Well, let's take a closer look into the workforce, certainly some fields would be unaffected by transgenders, like the fashion industry and music industry for examples.

If you worked as a sales rep for a company that sells construction equipment, and have a sex change, I could see it being detrimental to future sales and company image (maybe it wouldn't, but this is a decent analogy), you have just made yourself unemployable in certain fields, fair or unfair this is how things work today.

Did I really have to explain this? Isn't it obvious?

If you would put my comment back into the context from where you took it, you'll see why I said it and how it makes sense without any negative intent.

Nice try though. :beer:

I found what Salami quoted rather bigoted, as if this is a choice that I have made and this is all my fault that employers discriminate against me for being born the way I am.

And even "into the context" it sounded very bigoted.

Like I stated, personally I wouldn't care what you were if I employed you, just as long as the job got done.

Because I may state what seems unfair and bigoted by those around us, does not in any way mean that I am.

I personally see not one single problem with homosexuality or transgendered men and women. I can understand that others may have a problem with it because they are bigoted, but it shouldn't need to have an effect on any individual's life beyond their own sexuality.

Certain jobs require you to be certain things, and that is acceptable, but being transgendered/homosexual should not limit your chances of having any job that has no gender/race specifications.

I agree, but it doesn't work that way . . . certain fields are more acceptable for certain people than others.

I agree.

If I chose to be a construction worker, it would make no difference whether I was a man or woman because I could still lift bricks all the same.

Huh? I can't see how that works at all. Customers aren't going to know that it happened, and I think that even if they did they wouldn't choose to boycott the company on such heinous grounds.
If it doesn't demonstrate the point, then I don't think it is.No it isn't. And I still completely disagree. I think the extent of your argument is that employers should discriminate according to gender. If this is a job where it is essential that you are a particular gender, then this is acceptable. However, there are very few jobs like that and I refuse to accept that we should make this common practice.

Perhaps, but there's more to it than that. What happens when other workers have a problem with you, what happens if someone does something to you, you are constantly picked up, there is disruption all through the work crew? Get rid of everyone that is giving you a problem and have one transgendered person working? Not going to work out, to avoid lawsuits, injury, etc. that Employer is NOT going to consider you for the job, simple.

The people who pick on me for my gender should be punished. What you are encouraging is institutionalized sexism and transphobia. It's no different than saying I should change schools because the head doesn't like transgendered people.

I cannot make any sense of this argument whatsoever. It proposes logic to the extent of "what if people don't like it? Either fire them or fire you?"
This is preposterous, because I doubt everyone else has as much a problem with it as you do. Above is right when she says that it isn't he problem, it's someone else taking issue with one of her decisions which isn't their business. And if the only solution to the problem in your eyes is to fire somebody, then I hope to God I don't end up working under you.