"UK refusal to issue gender-neutral passports unlawful, high court told"

dirtychinchilla said:
It's their gender. It bothers them enough to want to make a change. I get the feeling, in threads like this, that people like my dad who think everyone should be one thing or another think that it's a minor decision for these people to think that they're another gender. It's not. Why would you go through all that trauma etc for nothing? That's ridiculous.
Click to expand...

This is why I am kind of torn on these issues. On one hand a mark on a passport is not at all important and is simply a representation of your biological gender whether you agree with it or not. Its not for you its for authorities. On the other hand I know that for some people this is a big issue in their lives and this might just be seen as another example of people not accepting them.

I also don't think that we should ultimately pander to every request on the basis that a very small minority might not like it. Far too many people are getting their own way on issues that are either non issues or because those in charge don't want to be attacked by certain vocal minorities in society. Things like taking down pictures/statues of historic figures because some facet of their behaviour is unpalatable under current ideas. Requiring that people use their chosen "noun" etc.

Either way, I don't have strong opinions on this particular topic but I can see both sides of the argument.
 
Shocky-FM said:
In the perfect world they should always hire the best person for the job regardless of gender.

But it's never that simple, they also have to take into account how an individual will fit into an existing workforce, if they could cause disruption then they should be able to refuse them.
Click to expand...

The "but" concerns are interesting. Exactly the same was said by many when women and black folk were given employment rights. How times move on. :)
 
Caracus2k said:
Yes in some cases.

I'm wish to employ a female security guard or police officer. Part of that role will Involve searching (biological) females. A trans woman should be barred from such a job.

I am putting together funding for a female sport team. I don't think the law should compel me to accept biological men who claim they identify as women.

I am recruiting for a health professional or sports trainer to work with my womens only sports team. The team don't want to work with men as the jobs with involve lots of close personal contact and necessitates in some cases intimate examinations and assessments. A trans woman should be barred from having an automatic right not to be dismissed from such an application along with all other biological men.

As I have said before in this thread as long as society continues to discrimintate on the basis of sex (I doesn't matter what your gender identity is) then you can't allow people to subvert this discrimination especially if it is based on nothing more then self determination as is the proposed cause of action to 'de medicalise' trans identity.
Click to expand...

Say you're recruiting for a litter picker. What then?
 
Yadda said:
Say you're recruiting for a litter picker. What then?
Click to expand...

Its irrelevant what sex an applicant is or what gender identity the applicant assumes (assuming there's not some unusual additional circumstances) so no discrimination on the basis of sex or gender identity would be warranted or should be legal.
 
Caracus2k said:
Its irrelevant what sex an applicant is or what gender identity the applicant assumes (assuming there's not some unusual additional circumstances) so no discrimination on the basis of sex or gender identity would be warranted or should be legal.
Click to expand...

Good stuff. On that, we seem to agree.
 
Yadda said:
The "but" concerns are interesting. Exactly the same was said by many when women and black folk were given employment rights. How times move on. :)
Click to expand...

That applies to everyone, depending on the forceforce and who they'll be interacting with everyone can potentially be discriminated against if the face doesn't fit, it happens everyday, it's not unique to trans people and to a certain extent I don't disagree with it either. It's unfair to force an employer to employ somebody who may cause issues with members of staff or customers.


BTW - Good luck remembering all this, talk about impractical..... I have enough trouble remembering names.

  • Ey/em/eirs. Elverson. Ey looked at eirself in the mirror, and eir reflection smiled back at em.
  • E/Em/Eirs. Spivak. E looked at Emself in the mirror, and Eir reflection smiled back at Em.
  • Xe/xem/xyrs. Xe looked at xemself in the mirror, and xyr reflection smiled back at xem.
  • Sie/hir/hirs. Sie looked at hirself in the mirror, and hir reflection smiled back at hir.
  • Ve/ver/vis. Ve looked at verself in the mirror, and vis reflection smiled back at ver.
  • Ze/zir/zirs. Ze looked at zirself in the mirror, and zir reflection smiled back at zir.
  • Ne/nem/nirs. Ne looked at nemself in the mirror, and nir reflection smiled back at nem.
  • Ze/zer/zers. Ze looked at xemself in the mirror, and zer reflection smiled back at mer.
  • Fae/faer/faers. Fae looked at faerself in the mirror, and faer reflection smiled back at faer.
  • Per/per/pers. Per looked at perself in the mirror, and per reflection smiled back at per.
Click to expand...
 
Shocky-FM said:
That applies to everyone, depending on the forceforce and who they'll be interacting with everyone can potentially be discriminated against if the face doesn't fit, it happens everyday, it's not unique to trans people and to a certain extent I don't disagree with it either. It's unfair to force an employer to employ somebody who may cause issues with members of staff or customers.


BTW - Good luck remembering all this, talk about impractical..... I have enough trouble remembering names.
Click to expand...

In reference to the part I emboldened, if the employer has a racist team member, do you think they (the employer) should have the right to reject a black candidate on that basis?
 
Yadda said:
In reference to the part I emboldened, if the employer has a racist team member, do you think they (the employer) should have the right to reject a black candidate on that basis?
Click to expand...

Wrong question, change it to should the employer have the right to reject a white man that "blacked up" and claimed to be black.
 
Shocky-FM said:
Wrong question, change it to should the employer have the right to reject a white man that "blacked up" and claimed to be black.
Click to expand...

No, the question is correct: let's say Bob, a bona-fide racist, has been working at the garage for 20 years. Should Bob's boss have the right not to employ black folk purely on the basis of their colour, so as not to "upset the workplace"?
 
Yadda said:
No, the question is correct: let's say Bob, a bona-fide racist, has been working at the garage for 20 years. Should Bob's boss have the right not to employ black folk purely on the basis of their colour, so as not to "upset the workplace"?
Click to expand...

Legally no, otherwise it depends on the circumstances, as it always does.
 
Yadda said:
What circumstances would it be ok, can you give any examples?
Click to expand...
If I was the owner I would be asking these questions.. Would I potentially lose my existing workforce? Would I potentially lose customers? Could the Black "folk" replace Bob or the rest of my workforce if they left? How crucial is Bob and the rest of the workforce to the success of the business? How much business will I lose if they leave and I can I afford it? Could this cause long term damage to my business or livelihood?
 
Yadda said:
No, the question is correct: let's say Bob, a bona-fide racist, has been working at the garage for 20 years. Should Bob's boss have the right not to employ black folk purely on the basis of their colour, so as not to "upset the workplace"?
Click to expand...

In practice they probably wouldn't anyway. They just don't tell anyone that's the reason.

If someone has something that works, they won't want to disrupt that. Why would they...
 
Shocky-FM said:
If I was the owner I would be asking these questions.. Would I potentially lose my existing workforce? Would I potentially lose customers? Could the Black "folk" replace Bob or the rest of my workforce if they left? How crucial is Bob and the rest of the workforce to the success of the business? How much business will I lose if they leave and I can I afford it? Could this cause long term damage to my business or livelihood?
Click to expand...

Why would the rest of your workforce leave?

Edit: And, come to think of it, customers? This isn't the 1950's. :)
 
Last edited:
Yadda said:
Why would the rest of your workforce leave?

Edit: And, come to think of it, customers? This isn't the 1950's. :)
Click to expand...

Loyalty? Staff sometimes stick together, even if they never left right away it could leave a bad atmosphere. Staff oftern bring customers to your business and take them when they leave, they have contact with all your clients..

Of course Bob could be dead wood, sacking him could also be a good option. :p
 
Shocky-FM said:
Loyalty? Staff sometimes stick together, even if they never left right away it could leave a bad atmosphere. Staff oftern bring customers to your business and take them when theyn leave, they have contact with all your clients..

Of course Bob could be dead wood, sacking him could also be a good option. :p
Click to expand...

Sounds like a very cliquey place. Ripe for a re-shuffle, I'd say.

Edit: and I don't think Bob should be sacked. The decision to stay or leave should be his, unless he gets tetchy of course. :)
 
Last edited:
GIBURROWS said:
Even though Bob is a racist I bet he still listens to Reggae and Motown music!
Click to expand...

Well then Bob should check his white privilege and stop the racial appropriation of another cultures music shouldn't he. Man, Bob is a right ****.

If he likes a curry on a friday night so help me god I will lose it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom