6 ms·

Probably not as old (white?) male. But there is a simple way to increase your diversity. You could start identifying as a woman, it is just a verbal identifica

by ewr24 10y ago

Probably not as old (white?) male. But there is a simple way to increase your diversity. You could start identifying as a woman, it is just a verbal identification, no other changes are required. This way you would also become lesbian. In some countries you can legally change your race, by religious conversion (Sikht in UK). Again, religion is just a verbal identification.

cloudjacker 10y ago
In the United States age is a protected class over 40 years old.
- Yoric 10y ago
  Question from overseas: what's a "protected class"?
  - bmh100 10y ago
    This refers to a category of person protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964[1], Title VII, as extended by other laws over time. It "prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin". Those of age 40+ years are covered specifically by the "Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967". In other words, "age of 40 or more years" is a "protected class". [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_Discrimination_in_Employment_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_Discrimination_in_Employme...
    - tominous 10y ago
      I'm curious as to whether these laws make a positive difference in practice. If someone is truly racist/sexist/ageist then they could probably invent a lawful excuse for their hiring behaviour anyway. On the other hand, if they are rational then (a) they would already benefit from hiring these workers cheaply because the demand is lower, so they would win in the market, and (b) the discrimination laws would increase the expected cost due to the increased potential for lawsuits. It reminds me of the recent Linux discussion about how lawsuits are poisonous to the community and cause companies to avoid participating. [1] Does anyone have any empirical data on the actual outcomes of these laws? [1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2016-August/003580.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/...
      - dalke 10y ago
        How would you measure the effectiveness? I think they have, based on reading through a dozen or two discrimination court cases, the EEOC guidelines (the EEOC "is a federal agency that administers and enforces civil rights laws against workplace discrimination", quoting Wikipedia), and comparing historical accounts of the workplace environment to the modern one. (For example, the detailed EEOC policy guide on sexual harassment is at https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html . See https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm for an overview of the age related issues.) Plus many offices have EEOC training so people are aware that these laws and restrictions exists. Your point about finding a "lawful excuse" is a bit of an oxymoron. If it's lawful then it's not a violation of the relevant civil rights laws, so it's not really an excuse. People do use an excuse which they think is legal, and would be legal if the person affected weren't part of a protected class. (For example, Disney had a costume policy that employees were not allowed to have a beard. Sikhs wear a beard as a reminder of their commitment to their faith. This gives a protected status that does not apply to most beard-wearing people. See http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/10/news/sikh-turban-beard-disney-world/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/10/news/sikh-turban-beard-disne... .) However, most employers don't really know the relevant laws, and go more on what they think is justifiable rather than what is actually legal. That's why there are successful lawsuits. Regarding rationality, people simply are not 100% rational. The last decade or two of behavioral psychology has convinced me of that. If people are rational, then why do you think discrimination exists at all? Otherwise, if you don't believe that discrimination exists, then I think it's pointless to continue any conversation. You ask for empirical data. That's of course a hard thing for many laws, with gun control laws, minimum wage laws, and education policies like charter schools being three of the more notoriously debated. My experience when I see people ask for empirical data is that no matter what evidence I can provide, it's insufficient. That is, they use it as a way to externalize their doubts, without saying what level of data would overcome their objections. I'm not saying you are like this, I've just been burned too many times by others doing this. So before I look for empirical evidence on this topic, can you point to other social policies you think there is sufficient empirical data to justify them? What would valid empirical data look like to you?
  - codeonfire 10y ago
    The government defines certain classes of people and if you are not in that class the law will do nothing to stop discrimination against you. Many types of discrimination are legal. For instance movie studios can refuse to hire a black or Hispanic person to play a real life white person. People under 40 are not in a protected class for jobs.
antiufo 10y ago
That's some cartman-level trolling. It's of course not my job to distinguish true and false trans people ("no true Scotsman") but if you're a stereotypical male in all senses, it makes very little sense to use that label. (Disclosure, genderqueer trans woman here)
- ewr24 10y ago
  I am serious. There is no such thing as "stereotypical male in all senses", everyone is gender-fluid . Most men were called a "pussy" or "not a real man" at some point. People come from different backgrounds. In my country people often changed their religion or race, not doing so would bring unpleasant consequences. For example my parents become atheists to get a decent jobs. Some people are also distracted by feeding family. "Being diverse" is simply just another job requirement for some people. I personally spend one year at military outpost in mountains. I would be very happy to give-up my "male privilege", and wear tutu with tiara on public for that year. Work visa in US would be similar case... As trans woman I would be outraged, that I am treated as lesser woman (exclusion from sport events, included in Selective Service, exclusion from women's prisons...). Not that more people choose to identify as trans.
  - antiufo 10y ago
    > There is no such thing as "stereotypical male in all senses", everyone is gender-fluid. Most men were called a "pussy" or "not a real man" at some point. Pardon, in all or most senses. The point is that masculinity is often seen as an arms race. Most men feel outraged if/when they are called pussies (or compared/associated with something seen as feminine/"weak"). Other people have opted out of that arms race and, whether they are male or female, don't feel obliged to obey the gender roles about their clothing/style/personality (or their bodies). > everyone is gender-fluid Say that to your average transphobic/antifeminist "activist". Do I fear being discriminated by people like them in the job/housing market, or harassed? Yes. Does it matter whether they are themselves people without self-acceptance? Not much. Just like it makes little difference to be discriminated about homosexuality by a fully heterosexual person, or by a repressed bisexual/homosexual person. > military outpost Yeah I think military draft should be either mandatory for all genders, or optional for all. Edit: formatting

by ewr24 10y ago

cloudjacker 10y ago

In the United States age is a protected class over 40 years old.

Yoric 10y ago
Question from overseas: what's a "protected class"?
- bmh100 10y ago
  This refers to a category of person protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964[1], Title VII, as extended by other laws over time. It "prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin". Those of age 40+ years are covered specifically by the "Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967". In other words, "age of 40 or more years" is a "protected class". [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_Discrimination_in_Employment_Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_Discrimination_in_Employme...
  - tominous 10y ago
    I'm curious as to whether these laws make a positive difference in practice. If someone is truly racist/sexist/ageist then they could probably invent a lawful excuse for their hiring behaviour anyway. On the other hand, if they are rational then (a) they would already benefit from hiring these workers cheaply because the demand is lower, so they would win in the market, and (b) the discrimination laws would increase the expected cost due to the increased potential for lawsuits. It reminds me of the recent Linux discussion about how lawsuits are poisonous to the community and cause companies to avoid participating. [1] Does anyone have any empirical data on the actual outcomes of these laws? [1] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/2016-August/003580.html https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/ksummit-discuss/...
    - dalke 10y ago
      How would you measure the effectiveness? I think they have, based on reading through a dozen or two discrimination court cases, the EEOC guidelines (the EEOC "is a federal agency that administers and enforces civil rights laws against workplace discrimination", quoting Wikipedia), and comparing historical accounts of the workplace environment to the modern one. (For example, the detailed EEOC policy guide on sexual harassment is at https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html https://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html . See https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/age.cfm for an overview of the age related issues.) Plus many offices have EEOC training so people are aware that these laws and restrictions exists. Your point about finding a "lawful excuse" is a bit of an oxymoron. If it's lawful then it's not a violation of the relevant civil rights laws, so it's not really an excuse. People do use an excuse which they think is legal, and would be legal if the person affected weren't part of a protected class. (For example, Disney had a costume policy that employees were not allowed to have a beard. Sikhs wear a beard as a reminder of their commitment to their faith. This gives a protected status that does not apply to most beard-wearing people. See http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/10/news/sikh-turban-beard-disney-world/index.html http://money.cnn.com/2015/07/10/news/sikh-turban-beard-disne... .) However, most employers don't really know the relevant laws, and go more on what they think is justifiable rather than what is actually legal. That's why there are successful lawsuits. Regarding rationality, people simply are not 100% rational. The last decade or two of behavioral psychology has convinced me of that. If people are rational, then why do you think discrimination exists at all? Otherwise, if you don't believe that discrimination exists, then I think it's pointless to continue any conversation. You ask for empirical data. That's of course a hard thing for many laws, with gun control laws, minimum wage laws, and education policies like charter schools being three of the more notoriously debated. My experience when I see people ask for empirical data is that no matter what evidence I can provide, it's insufficient. That is, they use it as a way to externalize their doubts, without saying what level of data would overcome their objections. I'm not saying you are like this, I've just been burned too many times by others doing this. So before I look for empirical evidence on this topic, can you point to other social policies you think there is sufficient empirical data to justify them? What would valid empirical data look like to you?
- codeonfire 10y ago
  The government defines certain classes of people and if you are not in that class the law will do nothing to stop discrimination against you. Many types of discrimination are legal. For instance movie studios can refuse to hire a black or Hispanic person to play a real life white person. People under 40 are not in a protected class for jobs.

antiufo 10y ago

That's some cartman-level trolling. It's of course not my job to distinguish true and false trans people ("no true Scotsman") but if you're a stereotypical male in all senses, it makes very little sense to use that label. (Disclosure, genderqueer trans woman here)

ewr24 10y ago
I am serious. There is no such thing as "stereotypical male in all senses", everyone is gender-fluid . Most men were called a "pussy" or "not a real man" at some point. People come from different backgrounds. In my country people often changed their religion or race, not doing so would bring unpleasant consequences. For example my parents become atheists to get a decent jobs. Some people are also distracted by feeding family. "Being diverse" is simply just another job requirement for some people. I personally spend one year at military outpost in mountains. I would be very happy to give-up my "male privilege", and wear tutu with tiara on public for that year. Work visa in US would be similar case... As trans woman I would be outraged, that I am treated as lesser woman (exclusion from sport events, included in Selective Service, exclusion from women's prisons...). Not that more people choose to identify as trans.
- antiufo 10y ago
  > There is no such thing as "stereotypical male in all senses", everyone is gender-fluid. Most men were called a "pussy" or "not a real man" at some point. Pardon, in all or most senses. The point is that masculinity is often seen as an arms race. Most men feel outraged if/when they are called pussies (or compared/associated with something seen as feminine/"weak"). Other people have opted out of that arms race and, whether they are male or female, don't feel obliged to obey the gender roles about their clothing/style/personality (or their bodies). > everyone is gender-fluid Say that to your average transphobic/antifeminist "activist". Do I fear being discriminated by people like them in the job/housing market, or harassed? Yes. Does it matter whether they are themselves people without self-acceptance? Not much. Just like it makes little difference to be discriminated about homosexuality by a fully heterosexual person, or by a repressed bisexual/homosexual person. > military outpost Yeah I think military draft should be either mandatory for all genders, or optional for all. Edit: formatting