# A victory for Queer rights **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 25, 2000, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-victory-for-queer-rights/30771 "2000-08-25T22:46:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Saint\_Zero](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c4cdca/32.png) [@Saint\_Zero](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Zero)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2000, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-victory-for-queer-rights/30771/21 "2000-08-26T20:04:26Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by oldscratch \* > \*\*"Because there was no evidence of criminal conduct, the immigration board may have been referring to his dress or sexual orientation as a justification for rape, Tashima said in Thursday’s opinion. "The “you asked for it’ excuse for rape is offensive to this court,” he said. " > \*\* I’ll second that. I would even think it’s offensive for a lot of people, me included. ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2000, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-victory-for-queer-rights/30771/22 "2000-08-26T21:36:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by psycat90 \* > \*\*I’m happy about it. Just last night on 20/20 I saw a report about a woman who was killed becuase the police in the town did not arrest 2 men that raped her. When she reported it, they were more concerned with why she was ‘abnormal’ rather than her rape, did not charge the rapers, they found out she reported it, became enraged and killed her. > I say it is a victory indeed. \*\* Yup. Teena R. Brandon/Brandon Teena. Very sad story. I feel for her girlfriend. The Sheriff/Deputy who handled the call was sued along with the county office or somesuch, and the family awarded something along the lines of $17,000. The Sheriff admitted he “probably” should have acted differently. As for the “you asked for it” excuse, I group that with “boys will be boys” and “if I didn’t see it, it didn’t happen” as statements which don’t fly. Ever. IMO, and ITO of a lot of people I know. ---
**Author:** ![Sweet\_Lotus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@Sweet\_Lotus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sweet_Lotus)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2000, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-victory-for-queer-rights/30771/23 "2000-08-26T22:26:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > **What if the employer considered a lesbian midget with original plumbing like herself to be the best candidate? Or must the employer use standards for “best candidate” that you, rather than she, establishes?** The best candidate is the one with the best training, skills and temperament for the job. All of those things are separate from gender identity, sexual orientation and appearance. ---
**Author:** ![Doug\_Bowe](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/df788c/32.png) [@Doug\_Bowe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Doug_Bowe)\ **Post date:** [August 26, 2000, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-victory-for-queer-rights/30771/24 "2000-08-26T23:06:17Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Ptahlis \* > \*\*While I have no problem with the decision to allow asylum, I am a little surprised at the reasoning. I was under the impression that it had to be the government itself that was the source of danger if someone were to request asylum. While I realize that the two people who assaulted this fellow were policeman, that is a different thing than actual government-sponsored persecution. So apparently, it either is not required that the government itself be the persecutor, or the equivalent argument about some American police singling out blacks for abuse would be valid justification for a black man to request asylum protection in another hypothetical country that has our immigration laws. So which of the above is true? \*\* –In Mexico the police are similar to our Army. They may be considered representative of the government. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2000, 12:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-victory-for-queer-rights/30771/25 "2000-08-27T00:44:45Z")
**Sweet\_Lotus** > [@](#): > > The best candidate is the one with the best training, skills and temperament for the job. All of those things are separate from gender identity, sexual orientation and appearance. I’m sure you mean well as you presume to have an insight into the lesbian midget’s intentions. Pray that no one ever presumes such insight into yours, else you could find yourself in her shoes: needing to hire an informant to infiltrate a white-slavery ring among lesbian midgets, and being forced by well meaning strangers to hire a heterosexual Latino man whose training in infiltration is the highest there is, whose skills in espionage are legend, and whose temperament is glaborously even. ---
**Author:** ![Myrr21](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e495f1/32.png) [@Myrr21](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Myrr21)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2000, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-victory-for-queer-rights/30771/26 "2000-08-27T01:10:28Z")
Libertarian: in your example the candidate isn’t the best-qualified, simple as that. When the job requires a certain ethnicity of size or whatnot (as in your case), then it’s not discrimination. If it doesn’t, it is. Hate to play the race card, but employers should be allowed to discriminate by race? Geez, that sounds like a paradise of personal freedom there :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2000, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-victory-for-queer-rights/30771/27 "2000-08-27T06:12:17Z")
OK, we have a problem. You say that we must hire the candidate with the highest qualifications, regardless of etc. But how do we decide what the highest qualifications are? What if two guys want to mow my lawn. Can’t I pick whoever I want to mow my lawn? Even if I make a decision based on whim? What if I like one guy more…he’s more friendly, say? The point is that if I can set the qualifications then I can hire whoever I want. I can say, “He was friendlier, so I hired him.” But that means that I can discriminate, since I decide what the qualifications are. So you say that is wrong, I have to hire the best candidate, and since if I decide who the best candidate is then I can use any criteria I like, and exclude whoever I like. So you must decide for me what the qualifications for lawn-mowing are, and must evaluate the candidates for me, and you will decide who I should hire or not hire, since if I do it myself I can discriminate. Even if you tried to do this in good faith it would not work, and in reality what happens is that you take over my business. The thing is, most companies exist to make money. Some business owners will discriminate against people. Many won’t. The ones who don’t discriminate will make more money, since they are hiring the “best candidate”, defined as the candidate who makes them the most money. Capitalism is the natural enemy of bigotry. ---
**Author:** ![SPOOFE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c5a1d2/32.png) [@SPOOFE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SPOOFE)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2000, 10:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-victory-for-queer-rights/30771/28 "2000-08-27T10:43:20Z")
> [@](#): > > The best candidate is the one with the best training, skills and temperament for the job. All of those things are separate from gender identity, sexual orientation and appearance. Which assumes that gender identity, sexual orientation, and appearance has no bearing on the job in question. I know you don’t like it, (I don’t like it either… means I have to cut my hair and shave if I want a job), but there are a significant number of people in this country who don’t want their grocery store cashier to be covered with tattoos and piercings, and wearing a skirt when he’s obviously a man. If a company were forced to hire such a person for such a job, the company stands a real risk of losing profits because of it. As much as it pains me to say it, appearances DO matter, even though they shouldn’t. (By the way, I know that just because someone chooses to cross-dress or likes members of the same sex, it doesn’t mean that they’ll dress or appear “outrageous” or “flamboyant” or whatever Ricki Lake term you want to apply to it.) ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2000, 3:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-victory-for-queer-rights/30771/29 "2000-08-27T15:10:36Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Libertarian \* > Actually, that appears to be what _you_ are doing, inasmuch as you are the first to use the “L” word. Have you forgotten your username? > [@](#): > > At any rate, I was merely pointing out that employers and landlords, and any other peaceful honest people — including you — ought to be free to associate with whomever the wish for whatever reasons they believe matter. You can point out the libertarian point of view any time you want. I think it’s disingenous however to say “I was just answering a question.” The question was: “Is it still legal for employers and landlords to discriminate on the basis of being transgendered (crossdressing, transsexual, etc.)?” Your answer was: “People should be constrained from initiating force or fraud, but people who are peaceful and honest should be free to discriminate with respect to their own association with other people using any criteria they please.” I’m sure a person of your intelligence can see the difference between “Is it legal” or “Should it be legal”? Using logic (based on reason, the only valid epistemology :D) the distinction should be clear. I am not disputing your right to try to provoke a libertarian discussion in an unrelated thread. I disagree with you when you try to innocently pretend “I was doing nothing of the sort.” ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2000, 4:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-victory-for-queer-rights/30771/30 "2000-08-27T16:00:22Z")
**Arnold** > [@](#): > > Have you forgotten your username? Red herring. > [@](#): > > You can point out the libertarian point of view any time you want. I think it’s disingenous however to say “I was just answering a question.” What I point out is _my_ view. That that view is libertarian is a coincidence you will simply have to live with so long as I am free to post my views here. I answer questions according to my world-view. Do you not do the same? > [@](#): > > The question was: > “Is it still legal for employers and landlords to discriminate on the basis of being transgendered (crossdressing, transsexual, etc.)?” > > Your answer was: “People should be constrained from initiating force or fraud, but people who are peaceful and honest should be free to discriminate with respect to their own association with other people using any criteria they please.” > > I’m sure a person of your intelligence can see the difference between “Is it legal” or “Should it be legal”? Using logic (based on reason, the only valid epistemology ) the distinction should be clear. In that case, I submit the question belonged in GQ. As I understand it, topics here are subject to debate. I believe this is the appropriate forum to raise such issues as _should_ it be legal even when it is. > [@](#): > > I am not disputing your right to try to provoke a libertarian discussion in an unrelated thread. I disagree with you when you try to innocently pretend “I was doing nothing of the sort.” With all due respect, your presumption does not constitute my pretense. I need innocently pretend nothing since there is nothing I am quilty of except stating my opinion. Do you suggest that we go back to the days when I must start a new thread, “The Ethics of Queer Rights” whenever I simply wish to speak my mind about a topic? ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [August 27, 2000, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-victory-for-queer-rights/30771/31 "2000-08-27T16:38:04Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sweet\_Lotus \* > \*\*The best candidate is the one with the best training, skills and temperament for the job. All of those things are separate from gender identity, sexual orientation and appearance. \*\* Your heart is in the right place, SL, and I mostly agree with you, but what about a case in which appearance DOES matter in terms of selling a product? Two recent TV shows spring to mind in this case . . . one in which a man with a brain/speech problem, a cross-dresser and a rather overweight woman sued the owner of the graphic design company at which they had worked prior to being fired. The other in which a woman who had undergone double mastectomy surgery was fired from a position in a lingerie department. In both cases I can **see** someone’s appearance hampering their ability to sell a product. In both cases I can also **see** alternatives to their being fired. But sometimes appearance is needed to sell a product. Note that I don’t condone hiring or not hiring based on appearance. I just think it’s a bit . . . innocent . . . to say that appearance and selling a product are independent of eachother. ---
**Author:** ![Arnold\_Winkelried](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Arnold\_Winkelried](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Arnold_Winkelried)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2000, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-victory-for-queer-rights/30771/32 "2000-08-28T00:42:32Z")
AW: _Have you forgotten your username?_ Libertarian: _Red herring._ Of course. My (sarcastic) comment was poking fun at your assertion “I am not talking about libertarianism, you are and the proof is you were the first one to use the word ‘libertarian’.” Just because you didn’t actually **type in** the word ‘libertarian’ doesn’t mean you’re not trying to introduce another discussion on libertarian issues. Libertarian: «_What I point out is my view. That that view is libertarian is a coincidence you will simply have to live with so long as I am free to post my views here. I answer questions according to my world-view. Do you not do the same?_» Yes. Here’s the difference as I see it: for example, one of my strong interests is human rights (I am a member of Amnesty International). I mention the Amnesty International point of view in threads where it’s relevant. But I don’t go into threads unrelated to the issue, for example a thread about George W. Bush or Al Gore, and start discussing how the candidates need to put human rights at the top of their agenda and should join Amnesty International. Libertarian: «_Do you suggest that we go back to the days when I must start a new thread, “The Ethics of Queer Rights” whenever I simply wish to speak my mind about a topic?_» Please see above. I don’t deny your right to post whatever you want, I personally think that it would be more interesting if you could discuss the issue without trying to turn it into another libertarian debate. But to each their own. [Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 08-27-2000 at 07:44 PM] ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2000, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-victory-for-queer-rights/30771/33 "2000-08-28T01:03:41Z")
**Arnold** > [@](#): > > Just because you didn’t actually type in the word ‘libertarian’ doesn’t mean you’re not trying to introduce another discussion on libertarian issues. I am not introducing a discussion on libertarian issues. Presently, I am defending myself against the assertions in your hijack, but prior to that I was stating my opinion on the matter raised by Tracer. > [@](#): > > I don’t deny your right to post whatever you want, I personally think that it would be more interesting if you could discuss the issue without trying to turn it into another libertarian debate. I was wrong. You weren’t the first to use the “L” word. ExTank was when he said, “I’m more Libertarian (and yes; I know about the problems of getting a working Libertarian government) in my politics though, and I haven’t practiced any organized religion in over 14 years.” Perhaps you could take up your cause, which I’m afraid escapes my comprehension, with him. If I understand your point, that the topic of Queer Rights merits no comment either from a political or an ethical view, then he gets _two_ demerits, one for using the “L” word and one for using the “R” word. [Previewed by Libertarian on 08-27-2000 at 8:00 PM] ---
**Author:** ![Sweet\_Lotus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9de0a6/32.png) [@Sweet\_Lotus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sweet_Lotus)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2000, 1:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-victory-for-queer-rights/30771/34 "2000-08-28T01:45:37Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by iampunha \* > \*\*Two recent TV shows spring to mind in this case . . . one in which a man with a brain/speech problem, a cross-dresser and a rather overweight woman sued the owner of the graphic design company at which they had worked prior to being fired. The other in which a woman who had undergone double mastectomy surgery was fired from a position in a lingerie department. \*\* In the first case, I don’t see how the people’s appearance was related to anything, couldn’t they design as well as anyone else? Or were they in a different position with the company? As for the second; 1) They make prostheses for women who have had mastectomies and 2)I don’t see how not being able to use a product hinders anyone from being knowledgeable about it. ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2000, 4:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-victory-for-queer-rights/30771/35 "2000-08-28T04:42:41Z")
Is it racial, sexual, and age discrimination if a movie script calls for “A black male age 30-40” to fill a particular role? ---
**Author:** ![dixiechiq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@dixiechiq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dixiechiq)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2000, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-victory-for-queer-rights/30771/36 "2000-08-28T04:47:57Z")
> [@](#): > > I know you don’t like it, (I don’t like it either… means I have to cut my hair and shave if I want a job), but there are a significant number of people in this country who don’t want their grocery store cashier to be covered with tattoos and piercings, and wearing a skirt when he’s obviously a man. If a company were forced to hire such a person for such a job, the company stands a real risk of losing profits because of it. > > As much as it pains me to say it, appearances DO matter, even though they shouldn’t. if all people had fair opportunities to get jobs it would not cause companies to lose profits becasue they would all have such people on their staff. there would be no place to go to avoid it. as to those people who don’t want their grocery store clerks to be covered with tattos and peircings and skirts, perhaps there are people that do not wish their customers to dress like wasps or yuppies or conformists. should they have any right to tell them how they can or can’t dress??? you’d think that was insane i venture to guess. this same excuse was used against racial discrmination. “oh, but some people won’t shop at store with a negro clerk!” it didn’t play then, and it won’t play today. each person has a basic human right to define adn decorate themself as they wish. we each own our individual life and body. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2000, 11:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-victory-for-queer-rights/30771/37 "2000-08-28T11:06:47Z")
> [@](#): > > each person has a basic human right to define adn decorate themself as they wish. we each own our individual life and body. Except, of course, people who own businesses. _You_ own their lives and bodies (including their brains), right? ---
**Author:** ![dixiechiq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/57b2e6/32.png) [@dixiechiq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dixiechiq)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2000, 1:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-victory-for-queer-rights/30771/38 "2000-08-28T13:17:08Z")
i do not own a businessperson’s mind, life, or body. and she does not own mine. could it be any simpler?? as i understand your statement you think the businessowner has the right to tell her employees who they are. i can’t imagine you believe that the employees can tell the owner how she presents herself. your statement seems to imply that you think i believe that i as an employee could tell my employer what tattos, peircing, and clothing s/he can wear. i think _nothing_ of the kind!! before you tell me what i can or can’t wear, when it is i told you what you could wear?? i possess your life/mind/body no more than you own mine. ---
**Author:** ![Liberal](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/848f3c/32.png) [@Liberal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Liberal)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2000, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-victory-for-queer-rights/30771/39 "2000-08-28T13:36:37Z")
> [@](#): > > as i understand your statement you think the businessowner has the right to tell her employees who they are. Then you misunderstand. What I think is that the business owner has the right to decide who will be her employees and who will not, just as a homeowner has the right to decide who will be her guests and who will not. ---
**Author:** ![iampunha](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/74df32/32.png) [@iampunha](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iampunha)\ **Post date:** [August 28, 2000, 2:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-victory-for-queer-rights/30771/40 "2000-08-28T14:00:48Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Sweet\_Lotus \* > \*\*In the first case, I don’t see how the people’s appearance was related to anything, couldn’t they design as well as anyone else? Or were they in a different position with the company? > As for the second; 1) They make prostheses for women who have had mastectomies and 2)I don’t see how not being able to use a product hinders anyone from being knowledgeable about it. \*\* First case: these people were involved in a pretty heavy way with customer interaction. So yes, their appearance did something to influence the amount of goods that was sold. Their appearance had hampered their sales somewhat. Beyond that I don’t really remember. Case two: Think about this: someone with no legs trying to sell pants. I know, it doesn’t make much sense, and I don’t agree with it, but that was the show. Not me. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-victory-for-queer-rights/30771.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-victory-for-queer-rights/30771.md?page=3)