Transgender Philosophy (Questions, Ideology)

[Eurell]

. I assume that judges would have to weigh how much discrimination is acceptable

Unless the job requires a certain sex or race (like an acting job or something), then the answer is 0. 0 discrimination is acceptable.

[guartz]

Unless the job requires a certain sex or race (like an acting job or something), then the answer is 0. 0 discrimination is acceptable.

what an absurd thing to say

[Gredival]

That case has been pending for a long time, but the heart of the issue was (and the employer even testified to it) not the dress code, but more about how she wouldn't pass as a cis woman because trans, the dress code part was just an excuse to discrimination fire her.

If the SC does rule in his favor (probably will since they've screwed us before and it's very conservative now), this won't just allow job discrimination for trans people, but will revert all women back to the restrictive dress codes of the 1950s.

There is iirc another trans rights case coming before the SC this year as well, but can't remember how it'll screw us over (think it's the trans kids rights to use their preferred gender bathrooms), so this has the potential to be a fuck you year for trans rights from the SC.... /sigh

There is no doubt that the dress code is pretext for firing her, but the legality of the termination hinges on the idea that passing is a legitimate dress code requirement that is not inherently gendered even though it has a disparate effect on the different sexes (i.e. akin to my facial hair grooming example). The fear is that this would open the door back up to disparate gender dress codes where "passing" means that females would have to wear "obviously female" uniforms.

IMO it is clearly discriminatory towards one sex because you are basically holding them to a higher standard of attractiveness than the other sex to dress a certain way. In other words, biologically born men must at least an 8/10 to pass and wear a dress but biologically born women can be a 1/10.

EDIT: This of course hinges on a distinction between birth sex and expressed gender that may not be palatable to the trans community. However because niehter trans identity and gender are not protected classes under Title VII any protection would to derive from using sex as the basis for a claim of protection. Unless SCOTUS opted to actually define protection based on sex to include gender and gender identity, but that is a long-shot with the Roberts court. The EEOC internally recognizes gender identity discrimination to be sex discrimination but their interpretation is not legally binding as it has not been affirmed in a case and is not regulatory.

[Gredival]

Unless the job requires a certain sex or race (like an acting job or something), then the answer is 0. 0 discrimination is acceptable.

Fun fact, it's actually considered discriminatory to disqualify someone from an acting job purely because of race even if the candidate doesn't match the race of a historical character. It's never actually been used in a lawsuit afaik but I eagerly await the day a butt-hurt white actor that got rejected to play MLK Jr. tries it.

[Eurell]

what an absurd thing to say

So give me a counter argument. How much discrimination do you think is OK?

[Zealot]

I don't think any actor wants to take up that banner knowing the defense will be that they didn't get the part because they're a shitty actor. Also taking a casting director or studio to court is a great way to make sure you're never cast again.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

[Gredival]

I don't think any actor wants to take up that banner knowing the defense will be that they didn't get the part because they're a shitty actor. Also taking a casting director or studio to court is a great way to make sure you're never cast again.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

You underestimate the "we are the real victims of discrimination" butt-hurt.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

[guartz]

So give me a counter argument. How much discrimination do you think is OK?

Anything that's not specifically protected class is fair game, tbh.

So like, if your looking for an example how about this;

You have Stacy who is 5'4 petite and cute, and Susan who is not and 400 lbs. They both find a cute summer dress at Target, Stacy can wear that dress to work ...Susan can not. Bob from mechanical maintenance can't either.

Discrimination? yes. But acceptable social norms.

[Eurell]

"Wear clothes that fit" is not discrimination. Its a dress code. If You're saying Susan can't wear that same dress in a size that fits her, yeah, thats discrimination and fucked up and is not OK.

[Ksandra]

Why would Susan not be allowed to wear the dress?

I’m not 400lb, but I’m still fat and I’ve never had an employer tell me I couldn’t wear something due to my weight.

[Gredival]

Weight is not a protected class. Disallowing Susan to wear the dress is weight based discrimination, but legal.

Sex is a protected class. Disallowing Bob to wear the dress because he is male is sex based discrimination and is illegal.

The question in the lawsuit is whether disallowing Bob to wear the dress because "He can't pass as a female" is sex based discrimination or if it is a neutral standard of "presentability"

Under the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting, if Bob can prove that Sam, who can pass as a female, Sam is similarly prohibited from wearing a dress because Sam was born male then it would be evidence of pretext.

[Eurell]

Are we talking about whats legal?

I thought it was more along the lines of what reasons Should we be allowed to discriminate for

[guartz]

Weight is not a protected class. Disallowing Susan to wear the dress is weight based discrimination, but legal.

Sex is a protected class. Disallowing Bob to wear the dress because he is male is sex based discrimination and is illegal.

The question in the lawsuit is whether disallowing Bob to wear the dress because "He can't pass as a female" is sex based discrimination or if it is a neutral standard of "presentability"

Under the McDonnell Douglas burden shifting, if Bob can prove that Sam, who can pass as a female, Sam is similarly prohibited from wearing a dress because Sam was born male then it would be evidence of pretext.

Thanks Gred, that's the way I understand the problem.

[guartz]

Why would Susan not be allowed to wear the dress?

I’m not 400lb, but I’m still fat and I’ve never had an employer tell me I couldn’t wear something due to my weight.

Because in this hypothetical scenario, the dress would look uncomplimentary, which the employer can choose to discriminate against.

[Gredival]

Are we talking about whats legal?

I thought it was more along the lines of what reasons Should we be allowed to discriminate for

Philosophically it's shit, but legally it's just like when A&F said they would only hire pretty and young employees because that's the image they want.

In this case in particular it's pretty clear to everyone involved that the employer was just transphobic, but if one were to imagine A&F doing this then you could conceivably envision a reality where A&F would actually be fine with trans employees just as long as they were pretty. At that point, their standards would probably be legal because they were facially neutral. It would disparately affect trans individuals but trans identity is not an explicitly protected class. Therefore to be illegal it would have to be found that discrimination against gender identity falls under the purview of discrimination against sex.

[Gredival]

FtM trans student had top surgery and kicked out of college for "sexual perversion" with an offer for money for food and housing at a hotel. Posted about it to social media, then offer for food/hotel withdrawn unless the post is deleted. Post disciplinary hearing is still in the hotel.

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article...-welch-college

[Gadritan]

It's a private Christian college. He had know the consequences.

Girl I dated got fired from her church daycare the day she moved in with me because it's a sin for unmarried couples to live together etc.

We think it's stupid, but if it's against that religion I don't see any other resolution.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

[Spicyryan]

It is an old school cult after all. If these people choose to cherry pick and ignore the "no love before eloping" or "heteros only" parts then they don't really belong in the cult.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3000 using Tapatalk

[Eurell]

It's a private Christian college. He had know the consequences.

Girl I dated got fired from her church daycare the day she moved in with me because it's a sin for unmarried couples to live together etc.

We think it's stupid, but if it's against that religion I don't see any other resolution.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

Is there something in the bible that is anti trans? I honestly dont know, but cant imagine there is.

[Gredival]

Literally there is not, but it usually falls under the catch-all of "men are men and women are women, God doesn't make mistakes."

Also they need an exemption under Title IX even as a religious organization since they are a school