A California bill working its way through the state legislature providing more protection for transgender individuals in the workplace could allow for cross-dressing employees to wear whatever they want to work, despite workplace dress codes.
AB 887, which passed through the state's Assembly on May 16, is causing a stir among critics who feel it's raising the identity of a transgender individual to the same level as one's ethnicity or gender.
"If you talk to the average (human resources) manager and ask if there would be any disturbances if a man came dressed as a woman one week and then as a man the next, I think the (HR) rep would say 'yeah, this would be disruptive to the workplace,' " said Brad Daucus, a California attorney and president of the Pacific Justice Institute. “It will inherently cause customers to be uncomfortable and not want to do business.”
"raising the identity of a transgender individual to the same level as one's ethnicity or gender"
ReplyDeleteOh, heaven forbid.
6:38, while I'm somewhat liberal, the idea that one is free to wear or act like whichever sex they want IN THE WORKPLACE is hogwash. I'm comfortable in baggy jeans and a black tee with my fro' out, but would NEVER expect to be able to come to work like this, let alone be taken seriously if I did. What the hell makes a cross dresser think he/she is different? Wear all the dresses you want on the weekend, but come to work looking professional and ready to blend in with the office culture. Ultimately its about presenting a team image and emphasizing the product/service being sold, not whatever statement (fashion or social) that you want to make.
ReplyDeleteIts not about making a statement if you are transgendered. They are just being themselves. They dress in the clothing of the gender they identify with. Who cares if you aren't comfortable with it? The world does not revolve around you. Get over it. As far as running off customers? Hell, you might make some new customers if you hired some TG staff. Just a thought. Companies are far too rigid in their dress codes and are afraid of what others might think of them. Never do they realize that being more open minded might HELP their business. :o) Lighten up, people. They didn't say they could wear thongs and tube tops. Just that men can dress as women and vice versa if they are so inclined. As long as the attire is professional office attire then I see no problem. :0)
ReplyDeleteIf I know about a business allowing that, I will go somewhere else.
ReplyDelete7:41, "just being themselves", yes, just like my baggy jeans and fro example. So lets make all dress codes illegal while we're at it. If somebody doesn't like it, they can take their patronage somewhere else. LOL
ReplyDeleteYou are full of crap. If it's MY business, MY money invested, MY products/services, its MY perogative how I want MY employees to represent MY company when working on MY dime! If they don't like it, THEY can go work somewhere else.
No, the baggy jeans would be unprofessional dress for the workplace so your example does not parallel the situation. If you are transgendered then you would follow the dress code of the opposite sex. Simple as that. A transgendered man might wear a Hillary Clintonesque skirt/suit. I may be full of crap, in your opinion, but you are clearly full of hate. If there is someone who is qualified for a position that you are offering, it would be unethical to deny them that job based on their transgender status. I think you are just afraid of something that you don't understand. Just relax, change is on the way. :o) You'll learn to accept people once you get to know them.
ReplyDelete??
ReplyDeleteFull of hate? Again you missed where I previously specifically said that transgender folks can wear whatever they want to on their own free time. The whole LGBT community to can do whatever they want on their own free time, including getting married, it's none of my business. But forcing me to allow you as a man to wear heels/skirt/pants suit are all things the vast majority of my customer base would be turned off to. Therefore I shouldn't be forced to risk my business for your own personal choice of sex that you wanted to identify with. Again, if I had a serious problem with not being allowed to dress how I liked, I would find a new job. Dudes who actually wish to come to work in skirts should find new employment. Nothing hateful about that Nancy.
The next step is protection for pedophiles.
ReplyDeleteIf I owned my own business I would not care what sexuality my employees were; HOWEVER....no man of my staff will wear skirts and/or halter tops, etc. and no women will wear supremely noticeable male clothing like do rags, etc. Dress the gender you are not what you want to be. Professional.
ReplyDelete10:35 - "Nothing hateful about that Nancy."
ReplyDeleteYour hate is showing. You seem to think that Transgendered people are just doing this for kicks. . .like a pastime! HAHA NO. . .these folks believe that they are the opposite sex. It is in the DSM-IV. It is who they are. If a man feels like he is a woman and has a diagnosis based on the DSM-IV then that man should be able to dress according to his perceived gender in any setting. Most of our time is spent at work. You would take their right to be themselves away for most of their day. They would have to live a double life just because you don't feel comfortable with them. You THINK that your customers would care but i'm guessing it is more your problem. A little history lesson: Back in civil war times, a transgendered man named Albert Cashier fought for the Union. "Albert" was born Jennie Irene Hodgers. Albert was captured once but fought off a prison guard and made it back to Union lines. I think you should show a bit more respect to the TG community as some of them fought and died for our country in which you live. You would sell a whole group of people up the river to make a buck. These people are as much an American as you. Learn to love, my friend. :o)
12:17 - Pedophiles rape children. I don't see the connection.
Peace.
most trannys dress better than tubby frumpy office gals
ReplyDeletebring them on
thats the spirit, 5:26
ReplyDeleteI will not tolerate this crap and will attack it head on violently.
ReplyDelete7:54 - go on, tell us more about your planned violent attack against the transgendered community.
ReplyDelete:o)
First of all, we're not talking about just "transgendered" people. We're also talking about transvestites.
ReplyDeleteSecond, I think that anyone who proposes that someone standing up for property rights (the owner has a right to dictate his employee's attire) is somehow "full of hate" is "full of crap".
"We're also talking about transvestites."
ReplyDeleteThat is what Fox News would have you believe but this is simply NOT the case. This article goes back and forth between the terms "transgender" and "cross-dressing" more than once, so it's intentionally confusing. Those who are transgendered aren't "cross-dressing," they're dressing as the sex that they identify themselves as, and there should be nothing wrong with that. They, however, use the terms interchangeably. This shows me that the author of the article was either ignorant or fear mongering. One who is actually transgendered won't come to work one week dressed as a woman, then just switch to dressing like a man, that's not how it works. They would live their lives as the gender with which they self identify. Most cross dressers self identify as their own gender and are straight. Most cross dressers do so in the privacy of their own home. They may also occasionally try to "pass" in public but would avoid places where they would be recognized by people who know them. Definitely would not go to work dressed as the opposite sex. So, we are talking about transgendered people here being protected. People who live their entire lives as the opposite sex.
"Second, I think that anyone who proposes that someone standing up for property rights (the owner has a right to dictate his employee's attire) is somehow "full of hate" is "full of crap"."
Do the property owners have a right to dictate gender? Of course not! A man who has self identified as a woman should be able to wear clothing within the dress code requirements for women: The bill retains the section of California’s Government Code that states that employers may enforce “workplace appearance, grooming, and dress standards.” See Government Code Section 12949
California non-discrimination laws define "gender" to mean sex including a person's gender identity (how they see themselves) and gender expression (how other people see them). We are talking about transgendered people here. People who identify as the opposite sex. Cross dressers or transvestic fetishists are not protected under this legislation because they do not self identify as the opposite sex.
AB 887 will take EXISTING PROTECTIONS based on gender identity and expression and enumerate these protected categories in specified non-discrimination laws. By making these protections explicit, people will more clearly understand California’s nondiscrimination laws.
This bill also works to prohibit housing discrimination, which is a major problem for transgender Americans.
The bill passed through the State Assembly with overwhelming support.
. . .and thats the truth Fox News will keep you from understanding. Sorry for the long post, G.A. but I just wanted to clarify some things about the bill for you.
:o)