"Transgender N.J. man sues over firing from job requiring men only"

A transgender person doesn't just decide one day to change sexes and then give it up the next day. It's a long life-changing process. Someone can change their gender but changing species is impossible. Most transgender people feel that they are the opposite gender from the time they're children.

It's not so simple as 2 genders. There are also intersexual people or hermaphrodites besides transgender people. They didn't ask to be born that way.
 
And why should someone who has put themselves in a position of having to pee in a cup have a say on who monitors the process?
 
El_Machinae said:
When asked if he had surgery, he refused to answer (instead of lying).
Click to expand...

What kinda of interview asks if you have had transgender surgery?!?
 
Yeah unless someone totally looks like a tranny most people wouldn't think to ask. Maybe if I was interviewing someone who looked and sounded like Bea Arthur or Taylor Hanson but even then I'd just assume it was none of my business.
 
Patroklos said:
I person can want to be something all day, that does not make them such. I could care less whether she wants to be a girl or gal, she is a gal.

If I understand the article correctly she is pre op anyway, so she is biologically a women. I am not really concerned with what she was born as, but what she is and if she has female parts she is a female. Case closed. She knew exactly what the application was asking for, she was trying to pull a fast one.

Our two gender world is perfectly fine, if people want to willfully divorcet themselves from it is certainly a right they should have but the rest of us have no mandate to flex to it.
Click to expand...

Ah, you missed the part of the OP specifying that he'd gotten the surgery already.
 
Elrohir said:
Thoughts?

On the one hand, this guy is, legally speaking, a man. Since that apparently goes so far as the modification of the birth certificate, I'm not sure that the law can creditably allow for distinguishment between him and someone who was born a male.

On the other hand, this is only a bona fide occupational requirement because of people's comfort zones -- there's no innate reason why women can't perform this job. The only reason employers are legally allowed to discriminate against women in cases like this (And presumably, men in situations involving women) is because many people would be made uncomfortable by having a member of the opposite sex observe them in such a way. But I know plenty of other people who would be just as uncomfortable, if not more so, if they were observed by a transgender person. So if people's comfort levels are a reasonably enough basis to discriminate against one protected status (Being someone of a particular gender) why not another (being someone who is transgendered)?

So I think the most consistent thing to do would be to carry his "What matters is not who I am, but how I do the job" argument to its logical conclusion, and ban any form of discrimination based on gender for jobs of this type. But that's not a solution I'm personally happy with, and I can't imagine many other people would be either. (I can, in particular, imagine a lot of women being extremely uncomfortable with heterosexual men watching them.)

Thoughts? Solutions? Random outrage from people who didn't read the article?
Click to expand...

As employment is a negotiated contract between two parties every employer has a right to exit from that relationship and to fire anybody for whatever reason he wants (gender, race and political views included)

All the rest is ...
 
knez said:
As employment is a negotiated contract between two parties every employer has a right to exit from that relationship and to fire anybody for whatever reason he wants (gender, race and political views included)

All the rest is ...
Click to expand...
Doesn't a contract have two sides? Does the concept of breach of contract come into play? If the contract is silent on termination, should the contractual concept of good faith come into play as a substitute for the silence of the subject? What if the law alters or limits the ability to terminate a contract?
 
NovaKart said:
Warpus, I'm assuming that this is a situation where people are required to do drug tests as parole or something else that is court ordered.
Click to expand...

Or some sort of a weird German or Japanese amusement park. With all these scenarios in mind this makes a bit more sense

Patrlokos said:
Should the dog people be legally declared a seperate species?
Click to expand...

If the law considers them to be a separate species, then legally speaking they are a separate species.

In this case the law sees this guy as a man.. so.. legally speaking he's a man.
 
JollyRoger said:
Doesn't a contract have two sides?
Click to expand...
Yes
Does the concept of breach of contract come into play?
Click to expand...
Yes, but the contract isn't breached if employee is fired. It is breached if the worker doesn't get his wage, or employer doesn't get the service he is paying for. Employee is not a slave, and employer is not a master, they have no whatsoever obligations to the other then to work / pay for work.
If the contract is silent on termination, should the contractual concept of good faith come into play as a substitute for the silence of the subject?
Click to expand...
Read above
What if the law alters or limits the ability to terminate a contract?
Click to expand...
Law is clearly stupid and also limits the freedom of man...
 
knez said:
As employment is a negotiated contract between two parties every employer has a right to exit from that relationship and to fire anybody for whatever reason he wants (gender, race and political views included)

All the rest is ...
Click to expand...

An employer is allowed to fire someone for the reason of race, gender or political views???? Maybe where you come from.
 
NovaKart said:
An employer is allowed to fire someone for the reason of race, gender or political views???? Maybe where you come from.
Click to expand...

Country which in general unfortunately does not share my views...
Results are visible...

Btw I forgot to mention age
 
Is Croatia a part of the EU? If so, don't they have to follow anti-discrimination laws?
 
Back to the topic:

How lame do you even have to be to sue someone because he fired you. Is that something a guy would even do? I mean, if somebody does not wont you around, you sue him in order to force him to be around you or give you money or whatever?

Maybe it's just me, but no man would ever do this. Woman perhaps. And that says something about our topic :D
 
knez said:
Back to the topic:

How lame do you even have to be to sue someone because he fired you. Is that something a guy would even do? I mean, if somebody does not wont you around, you sue him in order to force him to be around you or give you money or whatever?

Maybe it's just me, but no man would ever do this. Woman perhaps. And that says something about our topic :D
Click to expand...
Men sue men all for time for breach of contract and other breaches of rights all the time. What kind of man is going to let some state-chartered entity take advantage of him without fighting back?
 
Imagine someone fired you for being a Croat when he wanted a Serb -- ethnic discrimination

Someone wanted to hire a pretty lady to work in a bank so he fired you --- gender discrimination

Someone fired you because you support a political candidate and he likes another one - political discrimination

See where this is going? Do you think any of this is a good thing?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

IglooDame
GRCs, NHS, and Being a Transgender Adult in the UK
2 3
Replies
57
Views
3K
Cloud_Strife
Cloud_Strife
T
  • Locked
[RD] Gender is a social construct.
10 11 12
Replies
225
Views
7K
leif erikson
leif erikson
Zardnaar
Jury Duty?
2
Replies
22
Views
930
Gori the Grey
Gori the Grey
Birdjaguar
Influencers
2
Replies
22
Views
1K
Moff Jerjerrod
Moff Jerjerrod
C
DeSantis Cuts and Runs, Backs Trump.
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
Hygro
Hygro
Top Bottom