On the other hand, we could all form our little cults of literal God-fathers. Plus all the little tykes would laugh at my jokes no matter how terrible every other intelligent being in the word thinks they are.

Well, load up some My Little Pony erotic fanfiction, and start popping out some asexual clones.

Aww yeah. I'll name them after the pony supplying the fappage. Applejack, Apple Macintosh, Apple Bloom, Granny Smith...

lol, oh late entry for quote of the year.

Quote for the ages.

In reply to the italicized; the discrepancy I was alluding to was wherein you (1) called for people to mind their own business ("I love it when people feel the need to get on their soapbox and rant about how other people live their lives."), but previously seemingly (2) called for laws making it illegal to act upon ones own moral standards ("I'm transgendered, and in several states I can get fired for being so, and I wouldn't be able to do a damn thing about it. ").

It seemed as though you were juxtaposing a Libertarian position, which I labeled (1), against a statist position (2).

Understand?

In regards to the underlined, that's an ad hominem attack.

Amen, brother.

Christ, Why can't we just put em' on trains, and make em' disappear like in the good ol' days.

I really don't think so. She never said anything about laws, all she said was that the way she is treated for being transgendered is unfair and she is prevented from getting a job for no other reason than her life choice.

Expressing disagreement with the way employers treat her is perfectly compatible with asking people not to interfere or condemn something which does not affect them in any way. Is your life going to be made worse by the fact that she is transgendered?

Furthermore, I don't see what is wrong with complaining about the unfair treatment she gets. If someone is being refused a job in the private sector, there may be some defense as it is the business owner who decides who he wants to employ. But in the public sector, there is no excuse. If the government discriminates against the people then it cannot properly represent the people. And this is a perfectly reasonable complaint in my opinion.

^^transgendered people here are often relegated to menial jobs

unless you're good at hiding your original gender

Sadly so. I think that they have every right to complain about this, and I also think that it's really no-one's business to know if the person doesn't want it to be made known. What you don't know can't hurt you.

I don't think I'm juxtaposing libertarian positions with statist ones there.

We are supposed to have a wide range of Acts in place that stop people like Above from being discriminated against when looking for jobs, but of course denying someone a job is something that yoi can easily find a range of bull**** excuses for, so I'm not shocked that some bigoted employers manage to shoot her down before she is even given a chance.

I fail to see how it's any business of the employer, they're buying labor not people.

I fail to see how stopping employers from firing me for being a transsexual is the opposite to freedom. Sure, maybe you understand freedom as "the freedom to take away other peoples' freedom", which is a messed up view in the first place. I love how you equate me wanting a job to me supporting a totalitarian system. Grow up.

Also, that may have been a personal attack on you in my last post, but it still stands true!

From the Libertarian viewpoint, it is contrary to freedom in that governmental control and regulation of how free market enterprises are carried out infringes on their rights as individuals.

By forcing businesses to hire people who are gay, transgender, etc., they are being forced by the government to accept a viewpoint which they may or may not hold. In a lot of ways, it's kind of like forcing a punk rock venue to book pop acts, just because that's a more popular genre of music.

I'm not saying it's right at all - Hell, I'm gay - but the idea is that businesses should be allowed to conduct their business in the way they feel right. Limited government control and all of that.

I don't agree with this, but at the same time I'm not going to go out and try to gain employment with an overtly religious organization or anything of the sort, because they don't hold my beliefs, nor do I theirs. It's a double-edged sword.

Even if they're forced by law to be an equal opportunity employer, hiring me isn't go to change their mind about the gay community, and it's ultimately just going to lead to a tense situation. You can't force ignorant people to change their mind, much like they can't force me or anyone else to reconsider our sexual orientation. It's just an ugly situation, and I'm not a huge fan of overt provocation.

Institutional discriminatory views shouldn't be protected anyway.

Especially in public sector where the government is responsible for employment. If they discriminate against the people, they don't truly represent it.

No, they really shouldn't.

At the same time, these people may or may not come around on their own based on their own personal life experiences. The government telling them what to think essentially isn't going to be the thing that makes them come around. If anything, that's just going to vilify the government in their eyes. It seems to a lot of people as though their personal freedoms are being trampled on by being told what to think and what's acceptable.

I do agree with you wholeheartedly, though. The group of people who are the most ignorant may be the most vocal about their opinions, but they also constitute the vast minority of people I've encountered. The government intends to protect people with non-discriminatory employment laws, but you're always going to have people feeling victimized no matter what. That's just how people are. Everyone's different.

Transphobia is a very real, institutionalized issue. Most people don't even know the meaning of the word transgender, so when they see me turn up to an interview, they'll just assume that I'm one of those people who get off on dressing up as a woman or some other misconception. It's one of the worst minorities to be a part of. Not trying for sympathy or "My life is harder than yours" here, just a fact.

Do you feel that they have the right to know? If you want to keep that information from them, is that forbidden? If so I think that's a very dubious piece of discriminatory legislation.
What they don't know can't hurt them, and it makes no difference to how well you will do in that job.

Yeah, but until I fully transition, it's gonna be fairly obvious. I'm young, though, so hormones will make a huge difference with me.

discrimination here is worse

Muslims are prohibited from transgendering and are usually victimised by the police here

I bet.

I take it your country is very religious as a whole, yes?

Perhaps making the transition earlier on in life helps a bit, because since you will still be growing, your body will help you along a bit.

Still a really horrible thing for employers to discriminate just because you've made a certain decision about your body.

it's supposed to be Secular, but in reality, it's pretty Islamicised

Maybe if HHBH lived there, then he can say he feels persecuted :laughing:

it depends, really

we're still pretty much Neo-colonialist, so Caucasians are, more often than not, worshipped

unless he's a hardline fundie Christian

Yup!

Have you seen the guy's lastFM?

newbsdid911

And if he's supposed to be a Christian, he's not being very tolerant or serving the Lord here. Would Jesus insult people like he does?

Um, I'm an atheist and a traditionalist. In the political context of the USA, I'd be regarded as a paleoconservative. Hence why, in my signature, I link to my thread about early extreme metal, the american conservative, and my last.fm.

Anyways, others hit on the theme I was hammering on, even if they don't agree with it; mandating hiring/firing practices is a violation of property rights. It's cool if you disagree with me on this subject, but I'm not going to debate it if your arguments are just ad hominems.

Finally, if you want to say something to me you feel you can't say here or elsewhere on the site, feel free to just PM it to me. :)

Telling an employer they "have to hire transgender people" or "they cannot fire transgender people" would violate their property rights, sure. But I don't think that's what we're talking about in the past couple pages. If employers deny employment to individuals, either partially because of, or entirely because of, their gender status, these employers are practicing a form of discrimination that absolutely should not be tolerated.

So it's not that we're saying "you cannot fire transgender people" or "you have to hire transgender people", we're saying "you cannot fire people just because they are transgender" and "you cannot deny employment to people just because they are transgender". There is a difference.

Well said. If the person is completely unqualified for the job, then it would be fine not to give them the job. It's just that this doesn't happen. Transgendered people are often given very menial jobs for no reason other than being transgendered. What they are capable of doing is ignored.
And this is a truly deplorable situation.

I think an employer has every right to run his/her business as they see fit for the business.

True, but surely there ought to be means of protecting people with no power against an employer who enjoys picking on people. I don't want to be fired for something as trivial as being ginger, so if I am I can claim "unfair dismissal".

Employers aren't the only people with rights.

Not entirely no, quite a lot of private business relies on public infrastructure and society needs to work together as a whole, it's part of the social contract. Leaving businesses to discriminate as they please could lead to the establishment of quite a few ghettos.

I suppose then, that an employer should be entitled to pay their employees $1.50/hour if they so decide to cut costs in their business? Especially in these hard economic times where many people will accept a job at such a meager pay level. It's hard for businesses to stay afloat. Surely it's justified?

And exactly what you are saying is why an employer might dismiss someone such as a transgender, from peer pressure. As long as the public infrastructure does not accept this, then businesses have no choice but to either cater to them or fail.

We change the cultural point of view first and then we'll see everything else change accordingly. Bottom line in business is to stay in business, if you cater to a client that abhors green men, you tend to avoid hiring green men, if a purple man changes his color to green it will be jeopardizing the business and a decision needs to be met.

Personally I wouldn't want to work somewhere knowing that I was only employed because the employer was mandated to do so. I imagine it would be a very difficult position to be in. On the one hand if you don't assert yourself then nothing is going to change but if you do it doesn't make for a comfortable work environment.

Well, isn't that against the law?

But it's the logic behind it. It's saying that there are aspects about workers rights that aren't under the control of the owner.

Abercrombie and Fitch/Banana Republic are actually guilty, and have had successful lawsuits taken against them, of racial discrimination. The company caters to skinny, blonde, white customers, and as such has discriminated against qualified individuals of differing ethnicities, either choosing not to hire them, or keeping them in the warehouse and out of site. Is this acceptable, and why?