Are you familiar with the concept of laws? You don’t have the right to endure someone breaking the law at a workplace.
And if you think there aren’t places where we demand that we tolerate nudity, try working in a strip club or Hedonism and demand that your employer make the dancers and/or customers put clothes on.
Transgenderism is not considered to be a mental illness anymore by most professionals. If it still appears on the books that way, it will most likely be removed in the near future. But even if it was, so what? I barely know anyone who isn’t on medication for one mental illness or another. Are you suggesting all of them be fired as well?
And we’re not talking about playing dress-up, here. We’re talking about people who live every aspect of their lives as the gender they interpret their inner identity.
Oh…and self-mutilation is regarded as sexy and beautiful in some of its manifestations. Who are you to judge the scars on someone’s body? The cigarette burns thing…does it make a difference if the person put them there or if someone else did?
Okay, now I know there’s no need to take you seriously.
Why? Pierced ears are sometimes considered sexy. That is mutilation and can, with care, be done by the individual.
Irrespective of the question of whether you’re justified in thinking that “there’s something wrong with” transgendered people just because they’re transgendered, this argument is a strawman.
Nobody is saying that you’re not allowed to personally think there’s something wrong with transgendered people (or with self-mutilators, or with anorexic people, although I would put those two in a different category).
The question is whether it’s appropriate to fire somebody who’s doing a competent job just because you think “there’s something wrong with them”. If it doesn’t affect their job performance, then why should they lose their job?
Not to mention cosmetic plastic surgery.
Transgenderism is every bit as biologically based as race. More so, actually, as the physiological differences between a transgendered man and a cisgendered man are much more distinct than the differences between a white man and a black man, although the differences are not externally apparent.
Yeah, lefties like Bricker fall for that shit all the time, don’t they?
Crossdressing and transgenderism are not the same thing. A male crossdresser still identifies as male, he just likes wearing women’s cloths.
Transgenderism is also different from cannibalism, in that cannibalism requires the taking of human life. I know that you’re not actually interested in listening to viewpoints you disagree with, but it’s been pretty well established that the moral basis for supporting transgenderism is that being transgendered doesn’t hurt other people, and killing and eating people does. So that’s a pretty significant difference between the two situations, right there.
The difference between transgenderism and nudism is a little more nuanced. (At least, it’s nuanced to someone who needs the difference between sexual identity and killing and eating people explained to him.) Conflating this issue with a dress code is misleading. It’s prefectly acceptable to expect employees to present a professional demeanor while at work. Being transgendered does not prevent an employee from doing this. A transgendered individual may look just like a man in a dress. But then, there are a lot of biological women who look like men in dresses. Generally speaking, “being ugly” does not violate most corporate dress codes.
Are you advocating that bulemia is grounds for termination from your place of employment? Because if you’re not, then you really don’t have any grounds for casting aspersions on us for making poor analogies.
As for “pretending there’s nothing wrong with them,” of course there’s something wrong with them. They’re transgendered. It’s a very serious condition that has serious repurcussions for the patient’s emotional health, and it’s very important that people who are transgendered receive treatment.
No, the real problem is, you’re confusing the treatment for the condition with the condition itself. If you think there’s something intrinsically wrong with gender reassignment, you’re going to need to take it up with the psychological community that supports its use as the most effective treatment for extreme cases of gender disphoria.
Transgender is not the same thing as cross-dressing. Cross-dressing is just wearing clothes associated with the gender other than one’s own. Being transgender is having your gender identity not match your biological sex. There’s a lot more to a person’s gender identity than what clothes they wear.
It wouldn’t be acceptable for a workplace to insist that female employees dress and act as men and take on male names, or vice versa. If you wouldn’t insist on a non-transgendered employee taking on a gender identity other than the one they identify with, why would you do so for a transgendered one?
Whereas a Moderator would suggest that this is a particularly egregious violation of the policy prohibiting name-calling in this Forum.
Do not do this again.
[ /Moderating ]
Is it? He was calling my “attempt to play the race card” dimwitted, not me dimwitted. I thought we were allowed to call poster’s arguments stupid, just not the posters themselves?
The thing I wonder is (and I apologize if this has already been raised, I just don’t have the patience to wade through all 9 pages) where does your “justified intolerance” stop? Job? Housing? Public transportation?
Postings on a messageboard?
mswas, I would think you found tremendous value in Johanna’s posts in that thread we were all in together. Except that, if you’re going to be consistent in your view (if your view is to support intolerance) (I can’t actually tell at this point what you’re arguing in favor of), I’d think you’d have to put Johanna on “Ignore”. You’d have to miss everything she wrote, never use a bit of it in your arguments. Now, wouldn’t that be sad?
Then evidently you don’t know what “self-mutilation” means. Tattoos, piercings, nose jobs, capped teeth, breast augmentation are all things you’d put on your Do Not Hire list? And when someone else mutilates someone, do you tell THEM they’re not allowed to earn a living, too?
Might as well add circumscion to that list, and fire all the Jews.
I suppose haircuts and shaving are out, too.
mmm?
I read that differently, although I guess that one could read it in your interpretation, as well.
At any rate, I would everyone to ratchet down the antagonism.
[ /Moderating ]
Thanks for your support, fessie– I wrote more to this post, but it seemed more appropriate for the Pit thread.
I think the big mistake here is to assume that such things are always public. In the case listed it was so, but how and in what way does one person inspect and judge another’s gender in everyday life? People without sex changes (say, those with hormone troubles) get rejected as their gender too.
Neitehr seems reasonable, and consciously rejecting someone’s gender deliberately seems either petty, small, or bloody minded.