How accomadating should a company be.

[TSchapes]

I believe this is a very important issue, that it could help our cause instead of depending on the courts to come to our aid.

I have joined the GLBT at work which is an ERG (Enterprise Resource Group). There are plenty of GL's there, but I think I'm going to be putting the 'T' in GLBT. Keep in mind that if there are any MtoF transsexuals at work, they may wish to work stealth since they are now women and visa versa.

So, I am trying to understand how much a company or place of business should have to accommodate a cross-dresser?

My own take is I just don't want to be outed outside of work and have it affect my employment. But, there maybe others at work that would like to dress 24/7. Then there maybe even others that would love to show up one day as Sam and the other Samantha.

Now many corporations are embracing diversity, it is in there interest to attract and keep motivated employees. Also, having people with differing views can add creativity to the work place.

So, should a company be required to allow cross-dressing at work? If so, how much should cross-dressers be allowed to cross-dress? Only 24/7? What about the bathrooms/locker rooms, which ones do they go to? How are they to be addressed? Can the company be sued if a cross-dresser is made fun of at work? Are there certain industries that would be exempt, like construction workers, or welders? Policemen?

I feel I just opened Pandora's box and I know there are probably other issues I'm missing. Or, is it, they just don't have to allow us to do anything at all?

I'm interested in your ideas, and what thoughts you might have on this emerging topic.

-Tracy

[Laura_Stephens]

Any for-profit company's #1 concern should be satisfying its customers. Employees come after that.

I am a contrarian in that if someone does not agree with me, start your own firm and put your OWN money and livelihood on the line.

[Emily Anderson]

I think the only way to know the answers to these questions is to ask within your company. Different companies have different policies and procedures, as well as different expectations from their employees. The fact that they have a GLBT group is a big plus, and depending on the size of the company, you may well find that you are NOT the first.

[TGMarla]

I'm sorry, Tracy, but I don't see where an employer should have to embrace or allow crossdressing in the workplace. Companies are first beholden to their clientele, and like it or not, it's not an accepted practice in the general public. Just as companies are not obligated to allow the pursuit of any other hobbies while their employees are at work, they don't need to allow crossdressing just because someone wants to. If an employee is transitioning, that's another matter. But even though I'm a sympathetic audience, I just can't see why employers should have to put up with it if they don't want to.

[Emily Anderson]

Some companies actually include protection of crossdressers in their GLBT charters, which is why I said to ask at the company in question, rather than doing guesswork or asking other forum members, though of course it is always interesting to hear the forum member perspectives too.

[boy2girl31]

I'm sorry, Tracy, but I don't see where an employer should have to embrace or allow crossdressing in the workplace. Companies are first beholden to their clientele, and like it or not, it's not an accepted practice in the general public. Just as companies are not obligated to allow the pursuit of any other hobbies while their employees are at work, they don't need to allow crossdressing just because someone wants to. If an employee is transitioning, that's another matter. But even though I'm a sympathetic audience, I just can't see why employers should have to put up with it if they don't want to.

The problem as I see it is that companies should cater to their employees needs and if forcing them to accept who we are is the only way then so be it. If we refuse to do anything to make ourselves accepted then we never will be accepted. I truly wish everyone could accept everyone else but that just isn't the case and it never will be if we don't do something about it. It may be personally safer to let things go the way the do but I believe we all want to be accepted and by playing it safe it just isn't going to happen. Don't get me wrong I don't dress at work but I want to have that option and most companies have an employee rep. that would know how to start the process. I wish my company had a glbt group. Your group should be able to help you. Best of luck. And sorry to get riled up and political.

[TSchapes]

I'm asking for various opinions on this subject. I'm working with my GLBT to understand what the company's policy is. Right now, I'm damed if I go to HR and ask, or damed if I don't. And, without a clear idea in my own head what would be appropriate, it's very hard to approach them.

Like I said, my main concern is if someone at the company saw me on my own time dressed and figured out it was me, or saw my blog and figured it out, should they be able to fire me for this?

If you think they can't, then look at the court case Oiler vs Winn Dixie (http://www.aclu.org/lgbt/transgender/12291prs20001023.html). Peter Oiler worked for Winn Dixie for 20 years, never had a problem. Had good reviews. In Peter's own words:

"I never expected Winn-Dixie to approve of my personal life or to punish me for it - I just never thought it had any bearing on how I do my job".

Now it is one thing for a company to say they promote diversity by having an ERG with GLBT in the name. But exactly, what do I get from this? They are not spelling it out. They may begrudgingly have some language again for transsexuals, but what can I expect? The 'T' is for Transgender, not just transsexuals.

This is going to be a long road I can tell, but I think it is worth the trip.

-Tracy

[tricia_uktv]

My Company does have a GLBT group and has employed a tv (now ts) in the past. I think if they know about you at the start then its fair that you crossdress at work. In my case they don't so I think its wrong. They are however trying to set up meetings for us outside of work and that is a good thing.

[TxKimberly]

Wow! I am relieved to see the comments of some who posted before me here as i was afraid I might once again come across as "the heavy".

I think it's wonderful if a company is willing and able to accept cross dressing at work.
I do NOT feel that they should be FORCED to accept it in the work place.
As others have said, the goal of any company is to make a profit, and most do this by satisfying customers. Whether we like it or not, a LOT of customers/people would be very unhappy working with someone cross dressed.
Now, my above comments regard cross dressing in the work place. As far as what someone does or how they dress when they are not at work, and are not representing the company, that is none of the companies business. I do NOT feel a company should have the right to fire you because they do not approve of what you do on your own time.

[TSchapes]

I think it's wonderful if a company is willing and able to accept cross dressing at work. I do NOT feel that they should be FORCED to accept it in the work place. As others have said, the goal of any company is to make a profit, and most do this by satisfying customers. Whether we like it or not, a LOT of customers/people would be very unhappy working with someone cross dressed.

I would think it would be wonderful too to have the company allow cross-dressing. Again, I personally would not want to cross-dress at work (except for Halloween of course), but I do CD at home while working from home. It's in the privacy of my own home, and if workers found out, would they hesitate to call me at home? I don't know. It's in that gray area.

But how about a situation where the cross-dresser travels on the companies expense account and cross-dresses in the field? I know some have done this, (not you I know), but here again is a gray area, and if they found out, would they fire you?

I guess I'm trying to take a pro-active stance on this. What do we want? Or am I trying to herd cats here?

Love all of your responses, Tracy :hugs:

[linnea]

It is, perhaps, sad but true that companies don't have to accommodate CDs at all. However, as far as being outed away from work, I would say that in most instances what you do--assuming it is not illegal or immoral--is your own business. Having said that, there would some circumstances under which I would say that the company would have a case, if for example you were a high-profile employee. If you're working in the stockroom, I wouldn't think that it would matter. Ultimately, it's up to the company. Unless you are in a position to have a frank discussion with your employers, I would say that you just have to lead a private CD life.



I'm sorry, Tracy, but I don't see where an employer should have to embrace or allow crossdressing in the workplace. Companies are first beholden to their clientele, and like it or not, it's not an accepted practice in the general public. Just as companies are not obligated to allow the pursuit of any other hobbies while their employees are at work, they don't need to allow crossdressing just because someone wants to. If an employee is transitioning, that's another matter. But even though I'm a sympathetic audience, I just can't see why employers should have to put up with it if they don't want to.

[Jodi]

Tracy, The decision is totally yours. You must ask yourself the question--can you afford to lose your present job? Do you have the skills to acquire another job of equal remuneration?

A tough decision, but one that can affect one's life.

Jodi

[Farrah]

I'm with TG Marla. Like she said, this is a hobby. I also like to play video games. If thats the case, I should be able to play my video games some days at work.

[battybattybats]

This is a human-rights issue.
For some this might be a hobby but for others it serious, from crossdressers who need to dress frequently to transitioning transexuals. For the latter it can mean the difference between food on the table or life on the streets.

First I suggest you check out the Yogyakarta Principles which define how human rights relate to gender identity and expression.

Where ever their are dress codes people would have to conform to those codes so someone CDing at work would have to be as presentable in their dress etc as the women there are required to be.

As for whether companies don't have to accomadate CDs, the same argument was used in the past about them accomodating black people and women. The argument was either valid then or its invalid now.

[AshleyCD]

I saw this Television special where a guy in a government job was allowed to dress in female clothes and such. He didn't try to pass a women though, same male voice, male pattern balding and all.

Wish society would all become this accepting and then we wouldn't even be "crossdressing," lol.

I think though they should have to accommodate as long as you are 24/7. I believe this is when it no longer becomes a hobby, but your identity. So it has to do with gender identity disorder and not just something we do when we feel like it.

I think many of us crossdressers only try to pass because it is unacceptable in our society to dress in female clothes and wear makeup as a guy and such. I know it isn't everyone here, but like the other day when it was really hot I would have been wearing a summer skirt if it was acceptable, but it is not. So that is my take on the subject.

[Amy Hepker]

There are Sexual Harrassment laws to protect us. You may want to check them out and see what can and can't be done to you.

[JenniferR771]

Amy is right.

Also I have a cd friend who works for a major, major company in Detroit. When we last talked he(she) was on a committee which was writing a new policy for the company human resources dept on GLBT issues. Try to find your companie's policy, if any.

[victoriamwilliams1]

We have to look at this from a few angles.

#1. Dale Miller (dale-miller.com and flickr.com/photos/domiller/) a professor who wears skirts, heels with a male shirt who is not actually crossdressing by the terms people go by. He is a "normal" guy who prefers to wear skirts and heels. A company can view this as non-threatening since in his case it does not involved the creation of a female look with makeup and the other accessories we wear.

#2. What companies are afraid of from an crossdresser is that He or She will be dressed and Her/Him on Monday-Wednesday and as Him/Her the rest of the week, this concern would be from a professional service company the has clients. In the case with the clients it would be in the best interest of the company for the person to dress as they originally presented themselves to the client. If I was the client and I had Sarah working on my file and then off of the sudden I have Frank with me knowing that my contact is a M2F or F2M it would be a cause for major concern. With that in the best interest of a company they would prefer that a person who is just a crossdresser not gender swap based on how they feel, this could cause confusion with the staff and the clients. The female staff will feel threatened by this constant changing and the male staff may also be threatened.

#3 In some states you can be fired for what happens in your personal life if it affect the business directly. Example: You work for YZX Company as an executive officer and you are a crossdresser who is not out to the company.

(a) You are invited to speak at a CD/TG group meeting which had media attending and you speak as a indirect Representative of the company on the issue while dressed as the opposite gender publicly stating you have been dressing for 20+ years! If your action negatively impacts the company they can terminate you.

(b) You are dressed while driving a company branded vehicle and cause an accident while dressed and the company is not aware of you dressing. They find out that you were dressed! You got it, you may be out of a job.

I know that many states do have protections along with some cities however a company can find a way to terminate you for especially if you have several reprimands on file they will find away to let you go.

My suggestion is if you are going to come out at work and dress that you do it 40+/5 (40+ hours/5 days) a week if you just want to dress at work or just go 24/7 365.


This is something that not only business will have to deal with but also non-profit companies. In most cases companies think they own you 24/7 365 when they do not and with all the new protections that are supposed to work they know every way to get arround them and still terminate emplyment all it takes for them is to create a negative paper trail for every broken company policy.

On a good note: The entertainment industry does not even worry about this since most of the people in the industry are out there anyway so for them this is like crazy not to show diversity.

My .02

[TSchapes]

This is a human-rights issue.
For some this might be a hobby but for others it serious, from crossdressers who need to dress frequently to transitioning transexuals. For the latter it can mean the difference between food on the table or life on the streets.

First I suggest you check out the Yogyakarta Principles which define how human rights relate to gender identity and expression.

Where ever their are dress codes people would have to conform to those codes so someone CDing at work would have to be as presentable in their dress etc as the women there are required to be.

As for whether companies don't have to accomadate CDs, the same argument was used in the past about them accomodating black people and women. The argument was either valid then or its invalid now.

The Yogyaharta Principles are very specific on "The Right to Work" Principle 12. That no one should lose their employment for their sexual orientation or gender identity. These principles were released in March of 2007, so they are still quite new to everyone. I would think a lot of education would have to go along with the what is being proposed, and a road-map of sorts would have to be drafted for employers.

I'm going to be pragmatic here and propose what I think should be happening at this point in history for employers of all types.

I'm thinking of just concentrating on the "please don't fire me" aspect, as that is the first thing on my mind, and probably a lot of other CD's and TS's as well. One should on their own time be able to express themselves as they see fit, without the consequences of losing their livelihood. Being able to dress 24/7, I believe, would be a requirement for a TS, but not necessarily for a CD. Being able to dress 24/7 for a CD or switch roles back and forth at work would just be icing on the cake as it were. Does this sound reasonable?

For me this is more than a hobby, but less than a "lifestyle" if I'm using the word properly. So I think I would push the issue just so far. Heck, I'm having trouble with just my wife not freaking every time I turn around!

Thanks for all the wonderful replies!

-Tracy

[Sarah Doepner]

Let me play devil's advocate for a moment. Consider the company accepting a CD employee coming to work dressed in their preferred, non-birth gender. What happens when another employee complains that they feel threatened in a sexual harrassment suit? It has been established that the injury is in the eyes of the victim, so there are no pin-up calendars in the office and comments that are interpreted as sexual in nature are banned as well. If the victim can articulate how the CD presents a threat, psychological or otherwise, who gets the boot?
Remember the concept of "reverse discrimination" has been accepted in the courts at times and has been used to curtail some affirmative action programs. This is interesting territory and I am anxious to see where it all leads. Good luck!

[Sally2005]

I think you have to start from the others side first.

1. What is any employee entitled to in their workplace?
-safety
-feel welcome
-fair pay
-reasonable accomodations
-respect

From the other side:
-take what the employer offers and hold them to it
-consider 1. wrt to other employees
-does your appearance impact your work or others work

nobody likes extra work...so if the company doesn't have a policy maybe you will need to volunteer to write it.

[Ashley Lynn Swift]

I can't say whether or not it legal for a company to say no you can't crossdress at work, but they can't touch you for things you do on your own time. My Company doesn't have any policies forbiding crossdressing or allowing it, but they do have very strick discrimination and sexual harrassment polices that do protect are right, I crossdress everyday at work but then again my office moves up and down the road to, but i Know the company has a couple of mtf crossdresser, and a few ftm crossdresser. and the company doesn't stop them either, when I signed on with then the first day of orientation i was wearing a black dress and a pair of ladies jean's, nobody said anything to me. of course i had worked for them a couple years before that so i knew i'd be fine and have no problem's with them, work for serveral companie's like that not of of them driving job's either, still haven't dared to ware just a dress or, skirt-blouse combination yet with no legging like jean's, etc. but that not because of the company that's because i work the overnight shift and truck stop parking lots can get really dark at night.

[Bridget Fitzgerald]

This is a human-rights issue.
For some this might be a hobby but for others it serious, from crossdressers who need to dress frequently to transitioning transexuals. For the latter it can mean the difference between food on the table or life on the streets.

First I suggest you check out the Yogyakarta Principles which define how human rights relate to gender identity and expression.

Where ever their are dress codes people would have to conform to those codes so someone CDing at work would have to be as presentable in their dress etc as the women there are required to be.

As for whether companies don't have to accomadate CDs, the same argument was used in the past about them accomodating black people and women. The argument was either valid then or its invalid now.

Plus one. The concerned customers bigotry is not rational. "I don't like that" does not constitute tangible harm and should not be protected.

[DonnaT]

So, I am trying to understand how much a company or place of business should have to accommodate a cross-dresser?


"Should" as in required/forced, then not at all.

"Should" as in consideration by the company, then it would depend on several factors. How much does the CD deal with the general public and could it possibly affect business? How much would it affect others in the company, and would it detract from their job performance? and If the person was allowed to dress as desired (but dignified and/or conforming to dress code standards, if any), would it improve his/her job performance.

Some people are more relaxed when CDing, and it helps them work better.

[TSchapes]

Another reason I bring up the corporate angle is they do have ERG's for Asian-Indians, Blacks, Women, Hispanics, etc. and one of the things they do is present education for the people at work (on a voluntary basis) on their particular challenges, and views. We have had presentations about gay and transgendered people in the work place. From the materials I've seen they are more accurate than say a CD showing up on Jerry Springer. Most people haven't been shown a CD in a normal everyday situation, so there is more ignorance about us than what should be happening. And there is more emphases on TS than CD's in the workplace. This can be understood to a certain degree, but for us CD's to be able to feel somewhat normal, others have to understand we are non-threating and have certain advantages in our outlooks.

This process will not happen over night. I believe education of CD's and positive things that we bring to society (like all the retail people that welcome us into their stores!) need to be promoted to the general public. If we are ever to be accepted by society it will be by conscious acts on our parts.

I still like the visual of "What if everyone that is gay or transgendered turned green all at the same time across the country." Can you imagine the looks on all the peoples faces? All the people that have not even admitting it to themselves are looking at their own green hands? Of how people have interacted with us all these years and not known and their lives have not been affected adversely. The shear number of us would be a force to reckon with. A girl can dream...

-Tracy
__________________

[battybattybats]

"Should" as in required/forced, then not at all.

"Should" as in consideration by the company, then it would depend on several factors. How much does the CD deal with the general public and could it possibly affect business? How much would it affect others in the company, and would it detract from their job performance? and If the person was allowed to dress as desired (but dignified and/or conforming to dress code standards, if any), would it improve his/her job performance.

Some people are more relaxed when CDing, and it helps them work better.

In many places women and other minorities would never have made headway in employment and keep doing so today if it were not for laws preventing discrimination and requiring legal acceptance.

Why should it be any different for transgender?

Either yes 'should' as in required/forced or instead withdraw the legal protections for employment on grounds of sex, race and religion so people can fire or refuse to employ women for being women and men for being men, blacks for being blacks and whites for being whites and of course christians for being christians etc etc.

Equality requires equality. The same rules for everyone applied equally, protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority and ensuring the same opportunities for everyone. Cornerstones of modern democracy.

Fairs fair, we either extend legal protections to transgender people or we take them away from everyone else too.

[Tamera]

I have seen many Transgenders go through transition after they have been on the job as their male self first. Usually this way you still keep your job. Some like myself have been fortunate to land that GIRL JOB, but I went through the application process being UP FRONT with the potential employers.
Hugs,
Tamera

[Suzy Harrison]

Much to my surprise, the company that I work for have told me my job is 100% safe and they will support me 100%. I sat and cried my heart out with joy after putting the phone down after speaking to them

They will even smooth things over with customers and staff....
and as our HR Director said to me the other day "Don't worry about having problems from other staff members, as I'll educate them !' "

Here's the link (http://crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84701) if you want the details

[TxKimberly]

Much to my surprise, the company that I work for have told me my job is 100% safe and they will support me 100%. I sat and cried my heart out with joy after putting the phone down after speaking to them

They will even smooth things over with customers and staff....
and as our HR Director said to me the other day "Don't worry about having problems from other staff members, as I'll educate them !' "

Here's the link (http://crossdressers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=84701) if you want the details





Suzy, words just can't express how happy I am for you! Go Suzy go!

[jill s]

Wow dressing at work would sure help relive the stress my company dishes out. I think society in general will have to change the view of us before all companies would be so accommodating. Several have said you can't be fired for what you do at home but the Winn Dixie case wasn't very long ago. If I were to push it as far as going to work dressed, for me that would be getting into Trans-Sexual territory. I don't think once I personally went that far I would ever want to come back to being a guy. One wardrobe instead of two! That would sure be a savings!

[lil red]

The compaany I work for is owned by my father and he has made it clear, wear what you want, act how you want, but do it at home! Everyone has to remember it's not just the people you work for or with that may have the problem but the people that the company works for that might. We as a group a descriminated against every day, every where, and every way. The world as a whole sees us as "strange people". we know that we aren't, but they don't. In fact when I told my father about Bridget he was repulsed, the way I calmed him down was to say, look they are just clothes! He was ok after that, if only the rest of the world was that easy!:2c:

[Emily Anderson]

The issue at hand is all about acceptance, but more importantly about corporate culture from the top down. Leadership is about guiding the company and its employees in the direction of greater benefits to all, and the public at large.

Any company with savvy leadership will realize that this means embracing diversity, allowing employees to express themselves in the manner in which they feel most comfortable, combined with that which is most conducive to positive customer relationships.

Basically, it's a balancing act, and not an easy one at that!

[NicoleScott]

I don't see it as a human rights issue. The employer has a right and obligation to control the workplace. If crossdressing is disruptive to the work place, the company should be able to set rules. You don't have a right to privacy if your e-mails are done on a company computer. Your company can limit and monitor your personal phone calls. And you don't have pure freedom of speech at work (there may be consequences). The company has to set limits.

[renee99]

Equality requires equality. The same rules for everyone applied equally, protecting minorities from the tyranny of the majority and ensuring the same opportunities for everyone.

Correct. The minority (the business owner) should be protected from the tyranny of the majority -- those well-meaning but misguided individuals who would have the government force the business owner to hire a certain type of employee by outlawing discrimination, virtually guaranteeing positive discrimination in order to assure compliance, and thus ironically working against the presumed goal of integration, and further entrenching group mentality.


Fairs fair, we either extend legal protections to transgender people or we take them away from everyone else too.

End all anti-discrimination laws? Now there's an idea. However, to accomplish this goal would require people to stop thinking like victims, start identifying as individuals rather than groups, and recognize that everyone will be happier if they are free to associate as they wish, instead of being forced to integrate and be "diverse" by government mandate. I'm not holding my breath.

[battybattybats]

I don't see it as a human rights issue. The employer has a right and obligation to control the workplace. If crossdressing is disruptive to the work place, the company should be able to set rules. You don't have a right to privacy if your e-mails are done on a company computer. Your company can limit and monitor your personal phone calls. And you don't have pure freedom of speech at work (there may be consequences). The company has to set limits.

That same argument would have kept black people and women out of most workplaces. Thats why its considered a human rights issue when it comes to sex, religion, race and according to the Yogyakarta principles it is exactly the same for sexuality and gender identity and expression for the very same reasons.


Correct. The minority (the business owner) should be protected from the tyranny of the majority -- those well-meaning but misguided individuals who would have the government force the business owner to hire a certain type of employee by outlawing discrimination, virtually guaranteeing positive discrimination in order to assure compliance, and thus ironically working against the presumed goal of integration, and further entrenching group mentality.

If we use the example of women in the workplace we can see that the result has not been a disaster and is for many businesses quite positive. We can also see that despite the 'positive discrimination' you complain about women are not now above men in the workplace nor equal but merely closer to equal. And how are women worse off when it comes to workplace integration now than they were before anti-discrimination legislation?

[NicoleScott]

The Yogyakarta principles are not law. It's a wish list assembled by an international panel. Read the whole list of goodies and see what this is all about. While you're at it, see if you know who any of the panelists are. Discrimination based on race or sex is against the law.
Sure, there are some jobs, such as a telephone call center operator, that shouldn't care what you wear to work. I have no problem with allowing crossdressing for such jobs. There are, however, jobs where crossdressing could be a problem, a distraction for co-workers, or a turn-off for customers. The company has an overriding right (to a right to crossdress) to call the shots and protect its interests.

[TSchapes]

Groucho Marx once sent a telegram to the Friar's Club of Beverly Hills: "PLEASE ACCEPT MY RESIGNATION. I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER".

Now, my question was never what should government impose upon a company. Our company is actually out ahead of our Byzantine government as far as the gay and transgendered community. They support, albeit not as much as they should, a GLBT group. They are constantly encouraging our employees to attend diversity training, and actually have a MDA (Masters in Diversity Awareness) program. Part of this training has been about gay and transgendered awareness.

So my stance with the company is: "Put up or shut up". If they are truly embracing diversity and they have at least acknowledged that transgendered are a group of people that deserves tolerance and respect. What does that mean practically for me the cross-dresser? The transgendered? The Transsexual?

Does that mean they won't fire me if someone from work spots me at the mall trying on a dress? Does that mean I can dress at work? Can I say to a women at work, "gee I love your shoes, where did you get them?" without being handed a sexual harassment suit? I don't mind boundaries, but if HR turns around and says to me, "Tracy what kind of accommodations specifically are you looking for?" I would love to pull out my laundry list and say, this is what I want. That's where I was going with this. I'm suspending whether they should do anything, to me right now I'm asking what would we like?

Again too, let me say that the dialog and thoughts here have been great. I love this kind of exchange. We talk about provocative dialog at work too and how it's beneficial it is to the process. So please keep up the good work ladies!

Love, Tracy

[battybattybats]

The Yogyakarta principles are not law. It's a wish list assembled by an international panel. Read the whole list of goodies and see what this is all about. While you're at it, see if you know who any of the panelists are. Discrimination based on race or sex is against the law.
Sure, there are some jobs, such as a telephone call center operator, that shouldn't care what you wear to work. I have no problem with allowing crossdressing for such jobs. There are, however, jobs where crossdressing could be a problem, a distraction for co-workers, or a turn-off for customers. The company has an overriding right (to a right to crossdress) to call the shots and protect its interests.

'Wish list' isn't really accurate. They were compiled by human rights law experts on what already existing human rights laws and principles mean when applied to the subject. They are rationally cogent with existing principles. Now not one country in the world has a spotless human rights record or have enshrined human rights properly into law but that doesn't mean they should be disregarded as the reasons why human rights are human rights means the Yogyakarta Principles denote accurately human rights. The rights exist as logical and philosophical principles even when not recognised by law. Depending on the nature of the countries legal system and in what way it enshrines human rights in its laws will depend on their legal standings but if we discuss right and wrong, morality or ethics or what should become law then they serve a good guidance purpose.

As for a companies rights to abuse human rights... there is a difference between keeping people doing a job efficiently and practically and discriminating unfairly and unequally.

I'll quote from someones comment on the current congress comitee discussion on this very issue (sorry I don't have a direct transcript)


OMG an amazing exchange just took place! Rob Andrews pressed Lavy on his claims that forcing religious employers to hire transgender workers would be like "forcing an Orthodox Jew to eat pork." Andrews asks whether an Orthodox Jew with a law firm could refuse to hire a Catholic. Lavy is forced to respond in the negative. Andrews then presents a series of similar scenarios - should a pacifist be allowed to discriminate against a Vietnam vet? - and Lavy just looks at him blankly, speechlessly. Andrews is killing him right now and eloquently making the point that the "religious conscience" argument does not hold up to scrutiny. I wish I could type faster or had video! Because this is DELICIOUS. The overflow room is rapt.

my own argument to that analogy (before I read of the response) was:

The objection of transgender is to what another person does with their own person not what is done to the objectors person.
A true analogy would be to say it was like forcing an Orthodox Jew to put up with a co-worker eating pork.

And we know that its already well understood that one person cannot force their own religious views onto another. The Orthodox Jew doesn't have to eat pork himself but he doesn't have the right to require his coworkers to not do so.

The objector isn't being forced to crossdress just to put up with a co-worker being transgendered. So the Orthodox Jew isn't being forced to eat pork or work on the Sabbath they are just being forced to allow a co-worker to eat pork or work on saturday.

In fact this false analogy is so idiotic that looked at properly it works as a pro-trans argument!

Being forced to dress inappropriatky to gender identity in the workkplace is EXACTLY like being an Orthodox Jew being forced to eat pork because the workmates are christian. It is EXACTLY having what one does with ones own person determined by the religious views of others in the workplace.



Anyaways a black person in an otherwise white workplace or a woman in a male one have both been argued as unfair workplace distractions or a problem for customers in the past. That argument was also used for schools and universities too. Were those arguments valid then?

There were the same arguments used against sex and race being protected from discrimination by law so saying that they are protected now is a false premise. The laws must be consistent. The reasons why some can and some cant be discriminated against must be consistent.

If the same arguments used in the past against giving equality and protection to race and sex were not sufficient why should they be considered so now?

Companies complained about putting women and black people in certain positions. A woman receptionist or telegrapher became ok but a welder or engineer? Certain roles were said to be a distraction or to put customers off and harm business.

I suggest that many folk these days don't realise that these arguments are the same because they are acustomed to these things and fail to relate to the viewpoints of a more racist and sexist age. They don't see the discomfort and fear that many had with the idea of mixed races or women in the workplace. It was claimed that the presence of women would cause workplace accidents and deaths.

And now the same idea is presented with transgender people. Unless an opperative difference is found then they are the exact same arguments against the exact same equality but with the word transgender on the dotted line where black and woman and Jew once was written.

[Katheryn]

So, I am trying to understand how much a company or place of business should have to accommodate a cross-dresser?
-Tracy

That depends a lot on the nature of the job and the nature of the business. Government sticks its nose into a lot that it shouldn't, IMHO. If a person doesn't meet the public (customer service on phone, for example) that person's personna and presentation do not reflect on the company. While it would be great to have a world where no one cares if someone's GLBT (I prefer GBLT, that way you can pronounce it giblet) but in the real world and employer has to be careful that his image, reflected in the personnel working for the company, is compatible with the company's customer base. For a company to lose customers simply because the company is trying to be liberal and understanding to its employees and therefore to risk going out of business is unfair to the company. I know it shouldn't be that way, but in the real world it often is.




So, I am trying to understand how much a company or place of business should have to accommodate a cross-dresser?
-Tracy

Bearing the above in mind, and also that CD isn't TS, and sort of implies a part time-ness to dressing, I think it depends on what the CD wants to have the biz put up with. I had an issue with nails slightly (3/8" past my fingertips) longish. I was told to cut them back to "male length". I was upset, as they were clearcoated, not painted red like my toes, and I got quite a few compliments from customers, and there is nothing in the corporate manual about nail length (unlike hair length or earrings) on male employees. It came down to my nails or my job and in Florida they can fire because they don't like your haircut. It's a "right to work" state, which translates as "right to fire" state.



I feel I just opened Pandora's box and I know there are probably other issues I'm missing. Or, is it, they just don't have to allow us to do anything at all?
-Tracy

It'd be nice, as I said, if we could "be all we can be" but even the army is don't ask don't tell

K

[Katheryn]

Does that mean they won't fire me if someone from work spots me at the mall trying on a dress? Does that mean I can dress at work?

No company should be able to fire someone for something legal done outside of work.


Does that mean I can dress at work? Can I say to a women at work, "gee I love your shoes, where did you get them?" without being handed a sexual harassment suit?

There is a local Fortune 500 company that prohibits compliments of haircuts, perfume, etc. defining it as sexual harassment. This is to protect them (that company) from lawsuits. Unfortunately there are those who take good things (protection from real sexual harassment) too far.

K