*raises hand*
Or at least I would prefer a trans-gendered male, who looks like a man, to a woman.
"Transgender N.J. man sues over firing from job requiring men only"
- Thread starter Elrohir
- Start date
Or at least I would prefer a trans-gendered male, who looks like a man, to a woman.
NickyJ
Retired Narrator
Welcome to the U.S. of A., where you can "slip on the right driveway, and you can become a millionaire." Be sure to keep a lawyer handy, to either sue for someone's estate, or to keep someone from suing for your estate.
I would not mind it for none of the above reasons... thats life, their loss, mine not that much
Point being (aside from not looking for work with someone who employs people for some other reason than to make money), all of this may be stupid reasons to fire somebody, but it is still the right an employer has to have.
Setting the standard, birthers have filed at least 74 lawsuits related to O'Bama and lost 73. One is still pending.Welcome to the U.S. of A., where you can "slip on the right driveway, and you can become a millionaire." Be sure to keep a lawyer handy, to either sue for someone's estate, or to keep someone from suing for your estate.
http://www.thefogbow.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=2838
So an employer has a right to hire whoever he wants without any discrimination laws? So imagine the majority of employers are interested in people who don't fit your description? They should have that right? They should be allowed to discriminate against you for whatever reason they see fit? You aren't the right race, gender, religion, political background, that's fine,
Yes, they should "be allowed"
They naturally in general would not "discriminate", because they are after all trying to make money (not searching friends) and employ people who bring in the most for the given cost, but that is of secondary importance
If they want that right, they should specifically negotiate for it and get it written in the employment contract. What kind of business expects to be able to exercise contractual rights that aren't written in a contract?
Again, employer is not a slave master that accepts obligations to provide work and income for the other party until other party desires it (for life), employment is a contract to pay for a certain amount of work of certain quality with certain amount of money
If worker or an employer agree to anything else like life long employment, that should be written in that contract - not the other way around
Any law going against that, regulating that contract and giving workers benefits (benefits my ass, nobody is more hurt by that bull.sh.it than an average worker) is just plain ******ed
Basic contract law holds that a good faith standard comes into play when the contract is silent. That is the only way to be fair to both parties to a contract. Thus is an employer is dumb enough not to contract for the right to terminate the contract for a bad reason, they are in breach of contract when they do terminate in such a way.
RedRalph
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2007
- Messages
- 20,708
If this is the case then his points make a lot more sense. Guy's got a dick, Patroklos.
Mise
isle of lucy
I don't know actually, the article is unclear. It does say he underwent surgery, but the employer claims that he "did not have the parts of a man". Whatever that means.
Mise
isle of lucy
The article explicitly said surgery. It was in the same sentence where you read "hormone treatment".
Patroklos
Deity
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2003
- Messages
- 12,721
It was ambiguous as to what surgery. If was gender reassignment surgery any self respecting reporter would have said so and its key to this person's case. The fact that they went out of their way to be vague leads me to believe they are talking about more minor stuff like breast implants/reductions or cosmetic facial surgery to get the look right which are far more common to transgendered types as gender reassignment is prohibitively expensive.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110411/ap_on_re_us/us_transgender_lawsuit
But that does raise another issue: should we treat a transgender person as their choice before or after their 'prohibitively expensive' surgery?
But that does raise another issue: should we treat a transgender person as their choice before or after their 'prohibitively expensive' surgery?
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
'Sex reassignment' surgery. But its still not descriptive enough to tell whether this was just something like breast reduction or the full-meal deal of trying to construct a penis out of a vagina.
Btw, my wife and I watched a very interesting documentary on this not long ago. It involved a woman having surgery to become a man, and a man having surgery to become a woman. Neither of their experiences were what you would call 'pleasant' and both had significant ongoing medical issues along with their surgerys (the one trying to become a guy continually had his prosthetic balls being rejected and falling out). We both got the impression that people opting to do this were doing so at great risk to their own health, and that often the grass wasnt quite as green on the other side as they had imagined it to be.
Also, just in my opinion, I'm not sure I would call a vagina turned inside out with an inserted prosthetic an actual 'penis' anyway....not anymore than I would call a sock in your undies one.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
I guess my comment was attempting to be supportive of my earlier comment about an employer having a right to know such significant health issues of a potential employee, and this person should have disclosed their trans-gender issues upon employment, and not tried to keep it hid.
Probably not, but the grass on the side they're born on is not better. To put it this way, transsexual people are damned to a life of agony and suffering. Surgery or not, they don't have a place they belong to in the world. If the guy says he's a woman, he's lying to himself. If the guy says he's a man, he's accused of lying by you guys. With all due respect, I don't think you army types can understand their ordeals - unless you are gay.
Cheetah
Deity
Why?
Surely they'd both be able to do their job professionally?
Then we're discussing when it is alright to discriminate based on what people are comfortable with?
Err... Ideally, there should be a sex-reassignment surgery center, complete with offices to take care of all the legal paperwork: In as one sex, out as the other.
But for now? Not sure. Depends on context I suppose...
