The GLBT and GSA Thread

[Annoyed]

Don't you guys have Unions? They have many downsides, but protects you from getting fire for BS like that. Never heard of that *right to work state* term before, seems very alien to me.

Don't know where you are, but in the U.S., only a very small percentage of workers have union representation, and the vast majority of those are public sector employees. That's one of the big reasons behind the hostility towards public sector employees particularly in states where the govt. unions are powerful; the non-union taxpayers have to pay the taxes required to support wage and benefit packages far superior to what they themselves can earn.

On another note, about ''reversed-discrimination'' (AKA favoring a cultural group, gender, ethnic group over others) is essential to have a multi-cultural representation in the workforce. As Annoyed said, many execs can simply refuse a candidacy of a potential new employee on the basis of any grounds, bylaws, or whatever else at their disposal. They obviously won't say : Hey we don't want you in because of your color, sexual orientation or gender.

Discrimination of any stripe is wrong. If you want to say that discrimination is ok if it favors, then you are saying that you approve of discrimination. How can you then turn around and say another form of discrimination is wrong?

That being said, I strongly believe that MANY people have gone way over the line with this multi-genders phenomenon. Gay, Lesbian, Trans, even transvestite I understand. That's your sexual orientation, okay, you changed sex? That's fine with me.

But seriously, what the hell is this non-binary Gender and all these other funny names? And people being offended because we mis-addressed them? How was I supposed to know you self-identify as an Apache Helicopter ?

Jokes aside, rights have to be respected, you were born a male, but changed sex and became a woman, you self-identify as a woman that's fine in my book. We should address you as such. But some people are on a witch-hunt to find any small details that ''Offends'' their genders.

That does not apply only to gender cases. There are a great many people who are members of all sorts of groups who go through life examining everything, looking for some perceived slight to whine about. At times, it can be quite the profitable occupation.

[Annoyed]

Again...you miss the point. But that isn't new.

Since it was a point I was explaining to FH, I rather doubt I could have missed it.

[Chaka-Z0]

Discrimination of any stripe is wrong. If you want to say that discrimination is ok if it favors, then you are saying that you approve of discrimination. How can you then turn around and say another form of discrimination is wrong?

I re-read my post and realized I forgot to mention in my comment that this was in regards to the Public Sector here in Canada. There is no such rules in the private sector. That is the only place (public sec.), in my opinion that ''positive discrimination'' is justified.

If you would look back at the Govt workforce or political parties a few decades ago, the % of people from different cultural groups was ridiculously low. Same for women and GLBT people. Why? Because most Executives-bureaucrats were powerful men and had all the power to hire who they pleased. Some would see a foreign name on a CV and simply throw it away and not even consider the applicant. Obviously things have changed since then, rules and regulations have been put in place to prevent this systemic racism and discrimination.

This is not an opinion, this is a fact: Systemic Racism was there and still is to some extent. The public sector of any country should have a representation similar if not equal to the demographics of the country to represent equality of opportunities.

How can you then turn around and say another form of discrimination is wrong?

I've seen you commenting this many times in your posts. Contrary to you, I do not have tunnel vision like most republicans seem to have. It's funny how with some people, especially right-wing oriented or intensely religious, it's either Black or White. You fail to realize you need to apply your rules and regulations to the reality of the day-to-day life, adapt them, bend them if need be to the benefit of your people.

I have absolutely no problem saying that I am against discrimination of any cultural group, and at the same time against giving some unjustified advantages (such as discounts in coffee shops, yes I've seen that). I also have no problem saying that I am in favor of promoting a just and fair representation in the public workforce. That's not discrimination against white people, that's simply how things should be in a fair and just society. Keep an open mind buddy.

[Annoyed]

This is not an opinion, this is a fact: Systemic Racism was there and still is to some extent. The public sector of any country should have a representation similar if not equal to the demographics of the country to represent equality of opportunities.

You cannot eliminate discrimination by perpetuating it. The playing field is either level or it isn't. No third choice, no "shades of grey" (See below).
If you grant special privileges to any group, you will generate ire and anger among those who are not favored, thereby perpetuating the cycle. This week it's this group that gets favorable treatment, next week it's that other group. The month after that, it's someone else. On and on it goes.

I've seen you commenting this many times in your posts. Contrary to you, I do not have tunnel vision like most republicans seem to have. It's funny how with some people, especially right-wing oriented or intensely religious, it's either Black or White. You fail to realize you need to apply your rules and regulations to the reality of the day-to-day life, adapt them, bend them if need be to the benefit of your people.

I have absolutely no problem saying that I am against discrimination of any cultural group, and at the same time against giving some unjustified advantages (such as discounts in coffee shops, yes I've seen that). I also have no problem saying that I am in favor of promoting a just and fair representation in the public workforce. That's not discrimination against white people, that's simply how things should be in a fair and just society. Keep an open mind buddy.

Many things, if not most, really are black and white. Something either is or is not. Plain and simple. I have found that "shades of grey" are far more often simply tools that people of all walks of life use to say one thing and do another with a straight face, or to convince other or even their own conscience that they're not flat out lying.

The more something is dressed up in fancy talk, the more likely it is that it shouldn't be stepped in.

[Chaka-Z0]

You cannot eliminate discrimination by perpetuating it. The playing field is either level or it isn't. No third choice, no "shades of grey" (See below).

Pray tell me how you eliminate discrimination by doing nothing like you preach?

Many things, if not most, really are black and white. Something either is or is not. Plain and simple. I have found that "shades of grey" are far more often simply tools that people of all walks of life use to say one thing and do another with a straight face, or to convince other or even their own conscience that they're not flat out lying.

I am totally of that mindset for my own personal day-to-day life. Although, one can not simply apply these black and white rules that you seem so found of to the lives of MILLIONS of people.

Let's transpose your logic here:

1- Something is or is not
Murder is bad = you get jailed for X amount of years
Real-life application: Some guy shows up in your home in the middle of the night and put a gun to your head. A struggle ensues, you end up killing him in self-defense.
Result: You get jailed anyway, because you committed murder and since your ''something is'' rule applies, murder = jail.

I'm sorry but this simply cannot work in a democratic society. And those that have that mentality, are called dictatorship.

[Annoyed]

Pray tell me how you eliminate discrimination by doing nothing like you preach?

The answer is that you can't. The best you can do is avoid "officially" encouraging and supporting it.

Take myself, for example. I'm a white male, but getting on in years, who has supported himself through being employed for his entire working life, the last 15 years at the same company. But that deal is getting worse and worse all the time. I am convinced that management is employing a strategy of deliberately aggravating long-term employees to the point where they quit, and the company can replace them with young skulls full of mush whom they can pay starting level wages.

If I were 30 years younger, with the economy ticking up as it is these days, I could confidently quit and find something better. 15 years at any company is a good track record.

But I know damned well that at my age, I won't get a first glance from most HR departments due to my age. Yes, it is illegal. But age discrimination is rampant in this day and age. I have more than enough friends & relatives that have been the victim of it. As I've noted before, a company doesn't have to provide a reason they don't hire an individual, nor do they have to provide a reason for termination. Work at will is just that, employment is at the will of both parties, either side can choose to end the relationship.

How to solve this? Well, at a guess, let's say that the percentage of the population over 50 is 20%. How about legislating a quota that every employer has to have 20% of their workers at all levels over age 50.

Sound workable? Of course not. Some problems simply have no solution.

I am totally of that mindset for my own personal day-to-day life. Although, one can not simply apply these black and white rules that you seem so found of to the lives of MILLIONS of people.

Let's transpose your logic here:

1- Something is or is not
Murder is bad = you get jailed for X amount of years
Real-life application: Some guy shows up in your home in the middle of the night and put a gun to your head. A struggle ensues, you end up killing him in self-defense.
Result: You get jailed anyway, because you committed murder and since your ''something is'' rule applies, murder = jail.

I'm sorry but this simply cannot work in a democratic society. And those that have that mentality, are called dictatorship.

The obvious flaw in your theory is that self-defense is not murder.....

[Chaka-Z0]

I may have gone out of line with this example of mine, point taken.

Promoting diversity is not discrimination. Promoting diversity means giving incentives to attract people of different cultural backgrounds, not preventing others, I guess we could say whites, to get a job. Promoting diversity is, contrary to popular belief, not only used to promote your image. It's useful in many ways:

-Facilitating international business
-New thought pattern
-New perspective on certain issues
-Create a more inclusive work environment

I am a white male as well and never had any obstacle to get a new job / promotion in the public sector even though this is the place that has the most ambitious diversity promotion regulations in this country (Canada).

But I know damned well that at my age, I won't get a first glance from most HR departments due to my age. Yes, it is illegal. But age discrimination is rampant in this day and age. I have more than enough friends & relatives that have been the victim of it.

Obviously there will always be discrimination, it would be impossible and ludicrous to think we can completely eradicate it. Landlords are the worst of the bunch, for obvious reasons.

As for your age, as a man with a business background, I would hire you in a heartbeat, that is unless you are 90 years old, in that case I would hire you A heartbeat

Why would I? You just said so yourself, you had 15 years of experience in your company. Why the heck would I pick a fresh buck over you that I have to train from scratch, maybe have to deal with him calling sick over and over again because he's partying non-stop, and him quitting a few months after because he found something better? You worked 15 years for your company, that tells me you're a loyal man, hard working and experienced.

A long time ago, my mother, a former nurse, decided to go back to school at 55 years old. She graduated and obtained a Bachelor degree. A few years later, she became a manager in the hospital she worked in.

Sometimes people set barriers for themselves. There's nothing wrong with looking somewhere else while being employed, and giving proper notice to your employer once you're guaranteed a job somewhere else. A job is not a family, it's a living.

[Annoyed]

Obviously there will always be discrimination, it would be impossible and ludicrous to think we can completely eradicate it. Landlords are the worst of the bunch, for obvious reasons.

Which is what I said. So the only thing govt. mandated quotas, affirmative action and such do is make an already insolvable problem worse. What's the first thing Doctors learn in med school? "First, do no harm", I think it is.

As for your age, as a man with a business background, I would hire you in a heartbeat, that is unless you are 90 years old, in that case I would hire you A heartbeat

Why would I? You just said so yourself, you had 15 years of experience in your company. Why the heck would I pick a fresh buck over you that I have to train from scratch, maybe have to deal with him calling sick over and over again because he's partying non-stop, and him quitting a few months after because he found something better? You worked 15 years for your company, that tells me you're a loyal man, hard working and experienced.

A long time ago, my mother, a former nurse, decided to go back to school at 55 years old. She graduated and obtained a Bachelor degree. A few years later, she became a manager in the hospital she worked in.

Sometimes people set barriers for themselves. There's nothing wrong with looking somewhere else while being employed, and giving proper notice to your employer once you're guaranteed a job somewhere else. A job is not a family, it's a living.

I think Canada must operate a bit differently than they do here. The suits and ties in this country look at the short term scale of everything rather than long term.
I mentioned this in my earlier post. Upper management in the place I work is carrying out a deliberate policy to aggravate long-term employees in order to get them mad enough to quit. Things like announcements about division-wide raises that specifically exclude long timers, for example. I kid you not, this policy was announced in corporate-wide communications some time back. The more old timers that get to walk out the door, the lower their overall payroll costs are, newbies are cheaper.

As regarding the phrase it's a living, not a family. Someone like myself HAS to be able to provide for themselves; there are very few social service programs that someone like myself qualify for.

I understand Canada has a more generous social service system than we do. Without that, for someone like me, single male, no kids, a job quite literally is your living.

[Gatefan1976]

Errr, guys.
As much as this is an interesting discussion, is this the right thread for it?

[Annoyed]

We asked it if it wanted to move and it wasn't interested.

[Chaka-Z0]

Errr, guys.
As much as this is an interesting discussion, is this the right thread for it?

I'm offended.

[Who Knows]

Chaka-Z0, you have every right to be offended that your firm is discriminating against to on the basis of your age. But this thread is for mixed up people who are born one thing, but think or want to be another and employers are discriminating against them because they are different. If, apart from your age, you like to dress up as a woman, then this thread might give you some sympathy.

From what I have read in this thread people are questioning if movies & TV are using 'real' LGBT & GSA people to portray the characters, like actors who are straight should not be able to act LGBT & GSA parts.
(I can see problems with the actors union on this one)

[Annoyed]

Chaka-Z0, you have every right to be offended that your firm is discriminating against to on the basis of your age. But this thread is for mixed up people who are born one thing, but think or want to be another and employers are discriminating against them because they are different. If, apart from your age, you like to dress up as a woman, then this thread might give you some sympathy.

From what I have read in this thread people are questioning if movies & TV are using 'real' LGBT & GSA people to portray the characters, like actors who are straight should not be able to act LGBT & GSA parts.
(I can see problems with the actors union on this one)

I rather doubt Chaka-Z0 is actually offended about anything. That's just the normal reaction to to anything GF says.

Actually, this discussion started with myself posting that a TV show is going to be casting a trans character, and some folks expressed a preference for a certain type of trans to portray the character. I pondered that under the stated goals of the trans "movement", it shouldn't matter, as they say everyone should be taken at face value as what they claim to be. Expressing a preference on that basis would be faux pas in that regard.
It then wandered into a tangent regarding other forms of discrimination, that's all. Since none of the participants have the ability to edit the board and move it, it was fine continuing it here. After all, it wasn't going to go on forever.

[Falcon Horus]

Is that because of personal preference on your part?

I'm not sure what you mean here. Care to explain?

When I said and I half quote "a trans woman playing the part would be the icing on the cake", I was actually referring to the diversity in the business which at the moment is lacking. I wouldn't mind if the part was played by a cis-gendered woman or man. The lead in Girl, a film about a transgirl, is played by a 16-year old male ballet dancer and he won a price for it at Cannes so good actors are perfectly capable of playing trans women. Another example, Eddy Redmayne played the lead in The Danish Girl, and won prices for it.

Since the stated goal of gender benders is that they prefer to be known by their chosen gender rather than their birth gender, wouldn't having a preference in either way be considered discrimination or some other social faux pas?

Gender bender is not akin to being transgender: a person who dresses and behaves like a member of the opposite sex

Transgender: of, relating to, or being a person whose gender identity differs from the sex the person had or was identified as having at birth; especially : of, relating to, or being a person whose gender identity is opposite the sex the person had or was identified as having at birth

I know, it's difficult wading through all these different terms and even I get lost and need to be set straight again (no pun intended ).

First, I suppose we ought to settle terminology. To me, a "gender bender" is anyone who claims themselves or self-identifies as anything besides what the chromosome count says. XY is male, XX is female.

As you can see above, not what gender bender means. That what you think is gender bender, is the definition of transgender.

One of the rights that trans people want is to be taken at face value, based upon what they self-identify as. If a person wants to be a female, that's what they want to be taken as.

Is it your right to be taken at face value that you are male? Or better, do you consider it a right that we treat and adress you as male?

It's neither a right nor a privilege to be adressed as male or female, it's called treated with the respect a human being deserves to be treated. It's like you adres a person with their name or a nickname or he/she/they -- it's called being respectful.

Rights are societal norms in the form of freedoms that are available to people by virtue of being citizens of a country or as members of a society. Rights are considered as fundamental and inalienable. All citizens of a country are granted certain rights under the constitution. In fact, it would be wrong to say that rights are granted as they are there to be taken or claimed by people and said to be fundamental in nature.

A privilege is a special benefit or permission granted to an individual or a group based upon status, class, rank, title, or special talent. Thus, privilege is a special right not available to all members of the society but is rather restricted to a chosen few in the society. While some members of the society enjoy this right, others are excluded or denied these rights.

*** Please hold while I go shopping for food. The mice are dying in the cupboard and we can't have that. Will be back later to continue this conversation.

[Falcon Horus]

***And I'm back...

...I would think that basing preference on the RL gender of the actor would be an "ooops".

Do you even realize how stupid that line is, with regards to casting calls, especially when you know it hardly ever happens that casting calls do not detail a gender as far as characters go. Casting calls always detail the gender of the character and who is elligible for it and who doesn't even has to bother.

And on side tangent, isn't that article you cited, which basically states the brains in males and females operate differently going to twist the equality folks panties into a knot?

I think he was actually pointing out that science has plenty of evidence collected that the brains of transgender men and women is in accordance with their gender and not the sexe given to them at birth (in relation to what is dangling or not dangling twixt their nethers).

On another note, about ''reversed-discrimination'' (AKA favoring a cultural group, gender, ethnic group over others) is essential to have a multi-cultural representation in the workforce. As Annoyed said, many execs can simply refuse a candidacy of a potential new employee on the basis of any grounds, bylaws, or whatever else at their disposal. They obviously won't say : Hey we don't want you in because of your color, sexual orientation or gender.

This is indeed the case. Has been tested on multiple occasions over here and the results are staggering.

But seriously, what the hell is this non-binary Gender and all these other funny names? And people being offended because we mis-addressed them?

Non-binary gender isn't really that hard to understand if you are willing to let go of the normative male/female that society has instilled in our thoughts and being.

Genderqueer, also termed non-binary, is a catch-all category for gender identities that are not exclusively masculine or feminine*—*identities which are outside the gender binary and cisnormativity. Genderqueer people may express a combination of masculinity and femininity, or neither, in their gender expression.

Genderqueer people may identify as either having an overlap of, or indefinite lines between, gender identity; having two or more genders (being bigender, trigender, or pangender); having no gender (being agender, nongendered, genderless, genderfree or neutrois); moving between genders or having a fluctuating gender identity (genderfluid); or being third gender or other-gendered, a category which includes those who do not place a name to their gender.

I fall under the genderqueer umbrella as I do not identify as female or as male -- I'm somewhere in the middle of it all. Therefore, I don't mind people adressing me with he or she. Either is fine by me.

It, on the other hand, is not fine, by any means. Just to be clear.

When you misadress on purpose, you are simply refusing to respect the other person for who they are. If it happens by accident, then give it a quick apology and onwards.

F.e. still referring to Caitlyn Jenner as Bruce Jenner. She's been Caitlyn for how many years now? Or Chelsea Manning, whose birthname I can't even remember at the moment -- Brad? I think. Or something close to it.

Once they decide on a new name, and perhaps instead of he/she on they... we should respect them as such. It's all about respecting other human beings.

Chaka-Z0, you have every right to be offended that your firm is discriminating against to on the basis of your age. But this thread is for mixed up people who are born one thing, but think or want to be another and employers are discriminating against them because they are different. If, apart from your age, you like to dress up as a woman, then this thread might give you some sympathy.

I have no objection to the talk of discrimination. Once might say, it's a natural part of our live, and not by our choice either.

And for the record, we don't give out sympathy. We support each other when the going gets tough and it goes tough more than we like to admit. The way to equality and acceptance is still a very long way to go.