PDA

View Full Version : Gender Diversity Equal Opportunity Employer



Sheila
11-21-2008, 03:42 AM
following on from yet another thread runing on the rights of GG's to wear etc ........... the point was yet again brought up about threat to livelihoods and ..............

SO THAT GOT ME THINKING

there must be a huge number of peeps on here that have at least a minimal amount of say in who is employed (line managers, dept heads,HR peeps,as well as those with their own businesses), so whats to stop you adding

Gender Diversity Equal Opportunity Employer to the job add, it may not be much but it will be a start, ....... future prospective employees that ask about that phrase at he interview, can get an extra tick for so doing, those as don't, you can always ask if they undersatnd what the term encompasses, if they don't, you have a chance to enlighten them, and explain that your workplace takes it as seriously as it's enforcement of disability rights etc.

battybattybats
11-21-2008, 09:00 AM
Good point.

Some of us at least must be employers rather than employees.

Should they not consider ensuring their employees at least are protected?

Or what about a little Affirmative Action and specificly try to find TG employees?

MJ
11-21-2008, 09:33 AM
sadly your talking to the converted here. it's the real world we have to worry about.

Sheila
11-21-2008, 10:02 AM
MJ,
that is the point, in the real world there are some who are able to state what goes in to the advertisment for an employee and they also have a say in the hiring of the said prospective employee ............. there are rules and regulations in Britian regarding employment of the disabled, you may not refuse employment on the grounds of gender, religion, and almost anything you can care to mention.(there are a few get out clauses on some employment jobs but very few)

There are rules stating what you may/may not say in advertising for a position (some have limited get out clauses), e.g you cannot say people with diasabiliies will not be considered for said employment .. else you are going to have a heap of lawyers on your back, but you can state that said employment is not suitable fro X,Y,Z reasons legally.

So those who have the where withall to to change things in the workplace can without actually outing themselves ........... heck they can say they were looking at proposed changes in the workplace under considerationa nad happened to notice that one :eek:

Shelly Preston
11-21-2008, 11:44 AM
As much as I agree with you Sheila there is still one problem

The diversity policy will not include Crossdressers it will include those who are transexual

This is because generally by the public crossdressing is not seen as being transgendered

Unless you have a good employer it might mean any CD having to prove they are transgendered

Violet
11-21-2008, 12:49 PM
Yeah, there are an awful lot of people who are members of this forum alone. I have to assume at least ONE of us is a business owner or employer who could potentially add something like that to company policies.

I am an equal opportunity employer, but I only employ myself at the moment. My small business is VERY small!

Shelly Preston
11-21-2008, 01:54 PM
Shelly, look at the thread again. It was in big pink letters! Sheila is suggesting that those of us who have the power ought to add Gender Diversity (i.e.crossdressing) to the list.

That the point Katie

Not everyone sees gender diversity including crossdressing

We do because we are part of the community and understand better than most
Yes we can add it to the policy if in a position too

Unfortunately we still have to cope as best we can with policies which do help a lot but dont cover everyone

Violet
11-21-2008, 01:59 PM
I think Sheila's point is that there has GOT to be SOMEONE out there who is a boss AND TG. And that THAT person would have the power to change that particular company.

That those of us who ARE a part of the community and ALSO have the power to implement this sort of thing, should do so.

Sheila
11-21-2008, 02:06 PM
Katie B and Violet thankyou, that is exactly what I was meaning.:)

I don't mean that every CDR would want to or could go into work dressed, or even have it known that they are CDR's, just that the company has a policy that protects the right of those who wish to.

Shelly Preston
11-21-2008, 02:14 PM
Surely the policy should extend to the treatment of any CD'r in the workplace to prevent harrassment by any of their colleagues
should it become known they are a crossdresser

I dont think going to work dressed is a good idea unless you are living 24/7

curse within
11-21-2008, 02:32 PM
As much as I agree with you Sheila there is still one problem

The diversity policy will not include Crossdressers it will include those who are transexual

This is because generally by the public crossdressing is not seen as being transgendered

Unless you have a good employer it might mean any CD having to prove they are transgendered

Shelly you are correct. It is a minor problem if migrated into the transgender lable. For example where I work , we had a person brave enough to express his other gender side as a pre op transexual. In doing so brought up all new issues for a work place enviorment. This person choose not to use the mens restroom for obvious reasons,the women didn't want him in thier restroom for obvious reasons. It was a big "tado" the managers eventually found a way to fire this person for reasons unrelated to his dressing.

It made the female manager upset and took time from doing her job to allow this person to use the restroom . she had to go into the Ladies room and make sure that no other women where in there to give the ok for this person to take care of business then the manager had to stand guard at the door the whole time during.

If this was to be an accepted policy, companies would have to use a third bathroom to fit those who would be consider Unisex. Think about what that may open up next, hetros will complain that homosexuals use the unisex as well seems the lables are combined. The diverse policy is fitted well , if your are a legal male you need to obide to the company dress code.

Sheila
11-21-2008, 02:33 PM
Shelly yes, you are right and I was not meaing that they should be excluded from the policy, I am sorry if it came across as that................ I just assumed it would be taken as read that the compny policy would cover every individual, rather than those who were just actively portaying their gender diversity wthin the work place ... sorry for the confusion:doh:

battybattybats
11-21-2008, 10:09 PM
So those who have the where withall to to change things in the workplace can without actually outing themselves ........... heck they can say they were looking at proposed changes in the workplace under considerationa nad happened to notice that one :eek:

Just say that a friend sent you a link to Barbera Walters discussing it, that you saw Obama added gender identity and expression to his rules and that you decided it was the right thing to do.


That the point Katie

Not everyone sees gender diversity including crossdressing

We do because we are part of the community and understand better than most
Yes we can add it to the policy if in a position too

Unfortunately we still have to cope as best we can with policies which do help a lot but dont cover everyone

You just have to state that all Gender Expression is covered. That protects everyone from effeminate gay men and metrosexuals to masculine women, crossdressers etc. It strengthens anti-sexism provisions as well as allowing crossdressing. You make clear that presentation must be neat etc but that people can combine any mix of apprael and appearance that was previously acceptable.


If this was to be an accepted policy, companies would have to use a third bathroom to fit those who would be consider Unisex. Think about what that may open up next, hetros will complain that homosexuals use the unisex as well seems the lables are combined. The diverse policy is fitted well , if your are a legal male you need to obide to the company dress code.

This is thoroughly bogus. There should be a disability-access toilet which they should be able to use during transition and if not the toilet ammenities at the workplace are already grieviously unjust and need imediate refurbishment for the use of wheelchair bound workers/customers.

Segregation for race in ammenities was unjust despite whites being uncomfortable sharing toilets with blacks they had to overcome their discomfort and unfounded but prevalent rapist/cannibal fears.

this is no different

Men were uncomfortable working and studying with women. They got over it. Whites were uncomfortable working and studying and swimming and using the toilet and water fountains with non-whites. They got over it.

Sorry but discomfort is something that they are just going to have to get over. To put their comfort over anothers right to work and use basic ammenities is disgusting, repugnant, reprehensible, outrageous and evil.

Discomfort is no excuse for discrimination against TG people.
And there is no excuse not to have disability access toilets.

Laura_Stephens
11-22-2008, 05:37 AM
Diversity occurs naturally. Always hire the best person for the job. As a result, some employees end up being male, female, black, white, straight, gay, tall, short, liberal, conservative, TG, non-TG, etc.

In the U.S., the managers of a business -- specifically, directors and officers -- have a legal responsibility to protect the interests of the stockholders and that means build profits.

I see no need to hire specific demographics while foregoing hiring the "best person". Hiring the best person already results in diversity and moves the business ahead.

When it comes to protecting employees from being treated poorly by other employees, I do believe that the business has a moral, if not legal, obligation to protect those employees.

However, I do believe that customers have a major say so in who can perform in a customer facing function. The purpose of a business is to make money. the job does not include righting the wrongs of the world.

Sally24
11-22-2008, 08:39 AM
The diversity policy will not include Crossdressers it will include those who are transexual.
Actually, many companies that include a "gender" phrase in their non-descrimination section include any kind of non-typical dressing. Surprisingly many problems arise when non-tg men and women don't conform to other people's gender stereotypes.

In hearings this year on legislation in Massachusetts there were any number of women that testified in suport of the bill. Some were lawyers that were constantly being pressured by their supreriors to dress less manly. The same can arrise with men that do not project a macho type image in their movement and clothing. These people aren't neccessirly tg, but they are affected like we are by people's stereotypes.

Shelly Preston
11-22-2008, 08:48 AM
Sally , While this maybe true in the US

It's not true everywhere

Laura_Stephens
11-22-2008, 11:28 AM
Katie, yes you are correct in that is my opinion.

What would have happened in the past? To be truthful, I have no idea.

What I do know is that directors and officers have a fiduciary responsibility (i.e., a legal requirement) to maximize the wealth of the stockholders. Period. That is the job.

It is my view that it is not the job of business to change the world. Business is merely a reflection of the current state of the world.

Sheila
11-22-2008, 11:44 AM
Sally , While this maybe true in the US
It's not true everywhere

Nor will it ever be Shelly, if we are not proactive in seeking to make suggestions that can bring about change.

I know if gender diversity in in inluded on company policies it will enable those who wish to present as themselves an easier passage to doing so ...... and that is a choice each individual must make for themselves


Diversity occurs naturally. Always hire the best person for the job. As a result, some employees end up being male, female, black, white, straight, gay, tall, short, liberal, conservative, TG, non-TG, etc.

and the same can be said for diversity being stifled because ....... even given that 2 peeps are equally appropriate for the job, in general a man will be offered it over a woman, a white over a black, an able bodied over a disabled ............ etc



I see no need to hire specific demographics while foregoing hiring the "best person". Hiring the best person already results in diversity and moves the business ahead.

I am in no way suggesting that TGs are hired in a specific demographic way, just that ensuring that they are not afraid to apply for a job just because they "may be uncovered"



The purpose of a business is to make money..... the job does not include righting the wrongs of the world.

for most business the purpose is to make a profit I agree ...... but making a profit should not in my view be exlusive of moral obligations .... surely both can work side by side .... and I fail to see how including a Gender Diversity Clause within a company would be righting the wrongs of the world ..... unless of course ensuring employees rights are to be ignored for the profit margin, in that case I would not want to work for that company, nor buy from them :straightface:

Hali
11-22-2008, 01:12 PM
This is the kind of thread we are suppose to be discussin about cos they'll definitely help the CD community. Like i always say its not easy for us CDs to accept ourselves or other CDs it'll not be easy for the society to accept us, never the less we (CDs) are part of that 'variety' cos we are different, i think thats enough for the society to make arrangements for our existance.

Niya W
11-22-2008, 02:33 PM
As much as I agree with you Sheila there is still one problem

The diversity policy will not include Crossdressers it will include those who are transexual

This is because generally by the public crossdressing is not seen as being transgendered

Unless you have a good employer it might mean any CD having to prove they are transgendered

Well depends on were you are. In the area that is covered by the 9th circuit you might be able to stretch that. During the 90's a lesbian sued because she was harnessed because she dressed butch. She sued and won. Gender expression could be used for CD's

curse within
11-22-2008, 02:54 PM
In todays world you can go to work dressed enfemme,,depends where you work.. Most fortune 500 companies have dress code policys that fall under the set code of conduct. Thats something you aknowledge before you agree to work for them and you get refreshed on yearly.
All companies that contract work through and for the Goverment have to have diverse policys, rules that the Goverment enforces.. Under these rules are guidlines that protect both the company and you and are structured in a way that favors the means of the business.. So if you choose to work in makeup ,blouse or have your nails painted chances are they fit into the code of conduct and little or nothing will be done to you.. But if you come in as a male wearing a skirt ,heels and wig... and your work enviorment allows this dress code You can be sent home and warned to never come dressed that
way again or loose your job.. Why?...because the U.S. Goverment does not see crossdressing as a diverse issue.. If you are born a male going through the sex change stages you can come to work dressed that way Skirt,heels and wig because the U.S. Goverment does see transexuals as a diverse issue..

Sarah...
11-22-2008, 02:59 PM
I think Sheila's point is that there has GOT to be SOMEONE out there who is a boss AND TG. And that THAT person would have the power to change that particular company.

That those of us who ARE a part of the community and ALSO have the power to implement this sort of thing, should do so.

Yes. I am a boss and a TG. Half in - half out that old closet there. But nothing stopping my SO and I adding such a clause to our policy. My only grumble? Having reached a certain threshold in number of employees I now have to have policies left, right and centre. One of the reasons I left employment to be self-employed!! Oh well, if I can help push the cause then policies it must be!

Sarah...

Sally24
11-22-2008, 03:21 PM
Diversity occurs naturally. Always hire the best person for the job..
It would be nice if the real world really worked this way.


I do believe that customers have a major say so in who can perform in a customer facing function. The job does not include righting the wrongs of the world.
Nor does it require it to pander to the bigoted.




What I do know is that directors and officers have a fiduciary responsibility (i.e., a legal requirement) to maximize the wealth of the stockholders. Period..
Sorry but that's not strictly true. The "health" of the corporation and it's future continuance are not only measured in dollars and cents. If they tried merely to maximize the stock price and dividends they would also be remiss in their responsiblities to the owners. Image in this world of instant information is as important as your monthly sales figures.


It is my view that it is not the job of business to change the world. Business is merely a reflection of the current state of the world.
It's sad that so many people beleive this. As an artificial person, in the view of the law, a corporation should also have a moral structure to it. Many family businesses feel it is important to not only treat their employees fairly, but also to have their company behave as they would as individuals. The corporations that treat people badly in the short run, will run into problems in the long run with retaining good people.

Hopefully the laws, both federal and state, will eventually change to protect us so that we don't have to depend on the vagarities of the corporate world.

battybattybats
11-22-2008, 09:48 PM
Diversity occurs naturally. Always hire the best person for the job. As a result, some employees end up being male, female, black, white, straight, gay, tall, short, liberal, conservative, TG, non-TG, etc.

In the U.S., the managers of a business -- specifically, directors and officers -- have a legal responsibility to protect the interests of the stockholders and that means build profits.

I see no need to hire specific demographics while foregoing hiring the "best person". Hiring the best person already results in diversity and moves the business ahead.

When it comes to protecting employees from being treated poorly by other employees, I do believe that the business has a moral, if not legal, obligation to protect those employees.

However, I do believe that customers have a major say so in who can perform in a customer facing function. The purpose of a business is to make money. the job does not include righting the wrongs of the world.

So thats why 50% of CEO's are women then... oh but they aren't. Even when studies have shown that companies with women in equally high positions as men do better they are nevertheless not hired so.

Same with all minorities.

So the result is people across the economy are NOT hired by virtue of ability. Resulting in the best or equally good person for the job often not getting the job.

As such affirmative action policies would result in bypassing bigotry in the system and allowing the comapny to pick from an overlooked crop of superior employees! Because if 50% of the top people are not getting the positions they are due that means you have a better chance of getting a better emplyee by hiring the most qualified person from an undersourced minority group!

So affirmative action makes economic sense.

And as TGs are a very undersourced group that makes them a really great resource underutilised.

Laura_Stephens
11-22-2008, 11:58 PM
It would be nice if the real world really worked this way.


Nor does it require it to pander to the bigoted.




Sorry but that's not strictly true. The "health" of the corporation and it's future continuance are not only measured in dollars and cents. If they tried merely to maximize the stock price and dividends they would also be remiss in their responsiblities to the owners. Image in this world of instant information is as important as your monthly sales figures.


It's sad that so many people beleive this. As an artificial person, in the view of the law, a corporation should also have a moral structure to it. Many family businesses feel it is important to not only treat their employees fairly, but also to have their company behave as they would as individuals. The corporations that treat people badly in the short run, will run into problems in the long run with retaining good people.

Hopefully the laws, both federal and state, will eventually change to protect us so that we don't have to depend on the vagarities of the corporate world.

1) It sure would, but the average person -- including those who work in HR are VERY stupid.

2) giving customers what they want is not pandering.

3) Sorry -- you are 100% wrong. Please read the text of U.S. law and SEC regulations regarding corporate governance.

4) A business is NOT an artificial person. Business exists solely to meet the needs of customers and to make a profit. Please read "A Treatise Into The Cause Of The Wealth Of Nations" published in 1776 by Adam Smith.

I am the CEO of a very well known public company as well as being VERY tg. The business I run has one -- and only one -- responsibility: make as much money as possible for the stockholders.

As I already said, diversity occurs naturally unless the people at the top are stupid and put the wrong people in charge of HR.

Our corporate charter has no mention whatsoever of helping the world.

My rule is "hire the best". From there, we take care of every employee who takes care of the business -- pretty simple. I don't allow employees to be bullied for who they are or what they think.

In 1999, I had a "rank and file" male employee come to me and ask if they could wear a dress to work. I said that the company wouldn't have a problem with it, but that we couldn't do anything about those who don't work for the company -- bus drivers, people who work in adjacent buildings, restaurant workers in our area, etc. I left the decision up to the employee.

My job is to make as much money for the stockholders as is humanly possible. My job is NOT to save the world from itself -- PERIOD.

battybattybats
11-23-2008, 06:58 AM
1) It sure would, but the average person -- including those who work in HR are VERY stupid.

Only by comparison to the very intelligent. However have you heard the old parable of the wisest sage and the peasant? The only clever thing the peasant ever thought was the only one that didn't occur to the sage, and by ignoring the peasant every day while pondering the problem the sage lost his head.

As a 'gifted' person I know full well that ignoring the less intelligent is stupid as they may come up with an idea that doesn't occur to me. I've learned a lot from people less intelligent than myself.


2) giving customers what they want is not pandering.

Sorry but you can't get out of ethics/morality like that. You always retain an ethical/moral responsibility as well as a 'morality of duty'. Where they conflict can be messy however that is no excuse. If what the customer wants is unethical you have an obligation to refuse them just as a soldier must refuse an order even when they are executed for disobeying it if the order is to commmit a crime against humanity.


4) A business is NOT an artificial person. Business exists solely to meet the needs of customers and to make a profit. Please read "A Treatise Into The Cause Of The Wealth Of Nations" published in 1776 by Adam Smith.

Yeah I read Smith, decades ago.
He has not been without his critics in the centuries since. Both in morality and ethics and other fields.

Aren't most of the rights of corporations based under the notion that they can be considered as a person, stemming from a legal decision in the USA based on a law originally intended to free slaves? From which the capacity of a corporation to be recognised in a court, to sue and be sued etc are based?

Some philosophers at my local University have been doing some interesting discussion you might enjoy. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/philosopherszone/stories/2008/2409681.htm

But there are plenty of issues that can be raised against creation of wealth as measure of good.

Economic power is just a form of political power as all politics is control of and distribution of resources. And as such is every bit as subject to social contract obligations and ethical obligations as any other form of power.


I am the CEO of a very well known public company as well as being VERY tg. The business I run has one -- and only one -- responsibility: make as much money as possible for the stockholders.

You do I hope realise then that the foundational argument of applying Darwinian mechanisms of evolution of competution resulting in gains of efficiancy and a self-stabilising self-regulating market is based on notions considered utterly simplistic and frequently mistaken in modern biology yes?

And you get that whereas the Earth is able to stave off entropy in a competitive system for millenia in biology because of the constant daily input of energy from the sun that economic resources are substantially based on non-reknewing or millenia-renkewing resources meaning that much competition especually in an unregulated system results in increased use of available resources, faster depletion of resources, increased entropy and quick extinction yes?

Example: Agar plate. One places bacteria on the massive amount of sugar to grow and closes the lid. The bacteria have so much food they grow in huge numbers making them easy to identify by microscope. But by the time they go onto the slide they are almost all dead! Because there is a closed gas system and the nutrients in the air are used up and the waste products build to toxic levels and while little suger is gone most of the bacteria are dead when the container is opened.

I do hope then you consider your obligation as someone of extreme power in this.

Consider this. Does your pbligation to the company extend into the future beyond your tenure? How far? If your actions contribute to the hastening of human extinction it also contributes to the hastening of the companies end too.

If you want to be responsible to your company I hope your investing in minimal entropy resources and the exploitation of lunar and other resources.


As I already said, diversity occurs naturally unless the people at the top are stupid and put the wrong people in charge of HR.

You misuse the word 'naturally'. As clearly diversity occurs less often than it doesn't. Making the 'it doesn't' process the more common one. Instead it would be true to say diversity should occur logically because of said principles were it not for the concious and unconcious natural but illogical and unethical biases that can be overcome by people of superior skill and self-awareness (as opposed to raw Intelligence. Knowing, and being related to, a fair few MENSA Intellects I know full well that there are many forms of intelligence and that wisdom and mindfullness are not prerequisites of all of them).


Our corporate charter has no mention whatsoever of helping the world.

So? That is no excuse. a tyrant in a totalitarian regime may say 'my country has not signed the U.N. Convention on Human Rights'. But they may still be judged by it's ethical principles nonetheless. The tyrant may still be tried and executed.


My rule is "hire the best". From there, we take care of every employee who takes care of the business -- pretty simple. I don't allow employees to be bullied for who they are or what they think.

That is good, to a point. But just as with a Despot who treats his soldiers well but ignores the needs of the peasants or the citizens of the neighbouring country clamouring as refugees at his borders it is no excuse. You retain, every human does and every human always will, an obligation to all other humans, not just the ones like them, not just the ones they like, not just those in their own country, not just the majority but the entirety of humanity.


My job is to make as much money for the stockholders as is humanly possible. My job is NOT to save the world from itself -- PERIOD.

You have as a single citizen the reponsibilty of all Human Rights freedoms and abuses of your country as well as all that occur within your own power to influence and as a consequence of your choices and actions.

Yes you have a morality of duty to the comapany, to the stockholders. But that does not mean you have no responsibility to Humanity either. A soldier has a responibility to their commanding officer but also to Humanity. A governer has a responsibility to their constituants that voted for them but also to those that did not, to the constitution they are elected to serve but also to Humanity.

So you read Smith. Maybe even Hobbes if your lucky. Read Hume yet? Locke? Voltaire? Oh and consider the Veil of Ignorance when you try and make moral decisions kay? http://radio.weblogs.com/0104634/stories/2002/07/18/theVeilOfIgnorance.html

Sorry but you are not freed from Social Contract. Nor are you freed from Duty Of Care. Your obligation of duty as a CEO does not eclipse your obligation of duty to human rights as a human.

And as you speak of 'intelligence' and 'stupidity' I should point out that I was unofficially attending University Philosophy lectures on metaphysics and morality when I was in early primary school and joining in the Q and A after the lectures. Of course I may possibly learn something from you too, I always bear in mind the lesson of the peasant and the sage.

Deborah Jane
11-23-2008, 07:17 AM
I,d never employ a crossdresser!!!!
They would spend all day painting their nails, looking at clothes and visiting crossdressing websites :tongueout

Sheila
11-23-2008, 07:18 AM
I,d never employ a crossdresser!!!!
They would spend all day painting their nails, looking at clothes and visiting crossdressing websites :tongueout

:eek:

Deborah Jane
11-23-2008, 07:19 AM
I,d never employ a crossdresser!!!!
They would spend all day painting their nails, looking at clothes and visiting crossdressing websites :tongueout


:eek:

Maybe i,m just going on what i,m like :heehee:

battybattybats
11-23-2008, 08:24 AM
Actually we should consider this dilemma:

We know CDs and TSs and any other Transgender or Intersex person is as capable or incapable as any other person.

We know that Transgender etc people are substantially and often legally discrininated against for being TGs.

As such do we not then have an obligation to take into account that we are amongst those who are not biased against them and to then employ them preferentially as it would not be an overall injustice but a redress of others injustice?

Should we then not just be non-biased against TG ourselves but wherever we have the power to do so be preferrential so long as TG people face regular injustice?

If faced with a TG person and an equally qualified non-TG person, knowing that the Non-TG person can more easilly find other employment and that each is equally capable of doing the job should not the TG person be taken?

And if faced with a more qualified Non-TG person or a still adequately qualified TG person knowing that the TG person is good enough for the job, that the TG person will have substantial hardship finding employment elsewhere while the non-TG person will have much greater ease in finding employment elsewhere should not we consider strongly employing the well-enough-qualified and more needy TG person?

Sheila
11-23-2008, 09:03 AM
Actually we should consider this dilemma:

We know CDs and TSs and any other Transgender or Intersex person is as capable or incapable as any other person.

We know that Transgender etc people are substantially and often legally discrininated against for being TGs.

As such do we not then have an obligation to take into account that we are amongst those who are not biased against them and to then employ them preferentially as it would not be an overall injustice but a redress of others injustice?

Should we then not just be non-biased against TG ourselves but wherever we have the power to do so be preferrential so long as TG people face regular injustice?

If faced with a TG person and an equally qualified non-TG person, knowing that the Non-TG person can more easilly find other employment and that each is equally capable of doing the job should not the TG person be taken?

And if faced with a more qualified Non-TG person or a still adequately qualified TG person knowing that the TG person is good enough for the job, that the TG person will have substantial hardship finding employment elsewhere while the non-TG person will have much greater ease in finding employment elsewhere should not we consider strongly employing the well-enough-qualified and more needy TG person?

:sw:
NO batty because you are then beginning to practice the injustices that we are wanting to get rid of .....................
and i am not a huge fan og keeping it in the family at any cost ...... "Gender Diversity Equal opportunity" not "Gender Diversity Society Old Boys Club" ........ and I am appalled that you would even remotely consider such a bigoted action :angry::argue::spank:

TSchapes
11-23-2008, 09:08 AM
For those of you not lucky enough to be in a position of power, there is another way to help all our sisters. Join. Join a local group, start a group, either in the local community or in your business. Yes, your business.

A number of the more forward thinking corporations like mine (Comerica Bank) has ERNGs (Enterprise Resource Network Groups). These are groups of people that have like interests, that can be mutually beneficial by making business areas aware of these interests. We have groups representing African-Americans, Indian-Americans, Women, and LGBT. Just by existing, we send a signal to anyone that is looking for employment or that want to do business with us, that we find diversity important to our bottom line.

I belong to the LGBT at work and we are making a difference.

-Tracy

battybattybats
11-23-2008, 09:47 AM
:sw:
NO batty because you are then beginning to practice the injustices that we are wanting to get rid of .....................

Hold up. I said 'as such' it is a crucial part of the thing, like the If in an If/then algorithm.

So I'm talking about somethign else, not injustice but positive justice.


and i am not a huge fan og keeping it in the family at any cost ...... "Gender Diversity Equal opportunity" not "Gender Diversity Society Old Boys Club"

I get that, but what you say only is correct in a currently just system, not a measurably unjust one.


........ and I am appalled that you would even remotely consider such a bigoted action :angry::argue::spank:

There is nothing unjust in what I said.

Picture a scale.

On one side are green stones and the other are red ones.
People can take two stones each.
If 90% of people take only red stones there will be inbalance.

If you take a stone of each colour you will not redress the balance, only do something that if everyone did would result in balance.

If you take two green stones you will not tip the balance the other way. You will not even level the scale! But you will make it less inbalanced than if you had taken two reds or a red and a green.

The only way you could be unbalancing the scale is if you started a trend and more people took more green than red in total.

Do you really think that is likely in this lifetime? That enough people would take more green than red?

Especially if there were always less green than red to start with?

So long as the imbalance already exists taking both stones is only failing to contribute to the imbalance.

It is not redressing it at any amount at all.

Only by taking two green stones will you in any way shift the balance of those scales so long as others have taken more from the other side.

As such you are redressing an inbalance a much as you can, not tipping the scales the other way.

And if the scales did reach the point of tipping, then and only then would it become an act of injustice to take two green stones and not one of each.

You see if you pretend the injustice doesn't exist you can fool yourself that your doing the right thing because its what if everyone had done from the start would have been right. But the fact is so long as the injustice continues taking even one single red stone is not reddressing the injustice, just not contributing to it.

You see now?

Sheila
11-23-2008, 09:55 AM
There is nothing unjust in what I said.

You see if you pretend the injustice doesn't exist you can fool yourself that your doing the right thing because its what if everyone had done from the start would have been right. But the fact is so long as the injustice continues taking even one single red stone is not reddressing the injustice, just not contributing to it.You see now?

you cannot right wrongs by ignoring or pretending injustices don't exist ................... not can u right them by practising injustices to re-dress a balance you belief to be wrong ............ I am sorry batty but in my humble opinion I think your thinking got a little foggy there ..... and yes I see what you were trtying to point out ........... my point remains

You do not bring about justice by practising injustices ........ no matter what the banner you chose to wave them under ......... INJUSTICE is INJUSTICE period

Shelly Preston
11-23-2008, 10:05 AM
Batty

The trick is to pick the stone that fits no matter what colour it is

That way no one gets special treatment just a fair deal

battybattybats
11-23-2008, 10:25 AM
Again if the scale is still unbalance taking a balanced proportion of stones will not create justice.

Only if you can get the majority of people to hand back a red stone and replace it with a green one can you do that.

And to consider the moral quotiont we must remember that suffering is inflicted by that tipped scale.

Whereas how is there an injustice in taking two green stones while the scale is still tipped against them?

Is it not just and entirely picking up others slack? Taking on the burden created by others?

Is failing to do so not just allowing the injustice to continue?

Thats the important issue at stake.

Why is it more virtuous to take equal amounts from each side resulting in absolutely 0% net gain, in no change on the scales from your action, neither better nor worse in either direction?

Why is making a small shift towards balance, still vastly far from balance but creating the same net gain as 1 other person created of injustice, effectively cancelling out not your own choice but the choice of one other person, why is that wrong?

Because on that scale, taking one red and one green does not shift the scale, it remains exactly where it was in gross inbalance before you made your choice.

Only by taking two green stones do you change the scale towards balance at all, and only so much as 1 other person.

Taking 1 of each is to cancel out your own choice on the scale.

Taking two of red is to contribute to the inbalance.

Taking two of green is to cancel out as much imbalance as just one person taking two red.

If the scales were close to balance taking two of either would be injustice.

But so long as the scales are tipped is not taking one of each maintaining the imbalance? Is not taking two green the only way of redressing in any small portion the imbalance?

Sheila
11-23-2008, 10:37 AM
Batty sometimes things can be simple ............... we have this wonderful ability to comlicate things by thinking far too much :D

battybattybats
11-23-2008, 11:01 AM
Batty sometimes things can be simple ............... we have this wonderful ability to comlicate things by thinking far too much :D

But isn't this simple?
Making it worse Vs making no real difference Vs making a small but real difference?

I mean I could pull out the names of various schools of moral and ethical reasoning like utilitarianism, egalitariansim, social contract theory etc etc and their different mechanisms of detrmining this but i think this is a better way of discussing it with people who haven't had the benefit of studying the subject.

Is that scale analogy not simple, not clear and not damning in its conclusions?

Is not what in a true meritocracy would be fair and virtuous be in full knowledge of the existence of a substantial injustice be in fact being culpable in the prelonging of and therefore existence of that injustice by not fully opposing it?

Isn't it fence-sitting?

Isn't it false-virtue?

Now if TG folk were to hire TG folk just because they are the same as themselves irrespective of relative oppression or at the cost of someone from an even more disadvantaged minority we could call that an injustice.

But to choose to act to redress the balance as much as possible when it is at that time impossible to tip the balance in the other diresction, is that not the only virtuous act possible in those circumstances?

Sheila
11-23-2008, 11:14 AM
Is that scale analogy not simple, not clear and not damning in its conclusions?

I fear not Batty



Now if TG folk were to hire TG folk just because they are the same as themselves irrespective of relative oppression or at the cost of someone from an even more disadvantaged minority we could call that an injustice.

But to choose to act to redress the balance as much as possible when it is at that time impossible to tip the balance in the other diresction, is that not the only virtuous act possible in those circumstances?

no Batty it is not ...... the original suggestion was not about re-dressing balances ............. it was about evolving diversity within the workplace & work market

to choose an ablebodied gender diverse person over a disabled person could be seen as disadvantaging the disabled but ultimaely the reverse stance could also have the same arguement applied.

The original suggestion (mine) was not to disadvantage one group over the other, nor to advantage one group more than the other ............ rather to enable equality within the workplace & work market ................

battybattybats
11-23-2008, 11:34 AM
I fear not Batty

Why not? The everpresent all important why?


no Batty it is not ...... the original suggestion was not about re-dressing balances ............. it was about evolving diversity within the workplace

Yes indeed it was. And as 'affirmative action' has proven in many countries as a reasonably effective manner to reduce workplace inequality yet has not resulted in 'tipping the scales' then is it not utterly appropriate to bring it up as a valid part of the discussion?


to choose an ablebodied gender diverse person over a disabled person could be seen as disadvantaging the disabled but ultimaely the reverse stance could also have the same arguement applied.

Good point. And yet one may measure the relative level of employment discrimination against each in the region and local law or to consider them both as worthy of consideration above able-bodied cis folk and then to choose between the two of them on their abilities from that point.


The original suggestion (mine) was not to disadvantage one group over the other, nor to advantage one group more than the other ............ rather to enable equality within the workplace & work market ................

And yet one group is already advantaged, cis-folk. And yes able-bodied, white, hetero cis folk at the top of the heap and a cascade of disdvantage down with disabled, coloured, queer, transexuals at the bottom of the heap as the poverty, unemployment, homelessness and murder rates all show.

And as we know that currently people are disadvantaged, that people do allow bias to influence their hiring decisions, that the disdvantage is already there then would not affirmative action be a logical response to the injustice?

It's all well and good to pretend their is a meritocracy but the figures show that there is not, that it takes decades to level the playing field and that affirmative action can speed up the process without rendering it unfair in the opposite direction, without tipping the scales over.

Untill we know that the scales are approaching balance should we not seek to redress it as much as possible? Especially for those who suffer multiple disadvantages and yet are capable qualified workers but who are not getting a fair go?

The handicap exists now, the disadvantage is here now.

I'm not suggesting nepotism. I'm suggesting a positive act of justice nothing more.

Also, as discussions on women and discrimination in the workplace on national radio the other week mentioned there exists both overt and covert discrimination in the workplace.

Just having equality rules is not very effective when ways round them can be found, where excuses can be made not to hire or to fire etc people can still discriminate covertly.

So then by affirmative action and the like covert discrimination can be defied for long enough, in sufficient numbers, to get the kind of generational shifts in attitude required to significantl reduce overall discrimination.

Sheila
11-23-2008, 11:44 AM
I'm not suggesting nepotism. I'm suggesting a positive act of justice nothing more.

A Rose by any other name remains a Rose Batty:D

RachelB.
11-23-2008, 04:05 PM
I work for a large international firm and we have gender diversity language in our new hire and associate handbooks. It gets the same emphasis as any other form of discrimination. It also carries the same penalties for violation of the rules.

battybattybats
11-23-2008, 10:49 PM
A Rose by any other name remains a Rose Batty:D

I'm well aware of that. I am not splitting semantic hairs but describing an operative difference between the two.

IF the scales were balance THEN hiring TG people preferentially is Neoptism.

IF the scales are balanced against TG people THEN not hiring TG preferentially is by this argument unjust as it does nothing to redress the balance. It knowingly allows the bias of others to remain unchecked.

Personal virtuous action that does not take into account the injustices caused by others is itself then not virtuous.

Now I realise someone used to the notions of what is supposed to occur in a meritocracy might have trouble understanding how there is an i justice in following such practices and a justice in not doing so under certain circumstances so let me use another example.

There is a school bully.
You are strong.
The school bully is punching people who are not strong in the face.

If you do not join the bully in punching people in the face but simply stand by and allow the bully to punch people in the face then you are showing false-virtue.

If, as you have the power to do so, you confront the bully and protect all those you can, even perhaps going so far as to punch the bully in the face to do so then you are acting with true-virtue.

Now do you see?

Simply allowing the problem to remain but not dirtying your hands with the wrong itself is to be complicit in the wrongs existence by inaction.

But by doing all in your power to prevent as much wrong as you can is your true obligation.

Sheila
11-23-2008, 11:47 PM
I'm well aware of that. I am not splitting semantic hairs but describing an operative difference between the two.
IF the scales were balance THEN hiring TG people preferentially is Neoptism.
IF the scales are balanced against TG people THEN not hiring TG preferentially is by this argument unjust as it does nothing to redress the balance. It knowingly allows the bias of others to remain unchecked.

Now do you see?

Batty I am able to see your arguement quite clearly ...... however I disagree with your conclusions ........ A rose by any other name, as we have agreed is still the same ............ consequently Nepotism remains that .... NEPOTISM no matter how you try to justify it



Simply allowing the problem to remain but not dirtying your hands with the wrong itself is to be complicit in the wrongs existence by inaction.

But by doing all in your power to prevent as much wrong as you can is your true obligation.

It may very well be my true obligation, but not at the expense of committing another wrong, and if you are procativly trying to improve things I fail to see how it can be called inaction, or simply allowing the problem to remain ....... however wrong the balance is at the moment re-dressing it must be done without neglecting our obligations to those already in the situation we are attempting to level .... else we our selves become unjust in the process .... a fine line to tread but one we must.

Rachel B am glad to hear it ............ does it work well and easily ?

battybattybats
11-24-2008, 01:12 AM
Batty I am able to see your arguement quite clearly ...... however I disagree with your conclusions ........ A rose by any other name, as we have agreed is still the same ............ consequently Nepotism remains that .... NEPOTISM no matter how you try to justify it

Sigh. theres a different term for it cause its not nepotism. it's called affirmatuve action. it operates on different principles and functions to nepotism.

Neoptism, which is common in small business employment these days, is where friends and family members and people of already existing privilege are employed instead of others. Affirmative action is where disadvantaged people have some of that disadvantage counter-acted to create a more level playing field.

Just because Vodka and Hydrochloric Acid are liquid and clear that does not make either of them water!


It may very well be my true obligation, but not at the expense of committing another wrong, and if you are procativly trying to improve things I fail to see how it can be called inaction, or simply allowing the problem to remain ....... however wrong the balance is at the moment re-dressing it must be done without neglecting our obligations to those already in the situation we are attempting to level .... else we our selves become unjust in the process .... a fine line to tread but one we must.

In what way exactly is affirmative action unjust or wrong? Specificly! What is the causal operative function of harm? Explain why and how it is unjust!

Especially considering a qualified person of privilege has a much better chance of gaining employment if passed on whereas a person who is qualified but not as qualified as the privileged person is unlikely to find another unbiased employer currently.

And to really bring the point to bear the fact is that TG people have often a much lower level of education as they are often bullied out of school and college so in fact a person with the same level of natural aptitude and intrinsic talents who is TG will likely be less formally qualifed especially if they belong to more than one under-priviliged group.

So even by judging people on their education qualifications you are still supporting the bias and advantage the privileged have already enjoyed while compounding the oppression and disadvantage of the TG people.

So again as affirmative action has in many countries made significant inroads into employment discrimination yet still not reached equal balanced levels then why is it in any function unjust and not simply a mechanism of justice?

You can keep calling it wrong but you must be able to show how and why it is wrong!

tanyalynn51
11-24-2008, 02:51 PM
I hope to have my own homeless shelter someday, and I would open employment up to everyone, not just because of who I am, but because there are people on the streets who deal with a lot of similar issues, on top of sexuality issues. There need to be places for everyone.:hugs:

Melissa A.
11-24-2008, 04:41 PM
Katie, yes you are correct in that is my opinion.

What would have happened in the past? To be truthful, I have no idea.

What I do know is that directors and officers have a fiduciary responsibility (i.e., a legal requirement) to maximize the wealth of the stockholders. Period. That is the job.

It is my view that it is not the job of business to change the world. Business is merely a reflection of the current state of the world.

This view is a bit narrow. Everyone knows business school 101. But diversity, safety, environmentalism, freedom from harrassment, and many other things like them, that at first look, don't make profits, are all issues that most employers take really seriously. Not just because they have to, in many cases, but being on the cutting edge of social change is usually a pr plus, leads to happy employees, and a sense of belonging by everyone. Things that certainly don't hurt productivity. Just as being gay is now a non-issue just about everywhere, You will find VERY few medium to large businesses today that give a darn if an employee wears women's clothing on their own time. And more every day are accepting transitioning transexuals as part of the workplace phenomenon. In fact many are starting to add Hormone therapy and GRS to their healthcare provider's plans. I myself have an outside shot at getting GRS covered, and my Hormone therapy already is. My compny knows about my impending transition, and has assured me they will not tolerate any harrassment or intimidation. No, it's not business' job to change the world. But more often than not, being on the progressive side of social change makes good business sense. And if an employer recieves bad press for behaving the other way, I say hurray.

Hugs,

Melissa:)

Intertwined
12-08-2008, 04:37 AM
I work for a rather large employer, over 4,000 employees.

The following is a portion of our non-discrimation clause

prohibits unlawful discrimination against and/or harassment of employees or job applicants on the basis of their sex, actual or perceived gender or perceived sexual orientation, race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, pregnancy, physical or mental disability, medical condition, or veteran status.

Did my employer know I was a crossdresser when they hired me? No.

Do they know now, thats probably a yes, I have painted nails and carry a purse while working. I have on occation gone into work in a skirt and/or heels, but change before clocking in. On that note, the other day when I came into work in a skirt and was headed for the restroom, a fellow employee said "I see your in costume again" my reply was "no, this is the real me, I am going to get into costume and clock in".

This does not seem to have affected my position in the company, a few years ago I was voted Employee of the year.

battybattybats
12-08-2008, 06:28 AM
Intertwined, that's awesome!

We should when possible give preferentially our business to companies that support us.

Thats what anti-TG and anti-gay groups do, so we should do likewise.
Especially as there are quite a lot of CDs out there giving us a lot of economic power.

Intertwined
12-08-2008, 09:58 AM
Intertwined, that's awesome!

We should when possible give preferentially our business to companies that support us.

Thats one of the reasons my wife and I avoid Walmart, we do not like the way they treat there employees in general.

I owned my own business several years ago, I knew from my father, you need to treat your employees properly for you business to thrive.

Especially in this day and age, since we are a much more informed customer, and as the saying goes "Knoledge is Power"

On a side note, from posts hear and on other threads, your one of the most powerful persons I think ive met Batty! :o

Anna the Dub
12-08-2008, 05:25 PM
I have had no problems at all so far. HR changed all my details, all my colleagues use feminine pronouns all the time, and recently I have been promoted (with a payrise too). I complain about the place all the time (who doesn't about their job), but I have to say that they have been very fair with me up to now.

Suzy Harrison
12-08-2008, 05:35 PM
Now that I've outed myself to my company managers, Transgender Equal Opportunities is now included in the initial training that everyone has to attend and also in the company policy. So there is hope.

Jamie001
12-08-2008, 09:03 PM
Are you with a large company? If so, there are probably other folks like us. I was doing some work with Sun Microsystems several years ago, and met several TG Software Engineers.

:hugs: Jamie


I work for a rather large employer, over 4,000 employees.

The following is a portion of our non-discrimation clause

prohibits unlawful discrimination against and/or harassment of employees or job applicants on the basis of their sex, actual or perceived gender or perceived sexual orientation, race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, pregnancy, physical or mental disability, medical condition, or veteran status.

Did my employer know I was a crossdresser when they hired me? No.

Do they know now, thats probably a yes, I have painted nails and carry a purse while working. I have on occation gone into work in a skirt and/or heels, but change before clocking in. On that note, the other day when I came into work in a skirt and was headed for the restroom, a fellow employee said "I see your in costume again" my reply was "no, this is the real me, I am going to get into costume and clock in".

This does not seem to have affected my position in the company, a few years ago I was voted Employee of the year.

battybattybats
12-09-2008, 02:25 AM
Especially in this day and age, since we are a much more informed customer, and as the saying goes "Knoledge is Power"

On a side note, from posts hear and on other threads, your one of the most powerful persons I think ive met Batty! :o

Aww thanks :o :hugs:

But power is only as valuable as it's use. Being disabled I rely upon the taxes of others for my food and shelter and frilly underthings. So I try to find ways to contribute, to pay my way in one form or another to give back to society as best I can.

So with posts here and elsewhere on the net, with my contributions to the Australian Human Rights Commissions Sex and Gender Diversity project, with the letters I've been writing to politicians this month I hope that I can pay back a little.

I heard there was a list of TG inclusive big businesses but don't recall where. It might be useful to include it in this discussion both as a help to those who want to use their money to support TG inclusive businesses and also for those trying to convince their own company that others have done so without harming business.

Edit: I hope someone comes back to this post so this edit to avoid the no-double-post rule won't be for naught.
http://discussionleader.hbsp.com/ics/2008/10/when-steve-becomes-stephanie.html#experts.