LGBT and the US Conservative Movement

Marduk said:
But equally certainly there are also many more gray area cases. Like people that do it because of more or less accurate stereotypes of risks involved in dealing with such people. Say, in case of apartments, its fairly well known, and in some areas probably very accurate too, that there is a disproportionate risk that the trans tenant to be is going to lead unusually vivacious lifestyle of some kind that will get the neighbors to complain or call the cops all the time.
Click to expand...

If "unusually vivacious lifestyle" is a concern, "don't rent to anyone single and under the age of 30" is a much, much safer rule than worrying about trans people.

A lot of them have dress and grooming codes, sometimes quite strict, and sometimes for a good reason. They consider it absolutely unacceptable to look like a freak. Many won't even allow you to look like a perfectly average working class t-shirt+jeans dude. Nevermind, say, a member of metalhead subculture walking around the office and dealing with customers with unkempt long hair, three day stubble, wearing an unzipped black leather jacket presenting some suitably edgy band shirt.

Why is that so? These workplaces are very much insistent on "professional" corporate look, yadda yadda, and especially about not making customers and coworkers uncomfortable by workers looking like freaks, such rules sometimes being strict to quite extreme and hard to justify degrees.
Click to expand...

Curiously, I have no problem complying with employer dress codes, and neither does any other transgender person I know. The people I know who do the crazy punk looks are all cisgender, and even they are perfectly willing to take it off when they're at work.

Because, you know, changing clothes is something people do.

On the other hand, the T lobby argues that there should be an exception to the "no looking like a freak" rules (formal or informal) for their social group, so that even the worst cases of "IT'S MA'AM!" should be immune from this kind of scrutiny, regardless of the practical effect they threaten to have on perceptions of the business, likely to far worse degree than the abovementioned metalhead.
Click to expand...

You are generalizing trans people in a wildly inaccurate fashion here. There is no universal "T lobby" in the first place, and "Trans people should be exempt from dress codes" is not a position that is at all widely advocated, much less "every trans person wants this", and even more so this clearly biased speculation that trans people *might* be worse than metalheads.

For the record, I've told my employer I'm trans. All that means is I follow the dress code for female employees, not male employees.
 
Here is the thing unless they pass then they do look outlandish. A man who is hairy and has a beard but who “identifies “ as a woman whatever that means should dress like a man. Because dress codes are not an objective thing they are subjective and for social conformity. A trans person who does not pass dressing in clothing of the opposite sex is not conforming to outward social functions/expectations.
 
My take is.

If you admit you have a mental condition and get all the proper things to make yourself better, and the first major step is to not consider yourself trans but the other gender.

That is where my biggest issue is. People do it because it is an easy way to get away with things.
If we classified it as a mental condition and you go through the proper things to get it done, that is better.

Calling yourself trans is the issue when you should be calling yourself male or female.
 
The Immortal Watch Dog said:
Self identification being legitimized is an absurdity and one of the most grotesque abuses of medical ethics
Click to expand...
Agreed.
If you arnt diagnosed with gender dismorphia then you shouldn't get the medical treatment.

If you are, and you are willing to go through everything because you have it THAT BAD, and doctors recommend? Then yes do it. Don't make your life hell because some may not like you.

Just Make sure doctors say you have said issue
 
I had to fire someone because he was taking testosterone due to being so obese the poor bastards body stopped producing it naturally.

The cost was high but that wasn't why I fired him, I fired him because of the mood swings and temperament issues. He had moments where he would lose his shit and he kicked an Izuzu hard enough he fucked the door up.

And that was a hormone his body was supposed to have in abundance.

There's a reason why any ethical Endo will hold off on prescribing HRT until all other options are exhausted. It is the strategic nuclear weapon of metabolic treatment.

Unless you're a 60 year old, then it seems like your body handles it better. But that makes sense, at that age it isn't replacement so much as a supplement.

Estrogen rage and what some people refer to as "Tranny panic" are real things and I don't blame landlord's and employers who decide its too risky.
 
FriedCFour said:
Yes but I’m saying that “I’m factoring in not hiring you because you are trans” is as legitimate as not hiring someone who feels the need to wear BDSM fetish wear to work or is severely mentally ill or more accurately a combination of the two.
Click to expand...
Eh, the first depends on the trans and if they are a trender ot a true trans.
The later also depends on how far along in transition they are and so on so forth
 
I also want to point out.

@Abhorsen and the other LG and B people on this forum don't want the right to commit sexual assault via deception and sexual assault via coercion.

In fact the stigma associated with that and how it relates to HIV is something those three have fought for almost half a century now.

But the Ts seem to want to make it not only legal but illegal to criticize.
 
The L, the G, and the B being treated as equal to heterosexual is an assault on the nature and meaning of a relationship and what it’s purpose is and what marriages are for primarily. T being treated as the same as an actual man or an actual woman is an assault on the very nature of humanity and what it means to be a man or a woman. Neither should be tolerated in terms of the ideology put forward by their movements but one is definitely worse.
 
ShadowArxxy said:
If "unusually vivacious lifestyle" is a concern, "don't rent to anyone single and under the age of 30" is a much, much safer rule than worrying about trans people.
Click to expand...
Perhaps it is. But it should be up to the businessman in question to decide what and how much risk is he willing to take.

ShadowArxxy said:
Curiously, I have no problem complying with employer dress codes, and neither does any other transgender person I know. The people I know who do the crazy punk looks are all cisgender, and even they are perfectly willing to take it off when they're at work.

Because, you know, changing clothes is something people do.
Click to expand...
Clothing yes. But then there's hair, tattoos, and other stylistical elements that aren't so easily changed. And then, staying on topic, there are cases of "ITS MA'AM!" who do look like a freak even when wearing clothes that would fit the code both in the letter and spirit if worn by an average female employee.

ShadowArxxy said:
You are generalizing trans people in a wildly inaccurate fashion here. There is no universal "T lobby" in the first place, and "Trans people should be exempt from dress codes" is not a position that is at all widely advocated, much less "every trans person wants this", and even more so this clearly biased speculation that trans people *might* be worse than metalheads.
Click to expand...
There is no universal "T lobby", but we all know what kind of set of political positions anyone who says "mainstream LGBT organizations" means, and this is what i also mean by "T lobby".
 
What Marduk said. We could debate the possible disadvantages of hiring a trans person, but ultimately that decision isn’t ours to make, it is the choice of the employer. If a boss feels uncomfortable hiring somebody for some reason, then it’s their business and they should have the right to hire, or not, who ever they like.
 
We should be careful being to pro business has been a pain recently with big business supporting liberals. That might get turned against us. Instead of giving trannies extra rights just make it so any business that employs over 100 people can’t fire someone unless it’s for cause.
 
ShieldWife said:
If a boss feels uncomfortable hiring somebody for some reason, then it’s their business and they should have the right to hire, or not, who ever they like.
Click to expand...

That's a logically consistent position *if* you equally oppose all other anti-discrimination laws.
 
King Arts said:
We should be careful being to pro business has been a pain recently with big business supporting liberals. That might get turned against us. Instead of giving trannies extra rights just make it so any business that employs over 100 people can’t fire someone unless it’s for cause.
Click to expand...
I’m not being pro-big business, I just think that everybody has freedom of association, to hire and fire who they like for what ever reasons they like. At least within the bounds of any contracts that have been signed.

As for really big businesses discriminating, they already do. Big businesses, including the US government and higher education, systematically discriminate against men, whites, Asians, and especially against conservatives. They do this despite the laws and they get away with it.


ShadowArxxy said:
That's a logically consistent position *if* you equally oppose all other anti-discrimination laws.
Click to expand...
I am against all anti-discrimination laws.

Edit: except for the government, since they are using tax payers’ money, their ability to discriminate should be limited.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top