The No Win Situation

[Doc]

In CA, I see a big fat storm brewing. They are trying to make a law, where business must hire transvestites or face a 150,000 dollar fine. So, hire a cross dresser or else.

However, this applies to all sorts of things. Schools for example, would have to do this, as well as folks who would normally be mortified by a tranny dropping off a job application. Brought up in the discusion were places like Christian bookstores, children's toystores, and even day care centers, all of whom would now be required to have a man dressed in drag as an employee or else...

Is it just me or is this a business killing move? CA, last time I checked, has been running in red ink since Carter was in office. They can't afford to do anything else that will hurt businesses. And, if this happens in CA, what about the rest of the country? Now, let me make this clear, I have no problem with men dressing in drag, but forcing it on folks who do is wrong. Religious businesses will either have to pay the fine, face law suites, or compromise their faith of what ever flavour it might be. Existing businesses will face alienating their customers. If you were a parent, and took your kids to day care, only to see some froot loop in a skirt, wouldn't you be a little concerned? Or, would you go shopping for another day care center? Would you want you, or your child buying toys from a man in a skirt? Would you want to go into your doctors office and have a man in a dress examining you? Turn your head and cough indeed. Would you like your police officers suddenly having a choice in what gender of uniform they wear? Would you like to have a police person come to your aid with a skirt? A traffic cop in a dress? Folks barely respect police as it is, this would just ruin it.

If your kid came home from school and said "Hey Dad, Mr. Soandso was wearing a leather miniskirt, a white blouse, and pumps!" Would you just sit there, or, would that vein in your forehead threaten to explode?

Is it just me, or have people gone crazy?

[Feryar]

I've always thought that people can dress how they want, screw how they want and chase whatever gender they want as long as they keep me out of it and don't try to push their ways over on me.

I couldn't care less if some men likes wearing dresses as long as they don't try to push their clothing habits over on others. As for having a crossdressing teacher in school, well, I think kids need to see that not everyone is the same. They might be more tolerant later in life.

What I do have a problem with is quotas. I don't believe a person should get a job in front of a better qualified individual because she/he is black/gay/female/male/transvestite/transsexual/whatever.
They call it equality, but really it is not.

[Rhydderch Hael]

Affirmative action quotas are no longer applicable in Cali. What are you on about?

[Skandranon]

This has to be a misinterpretation, deliberate or otherwise.

[Guest]

- how you dress(assumming its not an issue of exspensive clothing)

-how you talk

-what you smell like

-how you cut your hair

I also dont mind having a different standard for both men and women in each of these catagories.

These are points that people use to display their persona to the world. I dont see anything wrong with discriminating on a personal basis.

[WarLocke]

- how you dress(assumming its not an issue of exspensive clothing)

Why should anyone be discriminated against because of their choice of clothing? So Bob Dear likes to wear blouses -- this effects you how?

-how you talk

This needs clarification. Many people look down on southerners or cajuns because they drawl and/or slurr their words (I know, I grew up down there), but that's simply an accent learned when you're young. That has no bearing on intelligence, or anything else.

Now, outright idiots and gangsta rappas 4 lyf4 I have no problem with discrimating against -- but I just don't tolerate scum.

-what you smell like

You may have a point here, in that body odor could indicate a lack of hygeine, which may affect others. But what if I'm a fry cook? Or I work in a paper mill (paper mills stink like drek). Again, needs more clarification.

-how you cut your hair

Haha, sure. Coincidentally, I just had my head shaved down to a buzzcut-type level recently. Does that make me an idiot army grunt type?

(Note: I'm not saying army grunts are all idiots, but the "buzzcut idiot grunt" stereotype is an easy reference)

I also dont mind having a different standard for both men and women in each of these catagories.

You only need double standards if the categories are valid.

I dont see anything wrong with discriminating on a personal basis.

... Except your examples don't fit. You profess to discrimate based on aspects of appearance.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

-how you talk

How about: "How you type"?

[Doc]

What you ask?

Yesterday, July 24, the California State Senate passed Assembly Bill 196-the Transsexual Employment Bill by a vote of 23 to 11. All 23 votes in favor were from liberal Democrats. 11 Republicans voted against the bill.

The July 24 passage of AB 196; by California Assemblyman Mark Leno of San Francisco, an openly homosexual man himself, by the State Senate was the final legislative step for the bill. It had passed the State Assembly on April 21 with a 42 to 34 vote. The bill now heads to Governor Gray Davis' desk for a signature or veto.

Copied and pasted directly from the news artical it self. Misunderstand what exactly? Don't know what I am talking about perhaps you might think. You tell me. Well, why don't you go and read about Bill 196. AA has nothing to do with this, it's about cross dressing homosexuals who feel they are being shafted because they can't find a job where they can cross dress and express their gynandromorphic feelings.

Get fired because you show up for work one day wearing a banana yellow tube dress and fishnet stockings? BOO-FRICKIN-HOO! Nobody wants to take responsibility and even try to make the attempt to be simi adjusted well rounded individuals.

Do some study. Then come back and chat. It's a long and interesting read, one worth taking a look at. It starts there, and could in fact some day spread all over.

Word to the wise though. Down South where I live, folk here are more then homophobic. Somebody crossdressing around here would prolly get them selves killed. Or worse.

[yangman]

So, every buisinesses HAVE to hire at least one employee who is a transvestite?

Lets say that I own a very small restaurant buisiness where all I can afford to hire is one cook, one waiter/waitress, and a third person who works either in the kitchen or out front depending on the need. So, with this new law, I'd have to fire one of my employee, then go out and find someone who cross-dresses to hire or else face a fine?

Or is it simply a law stating that a person cannot be turned away based on their clothing preferences?

[Jester]

For me, the issue is "Businesses should not be allowed to reject an otherwise qualified applicant because of trivial or social factors." Hence, you can't not hire a gay person, a black person, a native person, a woman, a republican, or a crossdresser, _presuming they are otherwise qualified to do the job_.

Now, for a children's bookstore, or some equally cutesy profession? Not being scary is part of the job, seriously. That does not, however, exclude all transvestites and transsexuals. Only ones whose demeanor is, well, creepy. You don't have to hire Hell's Angels, and so you don't have to hire transvestites who equally don't meet the criteria.

So, to me, the law is unjust on a purely philosophical grounds. Whether affirmative action legislation should apply... jury's still out on that one. Surely a 150 000 dollar fine is going a bit far.

But allowing discrimination simply because you (or anyone else) doesn't like their lifestyle? Not in a just society. Only if their lifestyle affects their job to a tangible detriment can you justify not hiring them.

Jester

[Skandranon]

Just as I suspected, Doc, you're misinterpreting. It doesn't force anyone to hire transvestites. All it does is add "transvestites" to the list of protected identities, discrimination against which is considered illegal. Notably, the list includes such things as race and religion. In other words, it is a progression along the path of making it legally such that the only standard by which someone is hired is their ability to do the job.

[Rhydderch Hael]

The fault lays not in any lack of information on our part. The fault lays in your misrepresented slant of the thread topic. From the words you employed here, you presented this discussion as a transvestite affirmative action bill, not an anti-discrimination bill!

They are trying to make a law, where business must hire transvestites or face a 150,000 dollar fine. So, hire a cross dresser or else.

Does that sound like you're presenting a case that pertains to anti-discrimination or affirmative action?

Feryar's response about quotas appeared to me to have been a remark led by your mistaken slant, as if a business had to hire a travestite despite any or all other considered factors, as if to fill an AA quota.

If there arose any confusion for us perceiving the bill (and this thread) between affirmative action or anti-discrimination, mayhaps you should better exercise the skills of debate that allow you to convey the issue clearly and truthfully from the start, without needing these clarifying responses!

As I said, AA got nicked here in California. From the AA slant of your post, this fell false upon my ears.

[Guest]

"How about: "How you type"?"

Sounds fair to me. I could care less if you decide to ignore.

[Guest]

I consider any element of your personal appearance that is completely at your own whim to be a matter of personal exspression. There is nothing invalid about the catagories. Although it would be fair for you disagree with my basic premise.

BTW, I say this as someone who wore a mohawk for a year in college. It was fun but I eventually shaved it off because of discrimination. I never resented any treatment I received for it. I think it did once cost me a summer research job; the startled look when the head researcher saw me was pretty cool though.




NOTE: I do agree with your point about accents and dialects, thats not what I was meaning to address. I was referring to using slang and profanity.

[Nicodemus Phaulkon]

Apparently you're unable to "get" the reference without a slap in the face.

Let me rephrase: How about: "How you write".

I find it interesting that you're willing to support discrimination against how a person talks (supposedly because of the inherent difficulties in communication and possible insulting side-effects), yet will time and again refuse to proof-read or even spell-check your own posts.

You have posted idiocies ranging from mis-strokes on the keyboard, to improper conjugation, to outright self-contradiction (such as inferring one thing, then writing something that states the opposite through carelessness). Such things have been pointed out to you repeatedly by members of the forum and also by Admins.

Your usual response: It's not a big deal, I'm not going to change, screw you all.

And yet, now you state that you support discrimination that involves the way one talks, walks and presents themself.

Shall I hit you over the head with your hypocrisy, or can you see it now?

[Nystul]

So my question is, how will this work in practice? Hiring a guy who wears dresses when he goes clubbing is fine by me, as long as he shows up to work the next day with short hair, long pants, a shirt, tie, and a suit coat (or whatever the company dress code would normally be). If the law would hinder companies' abilities to enforce dress code, then it's a problem. If I go to a five star restaurant and get a waiter wearing clothing appropriate for a waitress, I would probably walk out and go to McDonald's. Sometimes, if not all of the time, appearance is an important aspect of how well you can do your job.

[Doc]

No, I was correct in my wording.

If a xdresser comes in, asks for a job, and you refuse, there is a good chance that he could press the issue.

The real press comes not just from normal businesses, I am more worried about niche businesses. Case in point, or at least the bone sticking in the craw point for me, would be businesses of faith, of whatever sort. Having a guy in a skirt would undermine the entire basis of the operation. As for the dress code bit, under the bill it allows a man to dress as either gender and showing up in drag, no matter how bad it seems, is no longer a basis for being able to fire somebody. In CA, from what I was reading, the bill is being called the "Hire a Homo Or Else" bill. No, the real danger here is not in the hiring, but in the total destruction of things like dress codes and professional ethics. Somebody brought up a good point about a waiter wearing what a waitress would wear. Yes, I would get up and leave. If me and just about everybody did that, how could that be good for business?

Further, do you really want to see your boys in blue in blue skirts instead? Do you realize under the bill, in an unbrella effect, that this would allow male police officers to wear a female uniform? Or worse, turn what little common sense our democracy has into a circus... How many elected officials, who are in fact, openly gay, as was stated in the artical, might start showing up for work in drag.

As I understand it, this law was shot down the first time under one strong point. People dressing in drag are asking for it in our society. And now, I expect to see all sorts of hate crimes on the rise. That law was shot down to keep these poor idiots from making a target out of themselves.

Imagine if you will, a man. He is a delivery man. He has delivered packages now for who knows how long, and has always secretely desired to wear something a little frilly. He does at home when nobody is looking, but always looks like a manly man at work. So this law gets passed, and one day, at work, he comes in dressed as a woman. He gets some laughs and taunts around the office. His feelings get hurt. But the real shocker comes when he delivers that package of MRE rations to that redneck just outside of town who is already over the edge, who is just waiting for society to fall, and the sight of a delivery man dressed as a woman proves to much. Said redneck rampages and procedes to beat the holy crap out of the xdressing delivery person. Who's to blame?

Extreme case, but, not all that uncommon. Society is simply not ready for this sort of thing. At least not ours. It's been a while since I was last in CA, but I imagine not much has changed. I doubt folk are ready there either.

And the potential abuse of this law, don't even get me started on that. Worried you might be layed off, fired, or bumped off in a take over? Show up for work in a dress. The ultimate in job security.

[Rhydderch Hael]

No, I was correct in my wording. ...

No, you were not.

And since you refuse to press any new points to support your statement above, I shall return in kind and eleborate no further on mine.

[yangman]

Society is simply not ready for this sort of thing.

Maybe you're right in your view since you seem to lack even the most basic understanding of tranvestites and homosexuals.

Transvestites are not alwyas homosexuals. Rarely do homosexuals cross-dress all the time. And referencing to your earlier posts, true transsexuals can't even said to be cross-dressing because they are legally of that gender.

Oh, ever notice how most female officers wear the same basic uniform as male officers in the field?

Ignorance and intolerance walk hand-in-hand I suppose.

[Doc]

In the artical I read, they used those terms as an umbrella term, covering a wide area of men who want to dress as women. I know there is a difference, I simply do not care. Not a specialist in that area.

As for female police officers, I dunno about where you live, but where I live, they wear dark blue skirts with the police, and khaki skirts or "skorts" with the Sheriff's office. Perhaps women wear trousers were you live.

I will admit to having a slanted view though. The man who created this bill is a raging angry homosexual, who has openly stated on many occasions that he wants to punish society for it's views on the gay community. This whole bill, as it's been cooked up, smacks of nothing more then disruption, a wrench thrown in the gears. If you read the transcripts of conversations and debates that have taken place over this bill, you see that it has very little to do with transvestites or transexuals, and has more to do with angry militant gays who would like to punish a society that has rejected them. What they do is their business. I don't care frankly, and don't want to know. However, I don't want it crammed down my throat. This is the same man who has crusaded non stop in trying to get books like "Heather Has Two Mommies" and "Why Having Two Daddies Makes YOU Special" required reading in public elementary schools. This is also the same man who wants to introduce graphic "gay porn" as it's been called as part of alternative sex ed. And requiring all kids, homosexual kids and heterosexual kids, to watch it.

Forgive me for ranting, but in elementary school, what screwed up little 5th grader thinks that he is a homosexual? I mean, how on earth is there a need for this? Wait, wait, I DO NOT WANT TO KNOW, NEVER MIND. :blink: DANGER WILL ROBINSON!!

Back on track. When you see this poor chaps track record, you get a much better picture of just what it is that he is trying to do. Really, I encourage everybody to read more about him, this bill, and how it could affect this country. You can point fingers and call me names all you want, or, you could actually sit down and study the issue. There is a serious problem brewing here, whether you want to see it or not.

**Dons asbestos underpants** Flame me if you wish, but that does not change much in my mind. Do what ever, if it makes you feel better to avoid the issue by dancing around the edges and lighting fires. Or, you could add some real flavour to the conversation.