5 ms·

> Kind of sucks for the transgendered applicants, but understandable I suppose, given the circumstances these days. Yikes. That's true in exactly the same way

by ajross 4y ago

> Kind of sucks for the transgendered applicants, but understandable I suppose, given the circumstances these days. Yikes. That's true in exactly the same way that segregation kinda sucked for the black kids, but was understandable given the circumstances of the postbellum south. Discrimination against a minority solely for the social conveniences of the majority is a terrible sin. Haven't we had this fight a thousand times already? Why do it again?

tonymillion 4y ago
Thank you for this comment, I was just about to rage and you eloquently expressed a great reply! In addition I was about to add: How about the manager not use their internal prejudices to influence their decision and hide behind a thin veil of “what about my employees” and actually let their employees LEARN how to correctly interact with transgendered, queer, ethnically diverse co-workers and possibly come out of their cotton-wool lined shells. It would be better for all of us, right?
- throw491 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - ajross 4y ago
    What if you had an employee who was horrified at their coworkers' eternal damnation and worked tirelessly to save their souls? Seems like that might cause friction as well. Seems like we might have a standard answer for that sort of friction that works for most environments. The bulk of which, frankly, is just "don't be an asshole". But at the margins, we back that up with "at the very least, don't discriminate and refuse to hire the trans/christians/muslims/whatever, that's just awful".
    - throw491 4y ago
      [flagged]
      - tonymillion 4y ago
        [flagged]
      - cogman10 4y ago
        > This isn't really a comparable issue that comes up with employees who have particular religious beliefs Ah yes, because we all know the famous bible verse "Thou shalt misgender transgender individuals because the lord thy god thinks they are icky". There aren't religious beliefs around transgenderism, only bigotry using religion as a shroud. And, it's an old trick. We seen slave owners use religion to justify slavery. Religion was used to justify anti-miscegenation laws. It was used to "keep women in the home". It's been used to fight against gay rights. You really want us to believe that a deity will punish some christian for referring to someone as "they" when they think they are a "him"? If you've ever wondered why the young folk are leaving religion, this is it.
        rendang 4y ago
        The parent didn't say the hypothetical employee objected to transgenderism on religious grounds. Plenty of atheists object to transgenderism too. As a broader point, there seems to be this strange argumentative move I see where contemporary Western progressives assume that their particular ethical stances are universal, or that only Abrahamic religionists disagree with them.
        throw491 4y ago
        Indeed, I found it quite an eye-opener to learn what the left-wing radical feminists think about this whole topic of gender, and their reasons for doing so.
  - tonymillion 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  - cbtacy 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
cogman10 4y ago
Yup. Catering to bigots makes you a bigot. The fact that "they won't ever admit to it" is the problem with bigotry.
DannyBee 4y ago
I mean, this kind of "fight" is basically what society is about, and it is unfortunately always hard earned to get anywhere, but i'm also honestly not sure there is a way around this. The principle you give is essentially limitless - your "social convenience" part is doing all the work here - but you can't just define away the things you like but the majority doesn't currently accept [1] as "social convenience" whether the causes happen to be "good" or not. Because everyone who is part of a group that is discriminated against thinks they are in the right and that the majority doesn't accept them for, essentially, social convenience reasons. And people in the majority don't see it as social convenience reasons. If the two "sides" didn't have this disagreement, the minority wouldn't be discriminated against in the first place! You are essentially arguing that the right things should just take hold immediately, without any work, and people shouldn't fight about it, but they would if people agreed they were the right things in the first place. You can't just pre-define people as wrong and then say "why are they fighting about things when they are so wrong, and are always so wrong about these things"? Humans as a group are slow to accept, and fairly wary of acceptance of new social things - it's incredibly rare for significant social change to take less than a generation to take hold overall, or to gain acceptance across all living generations simultaneously. There are lots of reasons for this, most (AFAIK) to do with our survival over the long term. That sucks, for sure, in the short term. But i'm not sure what the better answer is. I certainly wish there was a way to ensure society reaches a reasonable fixpoint on good ideas faster, if for no other reason than the obvious pain to people living it, but if there is, we haven't found it so far, and attempts to reach faster fixpoints have not .. always led to good paths, and attempts to legislate away resistance has never worked ... [1] I honestly don't know if being inclusive of transgender folks falls into the category of what the majority of folks accept or not, i'm just presuming it doesn't based on your statement. The surveys i see seem .. complex and varying IE https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/americans-complex-views-on-gender-identity-and-transgender-issues/ https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/america...
- ajross 4y ago
  > You are essentially arguing that the right things should just take hold immediately I... don't think that's at all what I'm saying. Upthread commenter was saying that refusing to hire trans people "kind of sucks for them, but is understandable" in a pretty clear oh-well-what-you-gonna-do-about-it frame. I think that's bad. And the reason it's bad is it's the same logic deployed to serve horrific goals. I don't think you're saying that it's OK to refuse to hire trans people either. Are you? Basically: sure, you and your reactionary gender normative compatriots are more than welcome to "fight about it". That's what you're doing right now. Just don't take it to the point where you're trying to exclude people from your workplaces. Because that's fucking awful.

by ajross 4y ago

tonymillion 4y ago

Thank you for this comment, I was just about to rage and you eloquently expressed a great reply! In addition I was about to add: How about the manager not use their internal prejudices to influence their decision and hide behind a thin veil of “what about my employees” and actually let their employees LEARN how to correctly interact with transgendered, queer, ethnically diverse co-workers and possibly come out of their cotton-wool lined shells. It would be better for all of us, right?

throw491 4y ago
[flagged]
- ajross 4y ago
  What if you had an employee who was horrified at their coworkers' eternal damnation and worked tirelessly to save their souls? Seems like that might cause friction as well. Seems like we might have a standard answer for that sort of friction that works for most environments. The bulk of which, frankly, is just "don't be an asshole". But at the margins, we back that up with "at the very least, don't discriminate and refuse to hire the trans/christians/muslims/whatever, that's just awful".
  - throw491 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - tonymillion 4y ago
      [flagged]
    - cogman10 4y ago
      > This isn't really a comparable issue that comes up with employees who have particular religious beliefs Ah yes, because we all know the famous bible verse "Thou shalt misgender transgender individuals because the lord thy god thinks they are icky". There aren't religious beliefs around transgenderism, only bigotry using religion as a shroud. And, it's an old trick. We seen slave owners use religion to justify slavery. Religion was used to justify anti-miscegenation laws. It was used to "keep women in the home". It's been used to fight against gay rights. You really want us to believe that a deity will punish some christian for referring to someone as "they" when they think they are a "him"? If you've ever wondered why the young folk are leaving religion, this is it.
      - rendang 4y ago
        The parent didn't say the hypothetical employee objected to transgenderism on religious grounds. Plenty of atheists object to transgenderism too. As a broader point, there seems to be this strange argumentative move I see where contemporary Western progressives assume that their particular ethical stances are universal, or that only Abrahamic religionists disagree with them.
        throw491 4y ago
        Indeed, I found it quite an eye-opener to learn what the left-wing radical feminists think about this whole topic of gender, and their reasons for doing so.
- tonymillion 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- cbtacy 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]

cogman10 4y ago

Yup. Catering to bigots makes you a bigot. The fact that "they won't ever admit to it" is the problem with bigotry.

DannyBee 4y ago

I mean, this kind of "fight" is basically what society is about, and it is unfortunately always hard earned to get anywhere, but i'm also honestly not sure there is a way around this. The principle you give is essentially limitless - your "social convenience" part is doing all the work here - but you can't just define away the things you like but the majority doesn't currently accept [1] as "social convenience" whether the causes happen to be "good" or not. Because everyone who is part of a group that is discriminated against thinks they are in the right and that the majority doesn't accept them for, essentially, social convenience reasons. And people in the majority don't see it as social convenience reasons. If the two "sides" didn't have this disagreement, the minority wouldn't be discriminated against in the first place! You are essentially arguing that the right things should just take hold immediately, without any work, and people shouldn't fight about it, but they would if people agreed they were the right things in the first place. You can't just pre-define people as wrong and then say "why are they fighting about things when they are so wrong, and are always so wrong about these things"? Humans as a group are slow to accept, and fairly wary of acceptance of new social things - it's incredibly rare for significant social change to take less than a generation to take hold overall, or to gain acceptance across all living generations simultaneously. There are lots of reasons for this, most (AFAIK) to do with our survival over the long term. That sucks, for sure, in the short term. But i'm not sure what the better answer is. I certainly wish there was a way to ensure society reaches a reasonable fixpoint on good ideas faster, if for no other reason than the obvious pain to people living it, but if there is, we haven't found it so far, and attempts to reach faster fixpoints have not .. always led to good paths, and attempts to legislate away resistance has never worked ... [1] I honestly don't know if being inclusive of transgender folks falls into the category of what the majority of folks accept or not, i'm just presuming it doesn't based on your statement. The surveys i see seem .. complex and varying IE https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/americans-complex-views-on-gender-identity-and-transgender-issues/ https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2022/06/28/america...

ajross 4y ago
> You are essentially arguing that the right things should just take hold immediately I... don't think that's at all what I'm saying. Upthread commenter was saying that refusing to hire trans people "kind of sucks for them, but is understandable" in a pretty clear oh-well-what-you-gonna-do-about-it frame. I think that's bad. And the reason it's bad is it's the same logic deployed to serve horrific goals. I don't think you're saying that it's OK to refuse to hire trans people either. Are you? Basically: sure, you and your reactionary gender normative compatriots are more than welcome to "fight about it". That's what you're doing right now. Just don't take it to the point where you're trying to exclude people from your workplaces. Because that's fucking awful.