, maybe for getting piercings, etc. Courts have ruled over and over that employers can require certain appearance or attire. They would do this by saying something like "it's unprofessional" or some such horseshit I have no idea.
It's illegal to deny someone a position based on their gender.
It is not illegal to deny someone a position based on their appearance.
Oh. Got it. Well in that case from the perspective $ this would be quite the fight until the public is actively supportive.
Edit: Or do any of the other things employers can do when someone is Surplus To Requirements. Like not fire someone but cut their hours below what they need to earn to get by. Can you really prove their decision to get 2 part timers instead of 1 full timer was discrimination?
... wait a minute ...
Holy shit calm the fuck down
The looming prospect of
Don't do it Oboro! You've got too much going for you to sink to musical theatre!