"Transgender People Do Not Deserve Hiring Protections" Case

[Donica]

And soon,,, maybe DNA?

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2018/03/scientists-discover-dna-responsible-gender-identity/

[Virginia]

As an EMPLOYER it is infuriating the Government can not only tell me who I can and cannot hire, BUT How Much I Must Pay Them.

[GingerVicki]

It's mind boggling that folks insist on seeing an invariant gender binary model even in cases where it explicitly doesn't work, such as the various chromosomal intersex variations.   I cannot think of anything more frustrating than having a nonbinary or genderfluid identity in the face of this insistence on a broken binary model.

The whole "you can't exist; go away" thing is bad enough coming from the occasional bigot. Getting this from within our community, where we expect some acceptance, or from medical support folks is no good.

<sigh> It would be too easy just to let people do their thing and be happy in life regarding transitioning. 

[GingerVicki]

@Virginia
huh?

[Lucca]

As an EMPLOYER it is infuriating the Government can not only tell me who I can and cannot hire, BUT How Much I Must Pay Them.

You would rather do without the Civil Rights Act?

[Ryuichi13]

<sigh> It would be too easy just to let people do their thing and be happy in life regarding transitioning. 

I don't think that its anyone's business but HR's if someone chooses to transition while on the job.  As long as they get their paperwork, IDs and whatnot done by the proper authorities, and they can do the job, no one should care if they're trans or not.

And as for employers, again, it really shouldn't matter...in a perfect world.

Ryuichi

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[tgchar21]

Based on the opinions I've heard from some SCOTUS justices, I have a feeling that if a case like this is heard it will be a "split ruling" for transgender people. Even some of the conservative justices agree that the precedent of sex stereotyping discrimination would apply to transgender people on account that they don't fit the stereotypes of their birth gender. However, I have a hunch they'll draw the line so that transgender people do not have the right to access sex-segregated facilities like restrooms in accordance with the gender they identify with. For instance, if you're a "feminine man" or "masculine woman" you'd still use the restroom that matches your (legal and birth) sex, even though you may present in a way that leans toward the opposite gender (unlike full-fledged transgender people who want to actually be seen as the opposite gender from which they were assigned at birth).

[Lucca]

I have some small shred of understanding for people who don't want transgender people to use the "opposite" sex bathroom. I don't have the same understanding for people who want to flat-out fire people who wear "opposite" sex clothing or adopt an "opposite" sex appearance and mannerisms. Ok, so you don't think that transgender people are really their true gender; fine, but then what right do you have to fire a man who wears women's clothing and makeup? Women wear clothes traditionally associated with men all the time, and there's a push for greater acceptance of women adopting traditionally male attitudes and behaviors in the workplace that most employers would not dispute. Why don't men have the same freedom in the opposite direction?

Personally, I don't care about bathrooms or pronoun use as much as I care about simply not being fired for adopting a female appearance. That's why this doubling down on restrictive gender norms for "men" really irks me even more than the bathroom or pronoun issues do. (Which are still important in their own right.)

[KatieP]

Lucca,
Those are really great points. I found myself nodding as I read your post.

And, the bathroom thing has enough visibility that it is more a problem now than in a very long time.

I have happily used the women's room for more than 30 years, and had never had a single issue. Until just a few years ago. Today I sure worry a lot more about going potty in TX than I do in CA. I get more "looks" and comments in TX, AZ, NC, and such, these days than I did in those same places 25 years prior. And in places like CA and WA, while I suppose I might get the stink eye, I know I am on the right side of the law, where in those other states, I know it could go either way.

Sort of, I wish we hadn't made a big deal of it a few years back. It really was working, even if we weren't legal.

But, if it was either/or, I would totally choose acceptance of my gender expression at work over almost any bathroom protection.

Kate

[Michelle_P]

The 'bathroom thing' became a fresh punching bag for certain PACs as soon as the Supreme Court ruling on marriage equality came out.  It took a leading 'traditional values' PAC about 10 days to launch it's anti-trans campaign.    Now, even in states where we have a legal right to use a restroom, being challenged and assaulted is becoming commonplace.  And no, I do not feel comfortable reporting restroom assaults to the local police.  Contact with them tends to end badly for trans women.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[tgchar21]

Lucca - If the pronoun issue were to come up with SCOTUS I'd call it a toss-up on how that would go, but I have another hunch on how a "deadnaming" case where an employer/school/etc. refuses to call a transgender person by their chosen name would likely turn out: If it's been legally changed, or if cisgender people have the right at that institution to go by a nickname or other name different from their legal first name, then a transgender person could challenge their different treatment; but they would not be able to preempt a facially neutral policy that requires everyone to use their legal name.

[Lucca]

Just to be clear, I'm not dissing the fight for bathroom and name/pronoun rights, just saying what's important toe personally. And while the bathroom and pronoun issue are trans-specific issues for the most part, this firing issue goes beyond that into a realm where independent of the debate about whether Itransgender people are legit or not, standards of behavior and appearance for both cisgender and transgender men and women are being strictly dictated in a way that clearly is discrimination based on "biological sex", contrary to what these governors keep claiming.

If they don't want to acknowledge trans people, then they should at least acknowledge that they're discriminating against people with cross-sex interests.

[Sarah1979]

If push came to shove, I don't think they would have a problem admitting that, tbh.

[Lucca]

If push came to shove, I don't think they would have a problem admitting that, tbh.

They might not mind normally, but in this case, the debate is about whether or not this ruling would qualify as "sex" discrimination, since they are basing their logic on existing verbage that prohibits discrimination based on "sex." They have an interest in portraying this as not being sex discrimination, but that doesn't really make any sense, since even if "sex" and "gender" are two different things in this context, it still counts as sex discrimination, just in a different way than it counts as gender discrimination.

[Sarah1979]

I only meant politically, I'm not sure if they would truly care about the consequences of it beyond the next election year.