State Must Extend Legal Protections To Transgender Residents

Joined: Jan 12, 2009

Comments: 1020

Central NJ

ISP: Keyport, NJ

NO, No, You're not getting away with that! Diane Schroer HAD The job! Then it was pulled away when her boss found out she was going to transition.
In other words, the only reason she lost it was because she was transexual and they didn't want any freaks around! They came up with some very elequent and rational reasons for their discision, But fortunately, they were not able to trump what the court saw as a violation of title VII.
Regards, Terry

yet he's right. We've all interviewed for jobs we didn't get but we didn't cry over it and then sue for cash.

Independent voter

Cheshire, CT

Hazumu Osaragi wrote:

<quoted text>
It becomes a 'transgender thing' when the medical experts and family guess wrong and 'fix' the child into a gender that is not that of their brains. Then they really are 'trapped in the wrong body, but the parents, medical specialists and surgeons are the ones that trapped them there.
Look up the case of David Reimer:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer

Wrong again, It's not a transgender thing and your very misleading and very wrong.

bam bam

TerryE wrote:

Since SHE was emminently qualified for the job, why not just give it to her in the first place?
Regards, Terry
<quoted text>

Then why not just sue for the job and skip the settlement part?

Joined: Jan 12, 2009

Comments: 1020

Central NJ

ISP: Keyport, NJ

I would have taken the money too! Why? To drive home the point that no one's going to abuse us and if they do they know it can get expensive.
Regards, Terry

bam bam wrote:

<quoted text>
Then why not just sue for the job and skip the settlement part?

Joined: Jan 12, 2009

Comments: 1020

Central NJ

ISP: Keyport, NJ

The case of John Money/David Reimer is very interesting. It demonstrates many aspects that we've been insisting on, that few will listen to.
Especially the "gender is mutable" theory. Gender is not mutable! Once your gender has formed, it's set in stone. Even if it is wrong. David Reimer had all the girl parts and chemistry and loving support from his family. It was not him! No matter how many hormones you pumped into him, you always wound up with a boy who hated his imposed gender. He was a Man-Made Transexual. Spin that around to a "Natural born" Transexual whom society imposes the wrong gender on. You have the same unhappy person wanting to get themselves changed. Regrettably, when frustrated, these too, often end in suicide as did David Reimers.

Gender is not changeable.

Some people have brains that don't match their birth/imposed gender. David Reimers was an example of this.

People must be allowed to choose their gender when there's a question.

Gender problems are real and can be devastating. Especially as we go to school.

For the whole story, google David Reimers or Dr John Money or As god made him.

Many people, who are basically ignorant on gender related matters, will take the wrong message from this. So please as your'e reading this, bear in mind that Transexuals have female brain structures. Our brains are female to start with. They are not whats being changed. The body is what's being brought in line with the mind.
Regards, Terry

Independent voter wrote:

<quoted text>
Wrong again, It's not a transgender thing and your very misleading and very wrong.

Vagabond Nurse

Waltham, MA

Diane Schroer had already been given the job with the Library of Congress. About a week before she was to start the job she was having lunch with her boss from the Library when she disclosed the information that she was going to transition from David to Diane. The next day her job offer was rescinded. Sounds like a pretty clear cut case of discrimination to me.

The cash settlement just goes to help reimburse her for all the time, effort and lost wages accrued while suing the government. The suit was filed in June 2005 and not ruled upon until September 2008, sounds like lost wages to me. Not to mention the cost of all the legal fees during the case.

Transgender people are discriminated against everyday and these protections are desperately needed. When I announced my own transition at work years ago immediately about 1/3 of the physicians I worked with began treating me as if I were a leper. These were people I had been laughing and joking with the week before. For 2 years I endured their constant jeers and demeaning comments (a jab here, a poke there) until I finally wouldn't put up with it anymore. Management refused to follow-up on anything so I left and am much happier for it.

Around 3 years ago the governing body of American physicians the American Medical Association added "gender identity and expression" to their nondiscrimination policy. Last year the AMA called for health insurance companies to cover the expenses related to gender transition. Sounds like they are more progressive than a lot of the people here.

bam bam

Judged:

TerryE wrote:

I would have taken the money too! Why? To drive home the point that no one's going to abuse us and if they do they know it can get expensive.
Regards, Terry
<quoted text>

It's more about using a "condition" to sue and line your pockets.

bam bam

Judged:

TerryE wrote:

I would have taken the money too! Why? To drive home the point that no one's going to abuse us and if they do they know it can get expensive.
Regards, Terry
<quoted text>

If you want to drive home a point then sue & give the $$ to a charity instead of enriching yourself.

You still get the job, and aren't being greedy.

Now that would make a point.

Hazumu Osaragi

Emelye Waldherr wrote:

I see a lot of ignorance and emotional garbage being thrown around as excuses to oppose this nondiscrimination law but I see no logical rational arguments. Figures, because there really aren't any.

Actually, the Right Wing Authoritarians (the psychologist's terminology for the people you describe,) DO have a 'logic' to their stance.

Progressives and conservatives might as well be from different planets. Each thinks the other is ignorant/stupid/crazy/insane.

Start here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/opinion/28k...
with the article titled, "Would You Slap Your Father? If So, You’re a Liberal".

Conservative worldview is built on reverence for established authority and order, and conservatives experience a much higher level of disgust at things that don't fit that worldview. For instance, if they watch someone melt chocolate (under scrupulous sanitary conditions,) and pour the chocolate into scrupulously sanitized molds, they will refuse to eat the chocolate when they discover the mold produces chocolate that LOOKS like cat or dog dung. It's pure chocolate, but the resemblance produces a disgust reaction they can't get over. Similarly, there are insects that are actually nutritious, and there are cultures that consume them. But a conservative with a super-sensitive disgust-ometer will not eat insects that have been thoroughly sterelized in an autoclave, no matter how hungry they are. They won't eat soup that has been stirred with a brand-new, never used and thoroughly sterilized before use toilet bowl brush. You get the idea...

Their world-order has no homosexuals (and to them, transsexuals are industrial-strength homosexuals.) They experience an extreme disgust reaction when they are made aware of or in the presence of a transsexual.

Part of that reaction is the hyper-sexualization of transsexuals. They can't not think of having intercourse with the transsexual (it's enticing, because of their hypersexualization of transsexuals.) and they have a simultaneous reaction of extreme disgust.

No wonder they react violently.

And that's why their attempts at logically and rationally defending their position are so pathetic.

bam bam

Judged:

Hazumu Osaragi wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, the Right Wing Authoritarians (the psychologist's terminology for the people you describe,) DO have a 'logic' to their stance.

Right wing authoritarians?

How about left wing moon-bats?

You speaking about the logic of conservatives carries about as much weight as me talking about the logic of transexuals.

Just as I am clueless about transexuals, so are you clueless about conservatives.

Fido

Glastonbury, CT

Roisia wrote:

<quoted text>
In my transition, I've taken 1 week Vacation (which i was going to take any ways) I'll probably take another week or two vacation when it comes to GRS. A who two or three weeks of Vacation that I have rotting away because im saving it for GRS. Its not much and i didnt even have to take that first week i just did it so my job could have a little more time to figure out how to handle it. That was in addition to the 6 months i gave them before hand.

The person in the story was interviewing for a position, so why should he get it if he already knows he'll need 3 to 5 weeks off total?

If I was interviewing for a position and I told them that I was going to need several weeks off then I wouldn't expect to get the job. But of course I can't start claiming discrimination either. I'd just have to go home disappointed and keep looking.

Some people are looking for something to blame for everything. If a person is going through operations to transform physically from one gender to another then maybe they should realize that getting a new position at that time just insn't the brightest thing to do.

Fido

Glastonbury, CT

TerryE wrote:

NO, No, You're not getting away with that! Diane Schroer HAD The job! Then it was pulled away when her boss found out she was going to transition.
In other words, the only reason she lost it was because she was transexual and they didn't want any freaks around! They came up with some very elequent and rational reasons for their discision, But fortunately, they were not able to trump what the court saw as a violation of title VII.
Regards, Terry
<quoted text>

No. They probably wanted somebody who was going to actually be ON the job and not taking time off for procedures and operations and doctor's appointments.

Roisia

“Even an Ice Princess can melt.”

Joined: Apr 6, 2009

Comments: 1957

Turlock, Ca

ISP: Colorado Springs, CO

Fido wrote:

<quoted text>
The person in the story was interviewing for a position, so why should he get it if he already knows he'll need 3 to 5 weeks off total?
If I was interviewing for a position and I told them that I was going to need several weeks off then I wouldn't expect to get the job. But of course I can't start claiming discrimination either. I'd just have to go home disappointed and keep looking.
Some people are looking for something to blame for everything. If a person is going through operations to transform physically from one gender to another then maybe they should realize that getting a new position at that time just insn't the brightest thing to do.

Because transitioning takes over a year and its his vacation to do with as he pleases.

Hazumu Osaragi

bam bam wrote:

Just as I am clueless about transexuals, so are you clueless about conservatives.

<smi-i-ile>

I'm getting to bam bam.

He doesn't know for a fact what my politics are, he just assumes I must be a liberal. Ergo, Strawman Fallacy.

http://members.shaw.ca/jeanaltemeyer/drbob/Th...

The above document is quite interesting if you want to get a handle on what makes social conservatives tick.

The following books by Steven Pinker will help:
The Blank Slate
How the Mind Works
The Stuff of Thought
(The first chapters are tough going as he sets things up, but it's well worth it as his explanations and demonstrations on what REALLY make us tick are fascinating.)

Then there are the books by George Lakoff:
Moral Politics
Whose Freedom
Don't Think of an Elephant
He explains why conservatives will expend tons of energy on protecting the unborn while denying prenatal, postnatal, and toddler care services -- and are for tough laws and the death penalty and against sex education and birth control.

bam bam can say I don't know conservatives, but that don't make it true.

BTW, bam bam, what does your crystal ball say is my sexual orientation -- as in which gender do I like to have fun in bed with?(don't think of an elephant...)

Hazumu Osaragi

RE: the Diane Schroer case.

Fido wrote:

<quoted text>
No. They probably wanted somebody who was going to actually be ON the job and not taking time off for procedures and operations and doctor's appointments.

Diane was not to start work until three months after the acceptance of offer. Coincidentally, she and her therapist had agreed she would begin living full time 24/7 as Diane the week or two following the acceptance of offer. So she had three months to take care of a myriad of details that come up when one begins the full time Real Life Experience, and would be able to show up on the first day of work with all that behind her.

She did not deceive. She wanted to alert the employer that the capable person they had hired would be there on the first day of work. But there would be a few changes.

As only two or three people knew her as David, it WOULD have been easy to introduce her to the other employees as Diane. Once she had been established and people were used to Diane, the fact that she was born male would be less of a problem than watching her transition before their very eyes.

I took vacation time for my surgery, and scheduled it for a very slow time of the year. My supervisors, managers and coworkers were very supportive.

Hazumu Osaragi

Roisia wrote:

Because transitioning takes over a year and its his vacation to do with as he pleases.

HER vacation, Her, HER. Pronouns and respect. We need you to participate, to counter those who feel that disrespecting transgenders is their right and their freedom.

BTW, if you're in a real hurry to transition, it's going to take a minimum of a year and 3 months if you're following the WPATH protocols. 3 years is about average, and some people take 10 or 15 years.

Hazumu Osaragi

Oh, and surgery comes at the END of that period, not the beginning.

Roisia

“Even an Ice Princess can melt.”

Joined: Apr 6, 2009

Comments: 1957

Turlock, Ca

ISP: Washington, DC

Hazumu Osaragi wrote:

<quoted text>
HER vacation, Her, HER. Pronouns and respect. We need you to participate, to counter those who feel that disrespecting transgenders is their right and their freedom.
BTW, if you're in a real hurry to transition, it's going to take a minimum of a year and 3 months if you're following the WPATH protocols. 3 years is about average, and some people take 10 or 15 years.

*Slaps her forhead* Goddess i feel like a smuck now. I think i just lost my right to be a transsexual myself.......

Joined: Jan 12, 2009

Comments: 1020

Central NJ

ISP: Keyport, NJ

I agree with you, But I'm consider myself to be a conservative. I favor the Death penalty, I believer in universal gun ownership with any registration. I believe in unfettered property rights and most of the rest of a conservative "agenda". I especially believe in the Govt minding it's own business. Yet I believe in fairness, especially where GLBT "Rights" are concerned. I hope I'm intelligent enough to see the good or bad of something, regardless of which side proposed it. Lately, All I see is the bad!
I like your term "Industrial strength Homosexuals"! To most conservatives, We're just a weirder form of Gay. And they don't want to know the difference! The fact that Gays and TSes have very little in common still eludes them. So, knowing this, I make myself as visible as possible. It's easy to hate an abstraction! It's difficult to hate a live person, especially one with an obvious problem. Thanks for a great post!
Regards, Terry

Hazumu Osaragi wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, the Right Wing Authoritarians (the psychologist's terminology for the people you describe,) DO have a 'logic' to their stance.
Progressives and conservatives might as well be from different planets. Each thinks the other is ignorant/stupid/crazy/insane.
Start here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/opinion/28k...
with the article titled, "Would You Slap Your Father? If So, You’re a Liberal".
Conservative worldview is built on reverence for established authority and order, and conservatives experience a much higher level of disgust at things that don't fit that worldview. For instance, if they watch someone melt chocolate (under scrupulous sanitary conditions,) and pour the chocolate into scrupulously sanitized molds, they will refuse to eat the chocolate when they discover the mold produces chocolate that LOOKS like cat or dog dung. It's pure chocolate, but the resemblance produces a disgust reaction they can't get over. Similarly, there are insects that are actually nutritious, and there are cultures that consume them. But a conservative with a super-sensitive disgust-ometer will not eat insects that have been thoroughly sterelized in an autoclave, no matter how hungry they are. They won't eat soup that has been stirred with a brand-new, never used and thoroughly sterilized before use toilet bowl brush. You get the idea...
Their world-order has no homosexuals (and to them, transsexuals are industrial-strength homosexuals.) They experience an extreme disgust reaction when they are made aware of or in the presence of a transsexual.
Part of that reaction is the hyper-sexualization of transsexuals. They can't not think of having intercourse with the transsexual (it's enticing, because of their hypersexualization of transsexuals.) and they have a simultaneous reaction of extreme disgust.
No wonder they react violently.
And that's why their attempts at logically and rationally defending their position are so pathetic.