Althouse: "To have just a clear, definitive EEOC ruling that Title VII protects transgender people gives us so much more certainty and security and solid, reliable legal protection."

April 24, 2012

"To have just a clear, definitive EEOC ruling that Title VII protects transgender people gives us so much more certainty and security and solid, reliable legal protection."

"For decades now, advocates and scholars both have been saying Title VII should be applied to protect transgender people... And now, to have the EEOC confirm that, 'Yes ... Title VII should and does protect transgender people when they're discriminated against because they've changed their sex or intend to change their sex or because they're gender nonconforming. That is sex discrimination.' That is really an important capstone.''

Link.

61 comments:

cubanbob said...: The EEOC is crap from the get go. Its time to repeal it.; 4/24/12, 9:44 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Will Prez Obama oppose this decison by a group of unelected officials?; 4/24/12, 9:44 AM
Scott M said...: "To have just a clear, definitive EEOC ruling that Title VII protects transgender people gives us so much more certainty and security and solid, reliable legal protection."

When some schools can bring up a student simply because someone else feels discriminated against, how do we expect there will ever be a solid, reliable anything?

At freshman orientation, they should change it to, "Look to your left. Look to your right. Look in the mirror. All three of you are going to feel offended before you graduate."; 4/24/12, 9:47 AM
Dan in Philly said...: What a mega-powerful government we have. I have been studying the french revolution lately and have come away with the understanding that the reason other countries adopted a democracy and rejected the monarchy isn't because the idea of the monarchy was outdated per se, but rather because the french showed how much more powerful a government which could claim Vox Populi could be than other forms.

In this way, the french gladly sent their sons to die for wars they didn't understand and didn't benefit from, and gladly sent more and more of their resources to the ever growing state. But even they didn't presume to reach as far into the lives of their citizens as to control their thoughts and preferences as does the current behemoth.

Get this government on your side and legally you can declair that cats are dogs and cars have equal rights to people.; 4/24/12, 9:48 AM
MadisonMan said...: It seems to me that if you do your job well, a Company won't care about your transition, or your race, or your whatever. I'm always suspicious that people who are fired and then bring a lawsuit haven't been let go because they're transgender or what-have-you, but because they're unproductive or grating workers. In which case there should be a record of that kept by managers.

Managers: Do your job(s) well!

My view is colored by the fact that I've always had a good relationship with my managers. Maybe that's because I don't expect things, or have a chip on my shoulder. Or it's because I'm a priviledged white male.; 4/24/12, 9:50 AM
bagoh20 said...: I thought the sex change process worked pretty well now days. I had no idea it rendered them handicapped and unable to do a good job without government protection.; 4/24/12, 9:51 AM
rhhardin said...: It all started with inflections on verbs, adjectives and nouns.; 4/24/12, 9:54 AM
G Joubert said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/24/12, 9:57 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Mad Man- that is not what your managers would say. Heh.; 4/24/12, 9:57 AM
traditionalguy said...: So the EEOC made up another favored status group to base threats of discrimination lawsuits upon.

Let me know when TitleVII is applied to body piercings. That has about the same need for "protection".

Oh, I forgot that sexual change surgeries are never choices at ball. The poor little dears are born with the need to be different at everyone else's expense.; 4/24/12, 10:01 AM
bagoh20 said...: The EEOC should just get it all done at once and make discrimination against people with attitude problems illegal. That covers everyone that needs protection without leaving anyone out. Lets lump them all in one group called "assholes." We don't need to know your race, physical limitations, gender, or sexual orientation. Just answer the question: Do you think you are special? If so you get the job. and the responsibility to support the rest of us.

I'm not special, so I'll be at home awaiting my check.

This should make for an interesting work environment.; 4/24/12, 10:03 AM
Wince said...: Does this mean I can't be fired for being a "macho creep"?; 4/24/12, 10:06 AM
Pastafarian said...: Serious question, jeslyn:

Suppose a local municipality has one set of physical hiring criteria for male fire fighters, and another for females -- suppose the females have to lift just half as much weight.

Does this mean that a male can go in with a wig on, and take the female test, easily passing?; 4/24/12, 10:07 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: Guess what..

Transgenders have not really worked for equal rights their entire life. They never really dealt with the kind of civil rights issues that a majority of the minorities in this country are facing in terms of eat, piss, sleep, and jack-off.

(see 4/23/12 4:37 PM); 4/24/12, 10:11 AM
Pastafarian said...: If employers can't discriminate against transgenders, because this discrimination is based on their sexual identity, then how can schools discriminate against pedophiles?

Just because someone is a pedophile doesn't mean that they can't control themselves while at work, after all. Why should what they do in their own free time, behind closed doors, have any effect on their employment?; 4/24/12, 10:13 AM
Bryan C said...: "because they've changed their sex or intend to change their sex or because they're gender nonconforming"

Gender nonconforming. I have no interest in sports and often watch shows on the Bravo network. Hear me roar!; 4/24/12, 10:15 AM
Quaestor said...: leslyn wrote:
AHAHAHAHAHAHA.

How incisive. No one can doubt MadisonMan's point has been well and truly refuted.

You are one astute cookie, leslyn.; 4/24/12, 10:15 AM
Bruce Hayden said...: I thought the sex change process worked pretty well now days. I had no idea it rendered them handicapped and unable to do a good job without government protection.

Here is where I think the big problem is - in restroom facilities. Women just don't like guys in their bathrooms, and until male-to-female trannies are well along their transformations, they can be noticeably male.

I am reminded of a club a couple of years ago in Scottsdale that banned a couple of supposed trannies. Seems like some guys would put on dresses and make up, then hang out in the womens' rest room. Made the natural women uncomfortable, esp. since these guys still had five o'clock shadows, etc.; 4/24/12, 10:17 AM
Patrick said...: Madison Man, you are correct, often it is the case that many claims of discrimination come from people who just weren't doing their jobs. The problem is, even those lawsuits cost an extraordinary amount of money to defend, and still come with high risk. Most employers tend to be risk averse, and settle the claims, which tends to encourage the claims and attorneys.; 4/24/12, 10:18 AM
edutcher said...: Barry's numbers must really be bad.

On a not entirely unrelated front, the number of same sex assaults in the military is way up.; 4/24/12, 10:22 AM
MadisonMan said...: AHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Is my idealism giving you an orgasm?; 4/24/12, 10:25 AM
Mary Beth said...: I had a co-worker once who thought that every company/employee relationship had to be adversarial. I viewed it differently, probably because my father had been a business owner.

I seldom had problems with employers, and then nothing serious. She had constant conflict. I know anecdotes aren't proof but I do think your attitude towards business in general affects how well you do.; 4/24/12, 10:25 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: What if I refuse an operation and simply choose to go to the ladies room.. in account that separate but equal is wrong.

Think of all the health care money that could be saved.

I'm also trying to find the line I spoke of this morning.

wv: seemem dsVis; 4/24/12, 10:29 AM
Sorun said...: This is worse than other "protected classes" because transgenders strike me as chronically unhappy and unsatisfied.

That's the stereotype I have of them, and I'm sticking with it.; 4/24/12, 10:37 AM
edutcher said...: Happy?

And apparently, just serving openly wasn't all they wanted, after all.; 4/24/12, 10:42 AM
Lem Vibe Bandit said...: I have to go.. and pley.; 4/24/12, 10:43 AM
KCFleming said...: So, what's a "woman" anyway?

What's the definition?

Can I mark the box on some form just because I feel like it?; 4/24/12, 10:51 AM
paul a'barge said...: protected from what? bad fashion sense?; 4/24/12, 11:01 AM
Pastafarian said...: Gee, thanks for the answer, leslyn. I mean, it doesn't really answer my question...but I guess it's the best you can do.

Nice of you to try, though.; 4/24/12, 11:01 AM
I'm Full of Soup said...: Pogo asked:
"Can I mark the box on some form just because I feel like it?"

Only when you are feeling pretty.; 4/24/12, 11:09 AM
PogoПОССУМ said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/24/12, 11:11 AM
KCFleming said...: How about when I'm feeling 'not so fresh'?; 4/24/12, 11:11 AM
Anonymous said...: If its because women don't want masculine looking people in their restrooms, perhaps it could be solved by employing a pecker checker, if there is a pecker, he gets turned away at the door, once the pecker is gone, entrance to the inner sanctum of a woman's bathroom is allowed.

There! Problem solved, next.; 4/24/12, 11:28 AM
KCFleming said...: "if there is a pecker, he gets turned away at the door,"

Sex-normativist!

Gender isn't anatomically determined. Didn't you get the memo?; 4/24/12, 11:31 AM
bagoh20 said...: Pecker checker? What if it's cold? There can be shrinkage.; 4/24/12, 11:33 AM
SGT Ted said...: If its because women don't want masculine looking people in their restrooms, perhaps it could be solved by employing a pecker checker, if there is a pecker, he gets turned away at the door, once the pecker is gone, entrance to the inner sanctum of a woman's bathroom is allowed.

And you thought the line at the womans room was long NOW.; 4/24/12, 11:39 AM
G Joubert said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/24/12, 11:58 AM
ricpic said...: Temperamentally someone who is transgendered, or someone who is a flaming queen, or a professional black, or a hardcore feminist, such people are much less likely to be team players in the work place in that "a difference" defines them, not their work. Therefore they are far less likely to suppress their identities in deference to the workplace culture, whatever it is, especially when the going gets tough. Perceptive HR hirers know this and come up with other reasons for not hiring them in the first place, if they value their company's prospects that is.; 4/24/12, 12:10 PM
caseym54 said...: What's next? Invoking Title IX to get transgendered sports at colleges?; 4/24/12, 12:18 PM
William said...: I have the soul of Steve McQueen, but I'm trapped in this dreck of a body. A more sensitive and informed populace would treat me like I looked like Steve McQueen. Perhaps Obamacare would pay for the necessary surgical procedures to make this come about.....Look around. We're all dysmorphic. There are wigs, elevator shoes, falsies, corsets, hair dyes, contact lens, caps, and the list keeps growing. We're all an appreciable distance from our ideal selves. A lot of it seems silly and pointless. Why should transgendered people be treated with more consideration than a guy wearing a cheap wig?.....In future, more englightened generations, people will look upon transgender procedures the way we look upon frontal lobotomies. The gains aren't worth the deficits.; 4/24/12, 12:20 PM
MadisonMan said...: perhaps it could be solved by employing a pecker checker,

Will Americans do this job, or will some illegal have to?; 4/24/12, 12:41 PM
A_Nonny_Mouse said...: ricpic said (4/24/12 12:10 PM )

"... less likely to be team players in the work place in that "a difference" defines them, not their work ..."
= = = = =

I think you've got it exactly right. They can't compete when it comes to intelligence or accomplishment, so the next best thing is to be "different" and then whine and raise hell about the "injustice and discrimination" they must endure when normal humans react normally (ie, the "yuck" factor). (Kind of like the Blacks and Islamists have successfully done for years - use "sympathy for the underdog" as a club to bash society's head in with...); 4/24/12, 12:56 PM
Loren said...: Are there more sexual determinants then the XY or XX chromosomes?; 4/24/12, 2:07 PM
Bruce Hayden said...: Are there more sexual determinants then the XY or XX chromosomes?

Not normally, and not for most of us, but...

It is possible for someone to appear anatomically female, at least externally, and still have XY chromosomes. Maybe not the opposite though, since sexual differentiation appears to be caused by that Y chromosome turning stuff on (apparently, at least, testicular development) during gestation. Testing sex and gender in sports; reinventing, reimagining and reconstructing histories is an interesting paper on some of the past controversies in this area. Also, there is the problem of non-standard sexual chromosomes, such as XXY, X0, etc.

This is why I don't have problems with gender reassignment, in general. It is quite possible that genitalia and brain sexually differentiate differently during gestation. Rare, but it does happen. Rather, I think that those undergoing reassignment need to be sensitive about the feelings of those who are more "normal" from a gender point of view, and, as suggested above, stay out of the womens' rooms until or while they are noticeably male. And, maybe the opposite too.; 4/24/12, 3:12 PM
chickelit said...: Are there more sexual determinants then the XY or XX chromosomes?
There are chromosome abnormalities: XXY, XYY, XXX, etc.; 4/24/12, 3:18 PM
wyo sis said...: WHAT! You mean teh transgendered should be sensitive to teh hypocrites? What about the 100's of years of history of mistreatment by teh normals? This is a wrong that must be righted and i don't care who's uncomfortable!; 4/24/12, 3:21 PM
Moose said...: I should be able to get a job as a personal trainer even if I weigh 500 lbs and I'm bedridden.; 4/24/12, 3:56 PM
n.n said...: Discrimination by race, gender, or whatever. That's some kind of progress.

Well, they never did qualify their ambitions. I suppose it's too late to leave the past behind.; 4/24/12, 4:52 PM
Geraldus Maximus said...: edutcher said...
Barry's numbers must really be bad.

On a not entirely unrelated front, the number of same sex assaults in the military is way up.

leslyn said...
Cite, please.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=number+of+same+sex+assaults+in+the+military+is+way+up.; 4/24/12, 5:39 PM
Kirk Parker said...: MadMan,

"Will Americans do this job, or will some illegal have to?"

What???? We're getting quite a large trained cohort, thanks to the TSA. Illegals need not apply.; 4/24/12, 6:08 PM
Penny said...: There are unending points along the continuum.; 4/24/12, 8:46 PM
Penny said...: So say the physicists.; 4/24/12, 8:49 PM
Penny said...: The math guys?

They're asking you to pick one and prove it.; 4/24/12, 8:53 PM
chickelit said...: Penny said:
There are unending points along the continuum.
So say the physicists.

That was before Max made them walk the Planck.; 4/24/12, 8:55 PM
Penny said...: Maybe so, chicklit? And I will let you explain how that was so.

I surely can't.; 4/24/12, 9:19 PM
Penny said...: Cannot explain any physics either! Before you ask.; 4/24/12, 9:20 PM
Penny said...: I do notice patterns, however.; 4/24/12, 9:22 PM
Penny said...: People generally "float" around, in a way that physicists would surely enjoy.

Then again?

All of a sudden!

They "land" on a point along that continuum that so TOTALLY moves them, most usually for personal reasons, that they go in search of PROOF!; 4/24/12, 9:30 PM
Penny said...: ENTER!

The Mighty Mathematician!

And in the nick of fuckin' time, I might add.; 4/24/12, 9:35 PM
Penny said...: Giggling here.

The ol' "push and pull"?

Well?

Can we at least agree there is a long and glorious history?; 4/24/12, 9:42 PM
Kirk Parker said...: Is Penny the new C.H.? At least her comments are *shorter*. :-); 4/25/12, 2:01 AM